Fluoride challenge rejected in the High Court (From Daily Echo)

So 72% of people who are affected by this decision don't want it.

The SHA board of what about 12 people decide that we NEED it and ignore public opinion. They probably don't live in any of the areas that are affected either. Fantastic.

Serioulsy, if they're that concerned with dental health - prescribe flouride tablets or give free toothpaste and brushes to everyone.

Do not mass medicate an entire city. And do not poison my water.

I wish not to have fluoride added so I will opt for a separate water supply please !, I suppose this will be allowed as if I or any other members of my family suffer ill effects from overdosing on fluoride due to being forced to use/drink this contaminated water I will SUE the authorities concerned. Why don’t they promote dental care to the high risk, I’m sure its down to the good dental care, because there’s lazy people out there we will all suffer !

Ooh friend wrote:
So 72% of people who are affected by this decision don't want it. The SHA board of what about 12 people decide that we NEED it and ignore public opinion. They probably don't live in any of the areas that are affected either. Fantastic. Serioulsy, if they're that concerned with dental health - prescribe flouride tablets or give free toothpaste and brushes to everyone. Do not mass medicate an entire city. And do not poison my water.

Well said,What gone on here, the worlds gone made. We dont want it.

Lets not educate people into eating a better diet, just dose evryone with flouride.

Am I being cynacle to wonder if people on the health board are involved in the company supplying the flouride?
Probably...

Eh? It's failed now! I can't keep up. What's going on.

I thought this country was a free place where you can fight against things you dont want and be heard, its becoming more like a communist country everyday. You will do as we say and not as we do.

Oh blimey the headline has changed which confused me for a moment. So, right, the lady who challenged the health authority's has failed. The headline was a bit confusing there.
So they are still planning to mass medicate. BOOOOO!

Surely they should be medicating the water supply in skateville instead!

As you take a deep breath, which contains particles that have been released by the refinery and chemical plants along the Southampton Water, plus that released from the incinerator that burns toxic materials, perhaps it is time to think of other poisons that are being ingested.

What beneficial effects are they having on the community at large?

Maybe it is time to find a way to tackle rickets, a disease that we thought was no longer a problem here, but which has returned to the area.

So much for Democracy! Hopefully she will now appeal to the European courts and delay the whole thing long enough to see out the SHA.

So much for this being a democratic society! I am so grateful I do not live in the affected areas but fear for my own area after the SHA have been allowed to get away with his disgraceful decision.

I have firsthand proof of the affects of too much flouride. My Daughter's teeth came through all disgusting and mottled due to too much flouride and she had only had what was recommended on the baby flouride drops recommended by the health visitor.

The only thing left open to the residents of the affected areas is perhaps to refuse to pay their water bills. They can't cut off everyone affected.

Please stop this boring moaning about a bit of fluoride in the water. It happens all over the country and nobody's come to any real harm have they?

rcoups wrote:
I thought this country was a free place where you can fight against things you dont want and be heard, its becoming more like a communist country everyday. You will do as we say and not as we do.

you get this sort of thing happening more in the capitalist world than you do in a socialist world, just look at the good old capitalist usa.

stuartjebbitt wrote:
So you say....but the studies required to prove it's safety have simply not been done. Just because people in the west midlands aren't dropping dead in the street, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on their health in the longer term. Strangely the fluoridated areas of the UK are also those with the highest levels of obesity - doesn't that warrant some investigation? http://www.rense.com /general57/FLUR.HTM If I don't even have the right to decide what medicines go into my body, then what rights do I have? where is my freedom that so many died fighting for?

There is a far greater risk to our health from the what is released into the atmosphere from the refinery, associated chemical plants and the incinerator that burn hazzardous waste.
If, as you claim, their is a higher incidence of obesity in that area, at least they do not have a problem with rickets, which is what we have here.

stuartjebbitt wrote:
So much for Democracy! Hopefully she will now appeal to the European courts and delay the whole thing long enough to see out the SHA.

house of lords first, by the time it gets it first hearing would be late june, then they break up for the summer and it be oct before any thing can be done about it.

This will help with your fight as from the Echo in 2009.
..............
.
Echo 6th Oct 2009….A TORY Government would insist on public backing for fluoride being added to Hampshire water supplies, the Daily Echo can reveal.
Conservative health chiefs have confirmed the public should have to give their approval for any compulsory fluoridation scheme to be implemented.
.
Well i am sure it will only be a matter of days when this Tory lead coalition puts pressure on to overturn this decision.
.
But there again dont hold your breath

You only have to look in the average supermarket shopper's overflowing trolley to realise that the amount of rubbish they are feeding their family far outweighs any risk from fluoride. Pure water is deadly in excess and so are many everyday foods. I have no fears about fluoride and am pleased I live in the area to have the chemical put in the drinking water.

News Fanatic wrote:
You only have to look in the average supermarket shopper's overflowing trolley to realise that the amount of rubbish they are feeding their family far outweighs any risk from fluoride. Pure water is deadly in excess and so are many everyday foods. I have no fears about fluoride and am pleased I live in the area to have the chemical put in the drinking water.

Well said.
Fluoride has had a measurable beneficial effect in the Midlands and it was introduced there in 1964.

Lone Ranger wrote:
This will help with your fight as from the Echo in 2009. .............. . Echo 6th Oct 2009….A TORY Government would insist on public backing for fluoride being added to Hampshire water supplies, the Daily Echo can reveal. Conservative health chiefs have confirmed the public should have to give their approval for any compulsory fluoridation scheme to be implemented. . Well i am sure it will only be a matter of days when this Tory lead coalition puts pressure on to overturn this decision. . But there again dont hold your breath

What were they saying at that time about student funding?

I seem to recall that they were also claiming that they would be 'tough on crime', but they are cutting the police budget.

Thatcher may not have been for turning, but Cameron is in a spin.

and can you confirm how other tooth decay factors in the Midlands compare with the rest of the country? eg cultural differences in diet, sugar consumption and number of dentists per head of population. Well?

Argghhh!!! It's the flouride monster! It's coming to get you!!! RUUUNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

I'm also against adding flour to the water supply

rcoups wrote:
I thought this country was a free place where you can fight against things you dont want and be heard, its becoming more like a communist country everyday. You will do as we say and not as we do.

You have been heard-ad nauseam.Read the Judgement-every nook and cranny of the Objectors case has been examined, analysed by the Court and found invalid.
Now give it a rest.

Ancient David wrote:

rcoups wrote:
I thought this country was a free place where you can fight against things you dont want and be heard, its becoming more like a communist country everyday. You will do as we say and not as we do.

You have been heard-ad nauseam.Read the Judgement-every nook and cranny of the Objectors case has been examined, analysed by the Court and found invalid.
Now give it a rest.

Incorrect - the judgement only says the SHA acted within the law as it stands (a bad one in my opinion because it does not reflect the nature of the debate in parliament when the bill was being discussed). The judgement, as was made clear in court, does not reflect the rights and wrongs of the overall debate about fluoridation in general. And that argument will continue, because it is now clear that SHAs all over the country can make a decision to fluoridate even if 100% of the population objects to it. The next move will be to get the law changed to more adequately relfect the democracy in which we supposedly live. So Southampton is still a long way from getting the stuff.

Linesman wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote:
This will help with your fight as from the Echo in 2009. .............. . Echo 6th Oct 2009….A TORY Government would insist on public backing for fluoride being added to Hampshire water supplies, the Daily Echo can reveal. Conservative health chiefs have confirmed the public should have to give their approval for any compulsory fluoridation scheme to be implemented. . Well i am sure it will only be a matter of days when this Tory lead coalition puts pressure on to overturn this decision. . But there again dont hold your breath

What were they saying at that time about student funding?

I seem to recall that they were also claiming that they would be 'tough on crime', but they are cutting the police budget.

Thatcher may not have been for turning, but Cameron is in a spin.

Oh yes and this statement was in the Echo.
..........
Echo 5th July 2010…….And Prime Minister David Cameron told this paper: “I have always taken the view that this is something that should be decided locally and I don’t believe in compulsory fluoridation of water.”
.
There you go ....... if its out of the mouth of the Prime Minister, aka David Cameron, then you really must make your own mind up if you believe it.............
.
Id rather believe "the cheques in the post" etc
.
But like before dont hold your breath as there could be another U-Turn.

Totton Ric wrote:

Ooh friend wrote: So 72% of people who are affected by this decision don't want it. The SHA board of what about 12 people decide that we NEED it and ignore public opinion. They probably don't live in any of the areas that are affected either. Fantastic. Serioulsy, if they're that concerned with dental health - prescribe flouride tablets or give free toothpaste and brushes to everyone. Do not mass medicate an entire city. And do not poison my water.

Well said,What gone on here, the worlds gone made. We dont want it.

It's a pity they can't put anything in the water to prevent poor spelling.

So the old woman who has been championing this says this evening on Meridian that she feels that she has let the people of Southampton down, and that people have to so careful about what they put in their mouth. Well she should look in the mirror and reduce her food intake. Girl, you are overweight.
Anyway. This I believe is a good idea, as for whatever reason, people in this city have disgusting teeth. To many toothies with gappy grins.
They don't speak for me, and never will.
Up the Saints.

Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court.
BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

... says someone who lives OUTSIDE the area to be fluoridated....

quaddie wrote:
Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden.
Simple answer.

When it comes to it hopefully we can remove these SHA mass medicators Egyptian style. Then proceed to tear down the doors of the civc centre and take that lot with them.

Linesman wrote:

quaddie wrote: Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden. Simple answer.

I assume you guys are of a denture persuasion?

Atpost wrote:

Linesman wrote:

quaddie wrote: Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden. Simple answer.

I assume you guys are of a denture persuasion?

I am in favour.
I think that the health authority knows a damned sight more about fluoride than the protesters.
It just needed a couple of people to shout 'poison' and the sheep followed.

I do not have any serious concerns about the safety of adding fluoride to the water supplied, however i DO NOT want it added to my water. I do not wish to be forced to ingest any substance added to the water that is not necessary to ensure that the water is clean and safe to drink. Additionally I do not see how fluoride in the water can have much effect on the dental health of children as the amount of tap water drunk by children with bad teeth must be very small in the first place.

I think some people are missing the point here, that being the 72% who are AGAINST this. A democratic society,,,,,,,,,,,? My AR*E!

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: So you say....but the studies required to prove it's safety have simply not been done. Just because people in the west midlands aren't dropping dead in the street, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on their health in the longer term. Strangely the fluoridated areas of the UK are also those with the highest levels of obesity - doesn't that warrant some investigation? http://www.rense.com /general57/FLUR.HTM If I don't even have the right to decide what medicines go into my body, then what rights do I have? where is my freedom that so many died fighting for?

There is a far greater risk to our health from the what is released into the atmosphere from the refinery, associated chemical plants and the incinerator that burn hazzardous waste. If, as you claim, their is a higher incidence of obesity in that area, at least they do not have a problem with rickets, which is what we have here.

So Sir, I presume as you are so incensed with Refineries', Chemical plants' and incinerators' performance, your lifestyle is arranged such that you have no involvement with their products? I'll be interested in your response.

Effectively we are allowed to be medicated by the State.
.
This is not right. Pure and clean water is all people want. If people are unhappy, will they put prozac in the water? Lots of heart disease. Aspirin? Diabetes. Insulin? How far would this sort of approach be taken?
.
It seems to me the State has been given sanction by the courts.

dango wrote:
I think some people are missing the point here, that being the 72% who are AGAINST this. A democratic society,,,,,,,,,,,? My AR*E!

Lies, **** lies and statistics! It's 72% of people who showed interest! Probably 72% of 2% of the affected area. I'll wager that 90% of the 72% of the 2% ingest more flouride through every day foods and toothpastes. Again, a typical response from a media drummed-up issue.

Linesman wrote:

Atpost wrote:

Linesman wrote:

quaddie wrote: Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden. Simple answer.

I assume you guys are of a denture persuasion?

I am in favour.
I think that the health authority knows a damned sight more about fluoride than the protesters.
It just needed a couple of people to shout 'poison' and the sheep followed.

I think you're in la-la land.

This so-called authority on our health cannot possibly come to an honest and or 100% certain conclusion that mass medication will benefit all of us. Not even based on other cities/regions/count
ries.
It's impossible to draw such a conclusion so how about those who can prove that it won't be of benefit to them? how about those that can prove that will be detrimental to their health?
Should they not get a say??

SHA research is cherry-picked. Their reasons aren't based on fact they are based on opinion and this whole thing stinks of corruption. It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that's the only reason we are having this debate. Finding out who benefits the most financially is the only research on this subject worth doing. The rest is just a dodgy sales tactic and you are the perfect customer swallowing up everything they tell you because of your misguided sense of trust in people you don't know and have never even met.

The judge expressed his personal sympathy for the objectors but had to rule on the law as it stands not the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. It transpires that the assurances given by ministers in Parliament that no schemes would be introduced without public support are meaningless because the legislation says that SHA's can do what they want as long as they "take regard" of public opinion. Well, the SHA say they did take regard but then decided to go-ahead regardless. I feel the objectors have won the moral argument and am grateful for Gerri Milner to have the courage to stand up for what she believes in. By the way, cities in Canada are stopping fluoridation and the US is about to reduce fluoride levels (to well below what is proposed for Southampton) due to huge problems with fluorosis (fluoride toxicity).

dango wrote:
I think some people are missing the point here, that being the 72% who are AGAINST this. A democratic society,,,,,,,,,,,? My AR*E!

I don't think you've entirely grasped how a democracy works.

stepf wrote:
This is a disgrace. I feel sorry for those that will have to take this against their wishes. . It's always fascinating how any comparison is done with the Midlands that has better access to dentistry rather than other fluoridated areas - that shows no benefit. . The pro-fluoride debate is weak at best and ignores many vital points. . I suggest googling 50 reasons against fluoride: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/50-reasons. htm

I suggest, if you are based in Spain, you keep your opinions to yourself. If, however, you live in the UK. I apologise.

This judgement has serious implcations for other parts of the UK that are not currently being fluoridated. It gives the green light to other health authorities to add fluoride whenever they see fit. Also, the quantity of fluoride people will ingest will vary enormously, depending on how much a person drinks. People who drink lots of coffee, tea or water, will receive a higher dose than those who drink mainly pop, sodas etc. If fluoride is being put forward as a health benefit, then it should be classed as a medicine. Only qualified health professionals may give another person a drug with the intent to prevent a disease. They
may only do so individually, and with the consent of the patient. Administering an unlicensed medicine, even with consent, is subject to a particularly stringent Clinical Codes of Practice. Perhaps this argument could be used in a court of law. I agree with Downfader, if the authorities are allowed to add fluoride, and fluoride is being administered as a medicine, how long before they start adding other drugs to prevent disease.

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: So you say....but the studies required to prove it's safety have simply not been done. Just because people in the west midlands aren't dropping dead in the street, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on their health in the longer term. Strangely the fluoridated areas of the UK are also those with the highest levels of obesity - doesn't that warrant some investigation? http://www.rense.com /general57/FLUR.HTM If I don't even have the right to decide what medicines go into my body, then what rights do I have? where is my freedom that so many died fighting for?

There is a far greater risk to our health from the what is released into the atmosphere from the refinery, associated chemical plants and the incinerator that burn hazzardous waste. If, as you claim, their is a higher incidence of obesity in that area, at least they do not have a problem with rickets, which is what we have here.

So Sir, I presume as you are so incensed with Refineries', Chemical plants' and incinerators' performance, your lifestyle is arranged such that you have no involvement with their products? I'll be interested in your response.

No, I am not incensed with refineries etc. Neither do I have an obsession about the fluoridation of the water supply.
I merely pointed out to the protesters that, in my opinion, the discharge from those sites represent a bigger threat to their health than fluoridation does. You inhale a greater capacity of air in twentyfour hours than you consume water.

thank god for that at least we can get some important issues discussed and i can buy some cheaper toothpaste without added flouride !!!

Get it right wrote:

Totton Ric wrote:

Ooh friend wrote: So 72% of people who are affected by this decision don't want it. The SHA board of what about 12 people decide that we NEED it and ignore public opinion. They probably don't live in any of the areas that are affected either. Fantastic. Serioulsy, if they're that concerned with dental health - prescribe flouride tablets or give free toothpaste and brushes to everyone. Do not mass medicate an entire city. And do not poison my water.

Well said,What gone on here, the worlds gone made. We dont want it.

It's a pity they can't put anything in the water to prevent poor spelling.

Mad not made, well picked up (not). Now if you have something to say then say it otherwise leave you English lessons out & get on with your life !

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: So you say....but the studies required to prove it's safety have simply not been done. Just because people in the west midlands aren't dropping dead in the street, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on their health in the longer term. Strangely the fluoridated areas of the UK are also those with the highest levels of obesity - doesn't that warrant some investigation? http://www.rense.com /general57/FLUR.HTM If I don't even have the right to decide what medicines go into my body, then what rights do I have? where is my freedom that so many died fighting for?

There is a far greater risk to our health from the what is released into the atmosphere from the refinery, associated chemical plants and the incinerator that burn hazzardous waste. If, as you claim, their is a higher incidence of obesity in that area, at least they do not have a problem with rickets, which is what we have here.

So Sir, I presume as you are so incensed with Refineries', Chemical plants' and incinerators' performance, your lifestyle is arranged such that you have no involvement with their products? I'll be interested in your response.

No, I am not incensed with refineries etc. Neither do I have an obsession about the fluoridation of the water supply. I merely pointed out to the protesters that, in my opinion, the discharge from those sites represent a bigger threat to their health than fluoridation does. You inhale a greater capacity of air in twentyfour hours than you consume water.

On the backfoot but well defended!

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Atpost wrote:

Linesman wrote:

quaddie wrote: Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden. Simple answer.

I assume you guys are of a denture persuasion?

I am in favour. I think that the health authority knows a damned sight more about fluoride than the protesters. It just needed a couple of people to shout 'poison' and the sheep followed.

I think you're in la-la land. This so-called authority on our health cannot possibly come to an honest and or 100% certain conclusion that mass medication will benefit all of us. Not even based on other cities/regions/count ries. It's impossible to draw such a conclusion so how about those who can prove that it won't be of benefit to them? how about those that can prove that will be detrimental to their health? Should they not get a say?? SHA research is cherry-picked. Their reasons aren't based on fact they are based on opinion and this whole thing stinks of corruption. It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that's the only reason we are having this debate. Finding out who benefits the most financially is the only research on this subject worth doing. The rest is just a dodgy sales tactic and you are the perfect customer swallowing up everything they tell you because of your misguided sense of trust in people you don't know and have never even met.

What proof have you got that it is harmful?
Flouride was first introduced to the water supply in the Midlands in 1964 - 47 years ago.
The condition of teeth in that area has been compared with a similar area in Manchester, which has not had fluoridation, and there is a marked benefit.
There has been no difference in life expectancy, asthma, COPD etc to weigh against its introduction.
Perhaps you can now explain where your research was conducted, who by, the conclusions they reached and where it is published.

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: So you say....but the studies required to prove it's safety have simply not been done. Just because people in the west midlands aren't dropping dead in the street, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on their health in the longer term. Strangely the fluoridated areas of the UK are also those with the highest levels of obesity - doesn't that warrant some investigation? http://www.rense.com /general57/FLUR.HTM If I don't even have the right to decide what medicines go into my body, then what rights do I have? where is my freedom that so many died fighting for?

There is a far greater risk to our health from the what is released into the atmosphere from the refinery, associated chemical plants and the incinerator that burn hazzardous waste. If, as you claim, their is a higher incidence of obesity in that area, at least they do not have a problem with rickets, which is what we have here.

So Sir, I presume as you are so incensed with Refineries', Chemical plants' and incinerators' performance, your lifestyle is arranged such that you have no involvement with their products? I'll be interested in your response.

No, I am not incensed with refineries etc. Neither do I have an obsession about the fluoridation of the water supply. I merely pointed out to the protesters that, in my opinion, the discharge from those sites represent a bigger threat to their health than fluoridation does. You inhale a greater capacity of air in twentyfour hours than you consume water.

On the backfoot but well defended!

On the backfoot?

Well defended?

You make me sound like a boxer, which I am not.

My life-style is such that I drink water, whether or not it has fluoride added, and I ride in a petrol driven car or in a diesel driven bus.

Many things that I use eg plastic buckets, bags etc are oil-based. That is the way life is in the 21st Century.

With 47 years of experience of fluoride in the water in the Midlands, I think that the experts have proved its worth, and the anti-brigade have yet to publish any worth-while negative effects.

Rax wrote:

dango wrote:
I think some people are missing the point here, that being the 72% who are AGAINST this. A democratic society,,,,,,,,,,,? My AR*E!

I don't think you've entirely grasped how a democracy works.

It was explained in great detail in Auf Wiedersehen, Pet by the character Barry when they were choosing a colour scheme for their hut. Basically it boiled down to "everybody gets what nobody wants"!

forest hump wrote:

dango wrote:
I think some people are missing the point here, that being the 72% who are AGAINST this. A democratic society,,,,,,,,,,,? My AR*E!

Lies, **** lies and statistics! It's 72% of people who showed interest! Probably 72% of 2% of the affected area. I'll wager that 90% of the 72% of the 2% ingest more flouride through every day foods and toothpastes. Again, a typical response from a media drummed-up issue.

fluorides are not added to food, unless it comes in a natural form, like in the water if used or in the gasses when packaging up. fluorides have no benefit to food, weather for favouring or persevering. but have to state so if it comes in the natural form.
read the instruction on toothpaste, the advice is not to consume but to spit it out. even when you go to a dentist and they give you that liquid to rise your mouth out afterward,s, they tell you to spit it out, because it contains fluoride.
a build up of fluoride in the body causes problems much later in life, ok we will not have to face the problems, only because we are getting on in years, but a new born or a young child will.
try thinking about other,s.
the adding of fluoride in parts of manchester water since 1964. the problems will not show up yet, its still to early and when they do, that will put extra pressure on the NHS.

It's time we stood up to the EU and told them we don't want their toxic poisons in our water and their mosques everywhere.

Just you wait until these Councillors come knocking on my door for Votes! They will get a bucket of the stuff thrown over them, then lets see how much THEY like Fluoride in their water!

mummsie wrote:
Just you wait until these Councillors come knocking on my door for Votes! They will get a bucket of the stuff thrown over them, then lets see how much THEY like Fluoride in their water!

No wonder we have kids running amok when this is the sort of example that mummsie is setting them.

With regard to fluoridation of water, it has now officially been accepted that forced medication is no longer illegal in the UK, Mr Justice Holman, by his decision in the High Court has said so. There is certainly evidence of bone cancer in males between ages 12 to 18 from intaking fluoride and should you dare tip fluoride into the sea you would be prosecuted for polluting the environment. Fluoride does help teeth when it is put directly onto the teeth, when it passes into any other part of the body it becomes a poison. Fluoride is a by product of heavy industry. Even today those who have the least knowledge get to take the decisions. A sad day for Southampton as well as setting a precedent for others in positions of being able, to implement experiments onto the population.

roger dawson wrote:
With regard to fluoridation of water, it has now officially been accepted that forced medication is no longer illegal in the UK, Mr Justice Holman, by his decision in the High Court has said so. There is certainly evidence of bone cancer in males between ages 12 to 18 from intaking fluoride and should you dare tip fluoride into the sea you would be prosecuted for polluting the environment. Fluoride does help teeth when it is put directly onto the teeth, when it passes into any other part of the body it becomes a poison. Fluoride is a by product of heavy industry. Even today those who have the least knowledge get to take the decisions. A sad day for Southampton as well as setting a precedent for others in positions of being able, to implement experiments onto the population.

Where is the source of your information that there is evidence that it causes bone cancer in males between 12 and 18?
Has there been a significant rise in such cases in the Birmingham area, which has been supplied with fluoridated water since 1964?

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Atpost wrote:

Linesman wrote:

quaddie wrote: Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden. Simple answer.

I assume you guys are of a denture persuasion?

I am in favour. I think that the health authority knows a damned sight more about fluoride than the protesters. It just needed a couple of people to shout 'poison' and the sheep followed.

I think you're in la-la land. This so-called authority on our health cannot possibly come to an honest and or 100% certain conclusion that mass medication will benefit all of us. Not even based on other cities/regions/count ries. It's impossible to draw such a conclusion so how about those who can prove that it won't be of benefit to them? how about those that can prove that will be detrimental to their health? Should they not get a say?? SHA research is cherry-picked. Their reasons aren't based on fact they are based on opinion and this whole thing stinks of corruption. It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that's the only reason we are having this debate. Finding out who benefits the most financially is the only research on this subject worth doing. The rest is just a dodgy sales tactic and you are the perfect customer swallowing up everything they tell you because of your misguided sense of trust in people you don't know and have never even met.

What proof have you got that it is harmful?
Flouride was first introduced to the water supply in the Midlands in 1964 - 47 years ago.
The condition of teeth in that area has been compared with a similar area in Manchester, which has not had fluoridation, and there is a marked benefit.
There has been no difference in life expectancy, asthma, COPD etc to weigh against its introduction.
Perhaps you can now explain where your research was conducted, who by, the conclusions they reached and where it is published.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote??

I said that the SHA'a research was cherry-picked. They've deliberately ignored any research that goes against their agenda of disposal of toxic waste.

But, as I have said somewhere else, the health benefits or implications are not the issue. The only issue is do we want to live in a society where we can be force fed anything? I don't, regardless of any research for or against fluoridation. I do not want anything added to my water. I don't need it or want it and I won't be paying for it.

Also, what research are you talking about? I have read countless articles on the subject, none of which I care to remember in such detail as to quote them. I have read research for and against fluoridation, perhaps more 'for' than against but without trying to continue this pointless and irrelevant debate, I did not look into where the respective 'for' and 'against' researchers got their funding?? have you??

Perhaps you can explain to everyone the benefits of fluoridation to a 40 year old single man or a married couple approaching retirement but before you attempt to let me say this: You can't possibly know how it will affect anyone you haven't done a personal examination on. testing an age group, or a certain population is irrelevant, this will affect 'individual people'!

The trouble is, the SHA has become hung up on facts and figures and have adjusted and manipulated them to suit their agenda. If you can't see it, that's your problem but please don't make it mine by ignoring my basic human right not to have something forced down my throat and think of another way to fluoridate people who need and want it.

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Atpost wrote:

Linesman wrote:

quaddie wrote: Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden. Simple answer.

I assume you guys are of a denture persuasion?

I am in favour. I think that the health authority knows a damned sight more about fluoride than the protesters. It just needed a couple of people to shout 'poison' and the sheep followed.

I think you're in la-la land. This so-called authority on our health cannot possibly come to an honest and or 100% certain conclusion that mass medication will benefit all of us. Not even based on other cities/regions/count ries. It's impossible to draw such a conclusion so how about those who can prove that it won't be of benefit to them? how about those that can prove that will be detrimental to their health? Should they not get a say?? SHA research is cherry-picked. Their reasons aren't based on fact they are based on opinion and this whole thing stinks of corruption. It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that's the only reason we are having this debate. Finding out who benefits the most financially is the only research on this subject worth doing. The rest is just a dodgy sales tactic and you are the perfect customer swallowing up everything they tell you because of your misguided sense of trust in people you don't know and have never even met.

What proof have you got that it is harmful? Flouride was first introduced to the water supply in the Midlands in 1964 - 47 years ago. The condition of teeth in that area has been compared with a similar area in Manchester, which has not had fluoridation, and there is a marked benefit. There has been no difference in life expectancy, asthma, COPD etc to weigh against its introduction. Perhaps you can now explain where your research was conducted, who by, the conclusions they reached and where it is published.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?? I said that the SHA'a research was cherry-picked. They've deliberately ignored any research that goes against their agenda of disposal of toxic waste. But, as I have said somewhere else, the health benefits or implications are not the issue. The only issue is do we want to live in a society where we can be force fed anything? I don't, regardless of any research for or against fluoridation. I do not want anything added to my water. I don't need it or want it and I won't be paying for it. Also, what research are you talking about? I have read countless articles on the subject, none of which I care to remember in such detail as to quote them. I have read research for and against fluoridation, perhaps more 'for' than against but without trying to continue this pointless and irrelevant debate, I did not look into where the respective 'for' and 'against' researchers got their funding?? have you?? Perhaps you can explain to everyone the benefits of fluoridation to a 40 year old single man or a married couple approaching retirement but before you attempt to let me say this: You can't possibly know how it will affect anyone you haven't done a personal examination on. testing an age group, or a certain population is irrelevant, this will affect 'individual people'! The trouble is, the SHA has become hung up on facts and figures and have adjusted and manipulated them to suit their agenda. If you can't see it, that's your problem but please don't make it mine by ignoring my basic human right not to have something forced down my throat and think of another way to fluoridate people who need and want it.

I read what you wrote and asked what proof you had that it was harmful, and having read your most recent post, you did not point me in that direction.

So you want nothing added to your water?

Where do you think it all comes from?

Not from a nice, clean, fresh spring at the bottom of some eco-friendly, organic garden, but recycled waste water, combined with reservoir water, that has provided a safe haven for ducks, geese, swans etc and a place for them to deposit their waste.

The water is then filtered and passed fit for human consumption by people, with the same qualifications as those who are telling us that the addition of fluoride is beneficial.

If you want pure water, then distilling it is the answer because bottled spring water is not H2O.

Surely this jugement cannot be the end of the fluoride matter? Who comes after SHA goes, It would seem a simple decision to reverse fluoridation being added to our water and removel of any equipment at little cost. It all seems quite odd to me and I have the suspicion that lurking in the background are people who will be making lots of money over contaminating our water supplies.

peter sowerby wrote:
Surely this jugement cannot be the end of the fluoride matter? Who comes after SHA goes, It would seem a simple decision to reverse fluoridation being added to our water and removel of any equipment at little cost. It all seems quite odd to me and I have the suspicion that lurking in the background are people who will be making lots of money over contaminating our water supplies.

Contaminated?
The water that comes through the tap goes through a filtration process, because a large proportion of it is recycled. The stuff you flush!

It goes through a treatment process, with emphasis on the word TREATMENT.

Get in touch with reality.

Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: So you say....but the studies required to prove it's safety have simply not been done. Just because people in the west midlands aren't dropping dead in the street, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on their health in the longer term. Strangely the fluoridated areas of the UK are also those with the highest levels of obesity - doesn't that warrant some investigation? http://www.rense.com /general57/FLUR.HTM If I don't even have the right to decide what medicines go into my body, then what rights do I have? where is my freedom that so many died fighting for?

There is a far greater risk to our health from the what is released into the atmosphere from the refinery, associated chemical plants and the incinerator that burn hazzardous waste. If, as you claim, their is a higher incidence of obesity in that area, at least they do not have a problem with rickets, which is what we have here.

So Sir, I presume as you are so incensed with Refineries', Chemical plants' and incinerators' performance, your lifestyle is arranged such that you have no involvement with their products? I'll be interested in your response.

No, I am not incensed with refineries etc. Neither do I have an obsession about the fluoridation of the water supply. I merely pointed out to the protesters that, in my opinion, the discharge from those sites represent a bigger threat to their health than fluoridation does. You inhale a greater capacity of air in twentyfour hours than you consume water.

On the backfoot but well defended!

On the backfoot? Well defended? You make me sound like a boxer, which I am not. My life-style is such that I drink water, whether or not it has fluoride added, and I ride in a petrol driven car or in a diesel driven bus. Many things that I use eg plastic buckets, bags etc are oil-based. That is the way life is in the 21st Century. With 47 years of experience of fluoride in the water in the Midlands, I think that the experts have proved its worth, and the anti-brigade have yet to publish any worth-while negative effects.

Totally missed the inference. I was inferring cricket and not boxing. I actually support flouridation and I have 33 years experience in the chemical industry. I was attempting to compliment...still, never mind.

peter sowerby wrote:
Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Atpost wrote:

Linesman wrote:

quaddie wrote: Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden. Simple answer.

I assume you guys are of a denture persuasion?

I am in favour. I think that the health authority knows a damned sight more about fluoride than the protesters. It just needed a couple of people to shout 'poison' and the sheep followed.

I think you're in la-la land. This so-called authority on our health cannot possibly come to an honest and or 100% certain conclusion that mass medication will benefit all of us. Not even based on other cities/regions/count ries. It's impossible to draw such a conclusion so how about those who can prove that it won't be of benefit to them? how about those that can prove that will be detrimental to their health? Should they not get a say?? SHA research is cherry-picked. Their reasons aren't based on fact they are based on opinion and this whole thing stinks of corruption. It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that's the only reason we are having this debate. Finding out who benefits the most financially is the only research on this subject worth doing. The rest is just a dodgy sales tactic and you are the perfect customer swallowing up everything they tell you because of your misguided sense of trust in people you don't know and have never even met.

What proof have you got that it is harmful? Flouride was first introduced to the water supply in the Midlands in 1964 - 47 years ago. The condition of teeth in that area has been compared with a similar area in Manchester, which has not had fluoridation, and there is a marked benefit. There has been no difference in life expectancy, asthma, COPD etc to weigh against its introduction. Perhaps you can now explain where your research was conducted, who by, the conclusions they reached and where it is published.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?? I said that the SHA'a research was cherry-picked. They've deliberately ignored any research that goes against their agenda of disposal of toxic waste. But, as I have said somewhere else, the health benefits or implications are not the issue. The only issue is do we want to live in a society where we can be force fed anything? I don't, regardless of any research for or against fluoridation. I do not want anything added to my water. I don't need it or want it and I won't be paying for it. Also, what research are you talking about? I have read countless articles on the subject, none of which I care to remember in such detail as to quote them. I have read research for and against fluoridation, perhaps more 'for' than against but without trying to continue this pointless and irrelevant debate, I did not look into where the respective 'for' and 'against' researchers got their funding?? have you?? Perhaps you can explain to everyone the benefits of fluoridation to a 40 year old single man or a married couple approaching retirement but before you attempt to let me say this: You can't possibly know how it will affect anyone you haven't done a personal examination on. testing an age group, or a certain population is irrelevant, this will affect 'individual people'! The trouble is, the SHA has become hung up on facts and figures and have adjusted and manipulated them to suit their agenda. If you can't see it, that's your problem but please don't make it mine by ignoring my basic human right not to have something forced down my throat and think of another way to fluoridate people who need and want it.

I read what you wrote and asked what proof you had that it was harmful, and having read your most recent post, you did not point me in that direction.

So you want nothing added to your water?

Where do you think it all comes from?

Not from a nice, clean, fresh spring at the bottom of some eco-friendly, organic garden, but recycled waste water, combined with reservoir water, that has provided a safe haven for ducks, geese, swans etc and a place for them to deposit their waste.

The water is then filtered and passed fit for human consumption by people, with the same qualifications as those who are telling us that the addition of fluoride is beneficial.

If you want pure water, then distilling it is the answer because bottled spring water is not H2O.

Really, you're comparing how our water is currently treated so it is fit for human consumption with adding toxic waste to it for a health benefit that can't possibly be beneficial to everyone?

I don't know how that's regarded on your planet but here on earth I think ridiculous sums it up pretty well.

Also, if you read my earlier post, perhaps you'd be kind enough to show me where exactly I said fluoride was harmful? I'll be glad to answer any question related to something I actually wrote.

Perhaps you can explain to everyone the benefits of fluoridation to a 40 year old single man or a married couple approaching retirement?

Just in case you missed it.

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: So you say....but the studies required to prove it's safety have simply not been done. Just because people in the west midlands aren't dropping dead in the street, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on their health in the longer term. Strangely the fluoridated areas of the UK are also those with the highest levels of obesity - doesn't that warrant some investigation? http://www.rense.com /general57/FLUR.HTM If I don't even have the right to decide what medicines go into my body, then what rights do I have? where is my freedom that so many died fighting for?

There is a far greater risk to our health from the what is released into the atmosphere from the refinery, associated chemical plants and the incinerator that burn hazzardous waste. If, as you claim, their is a higher incidence of obesity in that area, at least they do not have a problem with rickets, which is what we have here.

So Sir, I presume as you are so incensed with Refineries', Chemical plants' and incinerators' performance, your lifestyle is arranged such that you have no involvement with their products? I'll be interested in your response.

No, I am not incensed with refineries etc. Neither do I have an obsession about the fluoridation of the water supply. I merely pointed out to the protesters that, in my opinion, the discharge from those sites represent a bigger threat to their health than fluoridation does. You inhale a greater capacity of air in twentyfour hours than you consume water.

On the backfoot but well defended!

On the backfoot? Well defended? You make me sound like a boxer, which I am not. My life-style is such that I drink water, whether or not it has fluoride added, and I ride in a petrol driven car or in a diesel driven bus. Many things that I use eg plastic buckets, bags etc are oil-based. That is the way life is in the 21st Century. With 47 years of experience of fluoride in the water in the Midlands, I think that the experts have proved its worth, and the anti-brigade have yet to publish any worth-while negative effects.

Totally missed the inference. I was inferring cricket and not boxing. I actually support flouridation and I have 33 years experience in the chemical industry. I was attempting to compliment...still, never mind.

Thanks Hump!
You and I against the world.

If only they were aware of the chemicals used to cleanse our water!

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Atpost wrote:

Linesman wrote:

quaddie wrote: Twisted witch is right, a mass protest of non-payment of bills is the way to go. It's time people in this country took a stand against the few who want to control us. Water companies, unlike energy companies, cannot cut your supply. It is against the law for them to do this, although they can take action to get their money, and, if necessary, take you to court. BTW fluoride is a by-product of the fertiliser indusrty, and is only just below arsenic in the poison league. It is also an ingredient in the anti-depressant drug 'Prozac' and is included in some rat poisons. Most EU countries do not fluoridate their water, only Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain have water fluoridation programmes.

Don't pay your water bills, just nip along to the supermarket and buy up all the bottled water or dig a well in yur garden. Simple answer.

I assume you guys are of a denture persuasion?

I am in favour. I think that the health authority knows a damned sight more about fluoride than the protesters. It just needed a couple of people to shout 'poison' and the sheep followed.

I think you're in la-la land. This so-called authority on our health cannot possibly come to an honest and or 100% certain conclusion that mass medication will benefit all of us. Not even based on other cities/regions/count ries. It's impossible to draw such a conclusion so how about those who can prove that it won't be of benefit to them? how about those that can prove that will be detrimental to their health? Should they not get a say?? SHA research is cherry-picked. Their reasons aren't based on fact they are based on opinion and this whole thing stinks of corruption. It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that's the only reason we are having this debate. Finding out who benefits the most financially is the only research on this subject worth doing. The rest is just a dodgy sales tactic and you are the perfect customer swallowing up everything they tell you because of your misguided sense of trust in people you don't know and have never even met.

What proof have you got that it is harmful? Flouride was first introduced to the water supply in the Midlands in 1964 - 47 years ago. The condition of teeth in that area has been compared with a similar area in Manchester, which has not had fluoridation, and there is a marked benefit. There has been no difference in life expectancy, asthma, COPD etc to weigh against its introduction. Perhaps you can now explain where your research was conducted, who by, the conclusions they reached and where it is published.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?? I said that the SHA'a research was cherry-picked. They've deliberately ignored any research that goes against their agenda of disposal of toxic waste. But, as I have said somewhere else, the health benefits or implications are not the issue. The only issue is do we want to live in a society where we can be force fed anything? I don't, regardless of any research for or against fluoridation. I do not want anything added to my water. I don't need it or want it and I won't be paying for it. Also, what research are you talking about? I have read countless articles on the subject, none of which I care to remember in such detail as to quote them. I have read research for and against fluoridation, perhaps more 'for' than against but without trying to continue this pointless and irrelevant debate, I did not look into where the respective 'for' and 'against' researchers got their funding?? have you?? Perhaps you can explain to everyone the benefits of fluoridation to a 40 year old single man or a married couple approaching retirement but before you attempt to let me say this: You can't possibly know how it will affect anyone you haven't done a personal examination on. testing an age group, or a certain population is irrelevant, this will affect 'individual people'! The trouble is, the SHA has become hung up on facts and figures and have adjusted and manipulated them to suit their agenda. If you can't see it, that's your problem but please don't make it mine by ignoring my basic human right not to have something forced down my throat and think of another way to fluoridate people who need and want it.

I read what you wrote and asked what proof you had that it was harmful, and having read your most recent post, you did not point me in that direction. So you want nothing added to your water? Where do you think it all comes from? Not from a nice, clean, fresh spring at the bottom of some eco-friendly, organic garden, but recycled waste water, combined with reservoir water, that has provided a safe haven for ducks, geese, swans etc and a place for them to deposit their waste. The water is then filtered and passed fit for human consumption by people, with the same qualifications as those who are telling us that the addition of fluoride is beneficial. If you want pure water, then distilling it is the answer because bottled spring water is not H2O.

Really, you're comparing how our water is currently treated so it is fit for human consumption with adding toxic waste to it for a health benefit that can't possibly be beneficial to everyone? I don't know how that's regarded on your planet but here on earth I think ridiculous sums it up pretty well. Also, if you read my earlier post, perhaps you'd be kind enough to show me where exactly I said fluoride was harmful? I'll be glad to answer any question related to something I actually wrote.

A quote from headworm:-

"It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that's the only reason we are having this debate."

Defintion of toxic:- adj 1 poisonous
2 caused by poison (toxic effects).

In a previous post you asked whether I bothered to read what you wrote.

Perhaps I should ask you the same question.

Do you read what you wrote?

A quote from headworm:-

"It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that's the only reason we are having this debate."

Defintion of toxic:- adj 1 poisonous
2 caused by poison (toxic effects).

In a previous post you asked whether I bothered to read what you wrote.

Perhaps I should ask you the same question.

Do you read what you wrote?

I don't see the word harmful anywhere in what I wrote but I if I have to explain every word I write...
Isn't the by-product of fertilisers to be added to our water currently disposed of as toxic waste?
If I'm wrong then I will stop using the term if it makes you happy but that won't change the very simple fact that this is my body and I don't want or need a by-product of anything put in it for dental health reasons that have never been proven safe for my body and that I don't need.
I so look forward to the day you are force fed something you don't want and nobody stands up for your right as a human being to say no.
This whole debate is doing my head in. Just leave the **** water alone and if kids need better teeth then find a way to deal with the problem without affecting people that have better things to do than fight forced medication which is exactly what this is. On one hand they say they want to improve our dental health then on the other they tell us it's not mass medication as fluoride isn't classed as medicinal.

You are completely blinkered on the fact that I have no need for this to be added to MY water. I have read what chemicals are used to clean the water and I think most people are aware of the fact that chemicals are used to clean it in fact, I think I watched a documentary on it at school.

headworm wrote:
Perhaps you can explain to everyone the benefits of fluoridation to a 40 year old single man or a married couple approaching retirement?

Just in case you missed it.

Just in case you missed it again.

If you do get around to answering these questions may I put something in your mouth if I can get someone from the SHA to say it's safe to do so?

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

forest hump wrote:

Linesman wrote:

stuartjebbitt wrote: So you say....but the studies required to prove it's safety have simply not been done. Just because people in the west midlands aren't dropping dead in the street, doesn't mean it isn't having a negative impact on their health in the longer term. Strangely the fluoridated areas of the UK are also those with the highest levels of obesity - doesn't that warrant some investigation? http://www.rense.com /general57/FLUR.HTM If I don't even have the right to decide what medicines go into my body, then what rights do I have? where is my freedom that so many died fighting for?

There is a far greater risk to our health from the what is released into the atmosphere from the refinery, associated chemical plants and the incinerator that burn hazzardous waste. If, as you claim, their is a higher incidence of obesity in that area, at least they do not have a problem with rickets, which is what we have here.

So Sir, I presume as you are so incensed with Refineries', Chemical plants' and incinerators' performance, your lifestyle is arranged such that you have no involvement with their products? I'll be interested in your response.

No, I am not incensed with refineries etc. Neither do I have an obsession about the fluoridation of the water supply. I merely pointed out to the protesters that, in my opinion, the discharge from those sites represent a bigger threat to their health than fluoridation does. You inhale a greater capacity of air in twentyfour hours than you consume water.

On the backfoot but well defended!

On the backfoot? Well defended? You make me sound like a boxer, which I am not. My life-style is such that I drink water, whether or not it has fluoride added, and I ride in a petrol driven car or in a diesel driven bus. Many things that I use eg plastic buckets, bags etc are oil-based. That is the way life is in the 21st Century. With 47 years of experience of fluoride in the water in the Midlands, I think that the experts have proved its worth, and the anti-brigade have yet to publish any worth-while negative effects.

Totally missed the inference. I was inferring cricket and not boxing. I actually support flouridation and I have 33 years experience in the chemical industry. I was attempting to compliment...still, never mind.

Thanks Hump! You and I against the world. If only they were aware of the chemicals used to cleanse our water!

You are very welcome. The sad thing is: people are being conned by buying bottled "water", when in actual fact it is sourced from the tap! I guess it's a relief that water in the UK is significantly better, in terms of quality, than many places in the globe!

headworm wrote:
I don't see the word harmful anywhere in what I wrote but I if I have to explain every word I write... Isn't the by-product of fertilisers to be added to our water currently disposed of as toxic waste? If I'm wrong then I will stop using the term if it makes you happy but that won't change the very simple fact that this is my body and I don't want or need a by-product of anything put in it for dental health reasons that have never been proven safe for my body and that I don't need. I so look forward to the day you are force fed something you don't want and nobody stands up for your right as a human being to say no. This whole debate is doing my head in. Just leave the **** water alone and if kids need better teeth then find a way to deal with the problem without affecting people that have better things to do than fight forced medication which is exactly what this is. On one hand they say they want to improve our dental health then on the other they tell us it's not mass medication as fluoride isn't classed as medicinal. You are completely blinkered on the fact that I have no need for this to be added to MY water. I have read what chemicals are used to clean the water and I think most people are aware of the fact that chemicals are used to clean it in fact, I think I watched a documentary on it at school.

There is no need for you to explain the word 'TOXIN', I am well aware of its meaning.

As I have already indicated, it means poison.

Your quote:
"It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that the only reason we are having this debate."

You are correct, you never used the word 'Harmful'. So, are you saying that toxins are not harmful?

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:
Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

there are natural and there is man made, chemicals add to water is to make it safe to drink, not to medicate people by force.
and you would agree with putting this type of chemical into water, you work for a company that can produce it, and do so has a by-product, they use to pump it into the river until southern sea fishers got it stop, because of the damage it was causing to the shell of shellfish (it was causing the shell to be very weak and flaky and riddled with micro-holes), the same thing that it can do to humans bones.
salt contains 99.98% sodium chloride, and 00.02% of all other types of chemicals. when refined for cooking and on the table.
fluoride can be and is used has a bleach or a disinfectant.

Ok then who is going to come up with a device to attach to the tap to repurify the water before drinking it?

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:
I don't see the word harmful anywhere in what I wrote but I if I have to explain every word I write... Isn't the by-product of fertilisers to be added to our water currently disposed of as toxic waste? If I'm wrong then I will stop using the term if it makes you happy but that won't change the very simple fact that this is my body and I don't want or need a by-product of anything put in it for dental health reasons that have never been proven safe for my body and that I don't need. I so look forward to the day you are force fed something you don't want and nobody stands up for your right as a human being to say no. This whole debate is doing my head in. Just leave the **** water alone and if kids need better teeth then find a way to deal with the problem without affecting people that have better things to do than fight forced medication which is exactly what this is. On one hand they say they want to improve our dental health then on the other they tell us it's not mass medication as fluoride isn't classed as medicinal. You are completely blinkered on the fact that I have no need for this to be added to MY water. I have read what chemicals are used to clean the water and I think most people are aware of the fact that chemicals are used to clean it in fact, I think I watched a documentary on it at school.

There is no need for you to explain the word 'TOXIN', I am well aware of its meaning.

As I have already indicated, it means poison.

Your quote:
"It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that the only reason we are having this debate."

You are correct, you never used the word 'Harmful'. So, are you saying that toxins are not harmful?

You know I'm not saying toxins aren't harmful, my answer explains why I used the term toxic waste. If you're not happy with that I'm afraid you'll have to get obsessive about it with someone else. I've pandered to your continued requests to try and answer a totally irrelevant question yet why are you still unable or unwilling to answer the questions I ask of you? One of which I believe I've now posted 3 times already. Are you certain you are reading my comments?

Why are you avoiding every question I have asked and every point I have made and becoming fixated on one word which I never even used? Is it because you really can't answer the questions I asked, because you have nothing else to say regarding the points I raised?
So, for a fourth time, perhaps you can explain to everyone the benefits of fluoridation to a 40 year old single man or a married couple approaching retirement?
Not forgetting my other more recent question:
May I put something in your mouth if I can get someone from the SHA to say it's safe to do so?

Please, do at least try to answer them this time.

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote: I don't see the word harmful anywhere in what I wrote but I if I have to explain every word I write... Isn't the by-product of fertilisers to be added to our water currently disposed of as toxic waste? If I'm wrong then I will stop using the term if it makes you happy but that won't change the very simple fact that this is my body and I don't want or need a by-product of anything put in it for dental health reasons that have never been proven safe for my body and that I don't need. I so look forward to the day you are force fed something you don't want and nobody stands up for your right as a human being to say no. This whole debate is doing my head in. Just leave the **** water alone and if kids need better teeth then find a way to deal with the problem without affecting people that have better things to do than fight forced medication which is exactly what this is. On one hand they say they want to improve our dental health then on the other they tell us it's not mass medication as fluoride isn't classed as medicinal. You are completely blinkered on the fact that I have no need for this to be added to MY water. I have read what chemicals are used to clean the water and I think most people are aware of the fact that chemicals are used to clean it in fact, I think I watched a documentary on it at school.

There is no need for you to explain the word 'TOXIN', I am well aware of its meaning. As I have already indicated, it means poison. Your quote: "It's a cheap way of disposing of toxic waste and that the only reason we are having this debate." You are correct, you never used the word 'Harmful'. So, are you saying that toxins are not harmful?

You know I'm not saying toxins aren't harmful, my answer explains why I used the term toxic waste. If you're not happy with that I'm afraid you'll have to get obsessive about it with someone else. I've pandered to your continued requests to try and answer a totally irrelevant question yet why are you still unable or unwilling to answer the questions I ask of you? One of which I believe I've now posted 3 times already. Are you certain you are reading my comments? Why are you avoiding every question I have asked and every point I have made and becoming fixated on one word which I never even used? Is it because you really can't answer the questions I asked, because you have nothing else to say regarding the points I raised? So, for a fourth time, perhaps you can explain to everyone the benefits of fluoridation to a 40 year old single man or a married couple approaching retirement? Not forgetting my other more recent question: May I put something in your mouth if I can get someone from the SHA to say it's safe to do so? Please, do at least try to answer them this time.

I have not become fixated on a single word, but you appear to be with regard the word 'harmful'.
You have not 'pandered' to me, rather you have 'squirmed' to try and get yourself out of a hole that you have dug for yourself.
I would have thought that I had answered you question about a 40 year old single man, although why the hell he has to be single, or that a single or married woman does not appear to be worth considering, but guess it is a personal interest.
Fluoride was introduced to the water in the Midlands in 1964.
1964 is 46 years ago.
A man, born in that area in 1964, would now be 46 years old, whether or not he is single.
The dental records of people in that area, including 40 year old single men, shows that dental health is significantly better than in a similar area where the water has not been fluoridated.
With regard a married couple approaching retirement.
Assuming they have lived in that area all of their life and are taking retirement at 65, they would have had 19 years without the benefits of fluoride in the water.
They would also have been part of the survey on dental health, so although they may have had more cavities filled, I would assume that they would be less than would have been the case if they had lived in another area.
With regard your last question.
If you give an example, then I will answer.

LOL You are mad! I haven't tried to wriggle out of anything, there's nothing to wriggle out of!

You still haven't answered my question though maybe I haven't explained myself well enough. I asked about a 40 year old single man, ie me (nearly 40). I live in Southampton, have done all my life so what is the benefit to me personally now at this age.
I'll save you some time; You don't know, because you don't know me, my lifestyle, my eating and drinking habits, my health etc. and crucially, whether I actually need (regardless of want) any help looking after my teeth.

As for the older couple, you can assume they too are real people living in Southampton all their lives and they have excellent teeth. What is the benefit to them and are there any risks involved to them at all? I'll answer this for you as well. You don't know, because you don't know them... etc etc

Stats and figures are for the most part pointless on both sides of the argument, the research is flawed because it doesn't account for individuals or even those that don't have any dental records if that's where the results come from.

Some research says it's beneficial, some say it's not, some are inconclusive. That to me does not justify putting it in the water supply, not even based on 70% of the research showing it's beneficial. It's not good enough.

My other question is fairly simple and doesn't require an example, it's a simple yes or no answer. Will you let me put something in your mouth if the SHA say it's safe to do so?

I'll assume it's yes as that's what you are expecting me and thousands of other to do.

headworm wrote:
LOL You are mad! I haven't tried to wriggle out of anything, there's nothing to wriggle out of! You still haven't answered my question though maybe I haven't explained myself well enough. I asked about a 40 year old single man, ie me (nearly 40). I live in Southampton, have done all my life so what is the benefit to me personally now at this age. I'll save you some time; You don't know, because you don't know me, my lifestyle, my eating and drinking habits, my health etc. and crucially, whether I actually need (regardless of want) any help looking after my teeth. As for the older couple, you can assume they too are real people living in Southampton all their lives and they have excellent teeth. What is the benefit to them and are there any risks involved to them at all? I'll answer this for you as well. You don't know, because you don't know them... etc etc Stats and figures are for the most part pointless on both sides of the argument, the research is flawed because it doesn't account for individuals or even those that don't have any dental records if that's where the results come from. Some research says it's beneficial, some say it's not, some are inconclusive. That to me does not justify putting it in the water supply, not even based on 70% of the research showing it's beneficial. It's not good enough. My other question is fairly simple and doesn't require an example, it's a simple yes or no answer. Will you let me put something in your mouth if the SHA say it's safe to do so? I'll assume it's yes as that's what you are expecting me and thousands of other to do.

As you are a 40 year old, single male, my answer to your last question is NO!

With regard whether a 40 year old, who has never lived in an area where the water has had fluoride added, would benefit, I don't know.

I would imagine that the statistics gathered from the midlands, that has had the benefits of fluoridation since 1964, would be able to assess the benefits for that age group by comparing it with the statistics gathered in Manchester.

The same would apply to the older couple, or any other age group for that matter, but I fail to see why you assume that those living their lives in Southampton would have excellent teeth. My parents, both born and brought up in the Southampton area, had false teeth at the age of 40, despite the fact that they 'brushed twice a day' and were brought up in a time when sweets and crisps were a luxury and hamburgers were just people who came from Hamburg.

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: With regard to fluoridation of water, it has now officially been accepted that forced medication is no longer illegal in the UK, Mr Justice Holman, by his decision in the High Court has said so. There is certainly evidence of bone cancer in males between ages 12 to 18 from intaking fluoride and should you dare tip fluoride into the sea you would be prosecuted for polluting the environment. Fluoride does help teeth when it is put directly onto the teeth, when it passes into any other part of the body it becomes a poison. Fluoride is a by product of heavy industry. Even today those who have the least knowledge get to take the decisions. A sad day for Southampton as well as setting a precedent for others in positions of being able, to implement experiments onto the population.

Where is the source of your information that there is evidence that it causes bone cancer in males between 12 and 18? Has there been a significant rise in such cases in the Birmingham area, which has been supplied with fluoridated water since 1964?

@ linesman

if you pay attention to what really happens rather than what you are being told happens, you will begin to understand that the world the media presents has little similarity to what is happening in the physical world.
It has been established for almost forty years that fluoride causes osteosarcoma or bone cancer in young males. There are countless studies at reputable institutions that have long underpinned this as fact.
The number of young males with osteosarcoma is far higher in areas where the water is fluoridated, no mistake.
Do your homework, don't believe the media, that's for sheeple.

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

The ingredients used to make Warfarin, that is used to stop blood clots, are also used to make rat poison.

Given the correct dose, it is quite safe for human consumption.

Fluoride is the same. Poison if consumed neat, but diluted to the degree that the water companies do, no problem.

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:
LOL You are mad! I haven't tried to wriggle out of anything, there's nothing to wriggle out of! You still haven't answered my question though maybe I haven't explained myself well enough. I asked about a 40 year old single man, ie me (nearly 40). I live in Southampton, have done all my life so what is the benefit to me personally now at this age. I'll save you some time; You don't know, because you don't know me, my lifestyle, my eating and drinking habits, my health etc. and crucially, whether I actually need (regardless of want) any help looking after my teeth. As for the older couple, you can assume they too are real people living in Southampton all their lives and they have excellent teeth. What is the benefit to them and are there any risks involved to them at all? I'll answer this for you as well. You don't know, because you don't know them... etc etc Stats and figures are for the most part pointless on both sides of the argument, the research is flawed because it doesn't account for individuals or even those that don't have any dental records if that's where the results come from. Some research says it's beneficial, some say it's not, some are inconclusive. That to me does not justify putting it in the water supply, not even based on 70% of the research showing it's beneficial. It's not good enough. My other question is fairly simple and doesn't require an example, it's a simple yes or no answer. Will you let me put something in your mouth if the SHA say it's safe to do so? I'll assume it's yes as that's what you are expecting me and thousands of other to do.

As you are a 40 year old, single male, my answer to your last question is NO!

With regard whether a 40 year old, who has never lived in an area where the water has had fluoride added, would benefit, I don't know.

I would imagine that the statistics gathered from the midlands, that has had the benefits of fluoridation since 1964, would be able to assess the benefits for that age group by comparing it with the statistics gathered in Manchester.

The same would apply to the older couple, or any other age group for that matter, but I fail to see why you assume that those living their lives in Southampton would have excellent teeth. My parents, both born and brought up in the Southampton area, had false teeth at the age of 40, despite the fact that they 'brushed twice a day' and were brought up in a time when sweets and crisps were a luxury and hamburgers were just people who came from Hamburg.

You're missing my point somewhat. I am not interested in statistics, only my own health, what will adding fluoride do for or to me. My teeth are fine, so I don't need fluoride in my water so how will I benefit exactly and what are the risks? Before putting anything in anyone's mouth it would be wise to know the potential risks would it not? Whether or not it has benefitted my age group in the midlands or anywhere else is besides the point. I want to know that it's of use to me personally.

I don't assume everyone in Southampton has perfect teeth, however, some people do which was the point I was trying to make and again, statistics won't set their mind at ease when nobody seems to be offering them an individual assessment of how it will affect them.

You are obsessed with statistics yet they tell you nothing about the benefits to your own teeth. I take it you aren't competent enough to look after them yourself and you need reassurance of some sort for the future? Please do tell why you need fluoride in your water?

So, I can't put something in your mouth even if the SHA say it's safe to do so? That sounds perfectly reasonable to me but how come it's ok for you to say no but everyone else has to swallow on the say-so of the SHA?

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: With regard to fluoridation of water, it has now officially been accepted that forced medication is no longer illegal in the UK, Mr Justice Holman, by his decision in the High Court has said so. There is certainly evidence of bone cancer in males between ages 12 to 18 from intaking fluoride and should you dare tip fluoride into the sea you would be prosecuted for polluting the environment. Fluoride does help teeth when it is put directly onto the teeth, when it passes into any other part of the body it becomes a poison. Fluoride is a by product of heavy industry. Even today those who have the least knowledge get to take the decisions. A sad day for Southampton as well as setting a precedent for others in positions of being able, to implement experiments onto the population.

Where is the source of your information that there is evidence that it causes bone cancer in males between 12 and 18? Has there been a significant rise in such cases in the Birmingham area, which has been supplied with fluoridated water since 1964?

@ linesman if you pay attention to what really happens rather than what you are being told happens, you will begin to understand that the world the media presents has little similarity to what is happening in the physical world. It has been established for almost forty years that fluoride causes osteosarcoma or bone cancer in young males. There are countless studies at reputable institutions that have long underpinned this as fact. The number of young males with osteosarcoma is far higher in areas where the water is fluoridated, no mistake. Do your homework, don't believe the media, that's for sheeple.

Unless you have conducted the study yourself, you are also only listening to what you are told happens.

I asked for your source of information, but you have not come back with an answer as to who these 'reputable institutions' are.

There was a doctor who, with no scientific background or supportive research, claimed that the MMR vaccine caused learning problems in children, and many parents preferred to listen to him, rather than the reassurances from the GMC.

Their children did not have the vaccination and a number of them suffered the effects of either Measles, Mumps or Rubella.

Rather than the scare-mongering of the anti-fluoride brigade, I prefer to accept the assurances give by proven medical bodies.

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: With regard to fluoridation of water, it has now officially been accepted that forced medication is no longer illegal in the UK, Mr Justice Holman, by his decision in the High Court has said so. There is certainly evidence of bone cancer in males between ages 12 to 18 from intaking fluoride and should you dare tip fluoride into the sea you would be prosecuted for polluting the environment. Fluoride does help teeth when it is put directly onto the teeth, when it passes into any other part of the body it becomes a poison. Fluoride is a by product of heavy industry. Even today those who have the least knowledge get to take the decisions. A sad day for Southampton as well as setting a precedent for others in positions of being able, to implement experiments onto the population.

Where is the source of your information that there is evidence that it causes bone cancer in males between 12 and 18? Has there been a significant rise in such cases in the Birmingham area, which has been supplied with fluoridated water since 1964?

@ linesman if you pay attention to what really happens rather than what you are being told happens, you will begin to understand that the world the media presents has little similarity to what is happening in the physical world. It has been established for almost forty years that fluoride causes osteosarcoma or bone cancer in young males. There are countless studies at reputable institutions that have long underpinned this as fact. The number of young males with osteosarcoma is far higher in areas where the water is fluoridated, no mistake. Do your homework, don't believe the media, that's for sheeple.

Unless you have conducted the study yourself, you are also only listening to what you are told happens.

I asked for your source of information, but you have not come back with an answer as to who these 'reputable institutions' are.

There was a doctor who, with no scientific background or supportive research, claimed that the MMR vaccine caused learning problems in children, and many parents preferred to listen to him, rather than the reassurances from the GMC.

Their children did not have the vaccination and a number of them suffered the effects of either Measles, Mumps or Rubella.

Rather than the scare-mongering of the anti-fluoride brigade, I prefer to accept the assurances give by proven medical bodies.

LOL What is a proven medical body? A group of medical professionals and or scientists I assume? Funded by whom exactly? The tax-payer?

I wonder who writes the cheques and sets their wages and who stands to benefit financially if fluoridation goes ahead? Is it the toxic waste 'suppliers', the Government, the Water Company or all of them?

Not asking for an answer, but just wondering how the SHA have assured you of all of this or whether you just take everything they say as gospel because they are the SHA (and of course that means completely honest and trustworthy) and think other scientists are all a bit cooky and have funny hair.

Here's one you can answer for my curiosity if you like. Have you ever read the SHA's website because you were looking for personal reassurance that fluoride was safe to drink, or did you just accept it because it's the SHA and they are always right?

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it?
Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc)

The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue.

Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

You're telling me to hug a tree because I don't want fluoride added to my drinking water and yet I need to grow up?? Really??

When is your tenth birthday?

Sever my pipe and declare independence?
You mean instead of standing up for myself and others that don't want or need fluoridation? Why would I do that? Seriously, do you really think people that disagree with you should be seen and not heard? Like children?
Because that's what we are right, children?

Sorry, but it is you that is acting like the child. You that needs the SHA to look after your teeth with their forced medication program and you that is throwing your toys out of the pram when someone says something you can't argue with.

Here's a novel idea, how about we leave the water alone, and find another way to treat those people that need and want treatment.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

Why are pro-fluoridation nutters so unwilling to find a compromise to keep everyone happy?

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: With regard to fluoridation of water, it has now officially been accepted that forced medication is no longer illegal in the UK, Mr Justice Holman, by his decision in the High Court has said so. There is certainly evidence of bone cancer in males between ages 12 to 18 from intaking fluoride and should you dare tip fluoride into the sea you would be prosecuted for polluting the environment. Fluoride does help teeth when it is put directly onto the teeth, when it passes into any other part of the body it becomes a poison. Fluoride is a by product of heavy industry. Even today those who have the least knowledge get to take the decisions. A sad day for Southampton as well as setting a precedent for others in positions of being able, to implement experiments onto the population.

Where is the source of your information that there is evidence that it causes bone cancer in males between 12 and 18? Has there been a significant rise in such cases in the Birmingham area, which has been supplied with fluoridated water since 1964?

@ linesman if you pay attention to what really happens rather than what you are being told happens, you will begin to understand that the world the media presents has little similarity to what is happening in the physical world. It has been established for almost forty years that fluoride causes osteosarcoma or bone cancer in young males. There are countless studies at reputable institutions that have long underpinned this as fact. The number of young males with osteosarcoma is far higher in areas where the water is fluoridated, no mistake. Do your homework, don't believe the media, that's for sheeple.

Unless you have conducted the study yourself, you are also only listening to what you are told happens. I asked for your source of information, but you have not come back with an answer as to who these 'reputable institutions' are. There was a doctor who, with no scientific background or supportive research, claimed that the MMR vaccine caused learning problems in children, and many parents preferred to listen to him, rather than the reassurances from the GMC. Their children did not have the vaccination and a number of them suffered the effects of either Measles, Mumps or Rubella. Rather than the scare-mongering of the anti-fluoride brigade, I prefer to accept the assurances give by proven medical bodies.

@ linesman

I was attempting to give you ownership of the information you could discover by doing your own homework rather than being led by me to answers in the way you have been led to misleading answers by people who have vested interests in leading you their way.
It would be best perhaps to begin with the EWG in the US. This is a Government funded Environmental Working Group that have at last found the voice they have been looking for with regard to the current subject. They are no longer so afraid of losing their funding and are slowly coming around to a truer reality than the one you happily accept from the party with self interest.
Have a look at this:

www.ewg.org/node/278
82 - United States

Government Asked to Evaluate the Cancer-Causing Potential Of Fluoride in Tap Water
EWG Cites Compelling Body of Science Linking Fluoride to Rare Bone Cancer in Boys
WASHINGTON — Citing a strong body of peer-reviewed evidence, Environmental Working Group (EWG) today asked the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to list fluoride in tap water in its authoritative Report on carcinogens, based on its ability to cause a rare form of childhood bone cancer, osteosarcoma, in boys. The Report on Carcinogens lists only substances that are known or reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

In recent years, concerns have grown about the safety of fluoride in tap water. In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned a study by the National Research Council (NRC) on the overall safety of fluoride in tap water. The final report is expected by February 2006. The NRC, however, does not have the expertise or the mandate to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride.

EWG recognizes the value of fluoride to dentistry, yet a substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science strongly suggests that adding fluoride to tap water is not the safest way to achieve the dental health benefits of fluoridation.

Nationwide about 170 million people live in communities with fluoridated water. Adding fluoride to tap water can be a contentious issue. There are ongoing fights over fluoridation in Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, California, Massachusetts and Nebraska. States with recent battles over fluoridation include New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Research dating back decades, much of it government funded, has long suggested that fluoride added to drinking water presents a unique cancer risk to the growing bones of young boys. New epidemiology provides strong evidence of a link between exposure to fluoride in tap water during the mid-childhood growth spurt between ages 6 and 10, and bone cancer in adolescence. Additional science strongly suggests that fluoride can cause genetic mutations in bone cells directly related to childhood bone cancer.

"We recognize the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health, but there is very compelling evidence that fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys," said EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles. "The government needs to assess the overall strength of the evidence and make a determination of fluoride's cancer-causing potential," Wiles added.

EWG's letter to the NTP and related materials can be found at www.ewg.org/issues/f
luoride/20050606/ind
ex.php

nyscof's Goals › nyscof's Journal › Journal Entry
Fluoride Linked to Bone Cancer, Again
Apr 30 09 6:40am Posted in: Cancer

New York – April 29, 2009 -- Blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups, according to research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults



Randhu and colleagues measured serum fluoride levels in three equal groups of age-matched and sex-matched patients. Group one had osteosarcoma; group two had non-osteosarcoma bone tumors; and group three had musculo-skeletal pain. (1)



“Mean serum fluoride concentration was found to be significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma as compared to the other two groups,” write Randhu’s team. “(T)his report proves a link between raised fluoride levels in serum and osteosarcoma,” they write.



This reinforces a 2006 published Harvard study by Bassin showing a link between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young boys. (2)



A 1992 New Jersey Department of Health study shows osteosarcoma rates higher among young males in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated regions of New Jersey. (3)



More studies link fluoride to bone and other cancers but are downplayed or ignored by government officials. (4)(5)



Bone defects similar to bone cancer were detected in fluoridated Newburgh NY children as early as 1955. Newburgh is home of the first human health fluoridation experiment begun in 1945.



According to Christopher Bryson in The Fluoride Deception. “A radiologist, Dr. John Caffey of Columbia University, called the defects ‘striking’ in their ‘similarity’ to bone cancer… and seen more than twice as frequently among boys in Newburgh as among boys in nonfluoridated Kingston .” (6)



In 2006, the prestigious National Research Council review of fluoride/fluoridatio
n toxicology found a fluoride/bone cancer link plausible.



“If governments truly want to save money, stopping fluoridation is a no-brainer. It would save money, preserve health and teeth,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.



In 2005, 11 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on fluoridation programs across the country and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. (7)



In addition, over 2,430 professionals urge the US Congress to stop fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement:

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/statement.a
ugust.2007.html







References:



1) Biological Trace Element Research, “Serum Fluoride and Sialic Acid Levels in Osteosarcoma,” by Sandhu R, Lal H, Kundu ZS, Kharb S, Apr 24, 2009



2) Cancer Causes Control "Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and
osteosarcoma (United States), by Bassin et al., May 2006



3) New Jersey Department of Health, “A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males,”Cohn PD. (19 92).



4) Fluoride and Osteosarcoma

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/health/canc
er/osteosarcoma-time
line.html



5) Fluoride and Cancer

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/health/canc
er/



6) The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson
with a foreword by Dr. Theo Colborn, Seven Stories Press,
May 2004

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/fluoride-de
ception.htm



7) Press ReleaseAugust 19, 2005, “EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up,”Contact: Dr. William Hirzy, Vice-President NTEU Chapter 280

http://www.nteu280.o
rg/Issues/Fluoride/P
ress%20Release.%20Fl
uoride.htm























0 Comments | Send to friends Write a comment:


Submit

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

What a nice man you are. Independance you say, not in the SHA dictatorship As for hugging a tree the torys are selling them all off back to their land owning mates for tax perks and hunting. I would most likely get sprayed with shotgun pellets and get lead poisoning as well as fluoride contamination.Tell you what, ride off into the sunset and oblivion with you hillbilly SHA mates and get back up into the mountains out of harms way.

@ linesman

well there is a start for you, now follow through with researching the names of those who have done the research and whose names are mentioned in the previous text. Facts are facts, those who peddle lies need to be exposed as corrupting influences on society and that includes the anyone who advocates poisoning water supplies.

As previously stated dump some fluoride in the sea, then report yourself to the relevent authority and enjoy the prosecution you will recive for polluting the environment, then think again about your opinion of fluoride.

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

What a nice man you are. Independance you say, not in the SHA dictatorship As for hugging a tree the torys are selling them all off back to their land owning mates for tax perks and hunting. I would most likely get sprayed with shotgun pellets and get lead poisoning as well as fluoride contamination.Tell you what, ride off into the sunset and oblivion with you hillbilly SHA mates and get back up into the mountains out of harms way.

Good lord, I've hit a nerve! I am not affiliated with the SHA or a Hillbilly! Also, if it needs explaination, there are not many mountains in the New Forest. All I am trying to say is....Flouride will do us all good. If you do not like it, then go live somewhere else. And by the way... mind out, the pellets are coming. Again. grow up

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

You're telling me to hug a tree because I don't want fluoride added to my drinking water and yet I need to grow up?? Really?? When is your tenth birthday? Sever my pipe and declare independence? You mean instead of standing up for myself and others that don't want or need fluoridation? Why would I do that? Seriously, do you really think people that disagree with you should be seen and not heard? Like children? Because that's what we are right, children? Sorry, but it is you that is acting like the child. You that needs the SHA to look after your teeth with their forced medication program and you that is throwing your toys out of the pram when someone says something you can't argue with. Here's a novel idea, how about we leave the water alone, and find another way to treat those people that need and want treatment. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why are pro-fluoridation nutters so unwilling to find a compromise to keep everyone happy?

Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Go put on your hair shirt and live in a cave if you cannot move forward.

roger dawson wrote:
@ linesman well there is a start for you, now follow through with researching the names of those who have done the research and whose names are mentioned in the previous text. Facts are facts, those who peddle lies need to be exposed as corrupting influences on society and that includes the anyone who advocates poisoning water supplies. As previously stated dump some fluoride in the sea, then report yourself to the relevent authority and enjoy the prosecution you will recive for polluting the environment, then think again about your opinion of fluoride.

Ah! So it American research, so it has to be the gospel truth.
Their scientists have never put anything on the market that has caused birth defects have they?
I treat their research with the utmost caution.

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

You're telling me to hug a tree because I don't want fluoride added to my drinking water and yet I need to grow up?? Really?? When is your tenth birthday? Sever my pipe and declare independence? You mean instead of standing up for myself and others that don't want or need fluoridation? Why would I do that? Seriously, do you really think people that disagree with you should be seen and not heard? Like children? Because that's what we are right, children? Sorry, but it is you that is acting like the child. You that needs the SHA to look after your teeth with their forced medication program and you that is throwing your toys out of the pram when someone says something you can't argue with. Here's a novel idea, how about we leave the water alone, and find another way to treat those people that need and want treatment. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why are pro-fluoridation nutters so unwilling to find a compromise to keep everyone happy?

Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Go put on your hair shirt and live in a cave if you cannot move forward.

Well done for flawlessly proving my point.

Why are pro flouridation people nutters?

Perhaps it's because of their seemingly unwillingness to answer any questions I ask of them but instead pick out the most minor irrelevant detail and become obsessed with it and or start ridiculing anyone that has a difference of opinion.

if you can step out of the school playground for long enough perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to me what benefit fluoridation in the water will provide me with and what, if any risks there are to my health?

Hint: Statistics and research are irrelevant, I want to know what it will do for/to me personally.

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:
@ linesman well there is a start for you, now follow through with researching the names of those who have done the research and whose names are mentioned in the previous text. Facts are facts, those who peddle lies need to be exposed as corrupting influences on society and that includes the anyone who advocates poisoning water supplies. As previously stated dump some fluoride in the sea, then report yourself to the relevent authority and enjoy the prosecution you will recive for polluting the environment, then think again about your opinion of fluoride.

Ah! So it American research, so it has to be the gospel truth.
Their scientists have never put anything on the market that has caused birth defects have they?
I treat their research with the utmost caution.

Have British scientists never been wrong before then?

Actually, if he'd have argued for fluoridation and mentioned the number of scientists in the US in support of it, would you have still said "I treat their research with the utmost caution."?

headworm wrote:
Actually, if he'd have argued for fluoridation and mentioned the number of scientists in the US in support of it, would you have still said "I treat their research with the utmost caution."?

Yes! You would have received the same response.
The results of their research invariably produces the results that the company who funded the reasarch wants to hear.

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

You're telling me to hug a tree because I don't want fluoride added to my drinking water and yet I need to grow up?? Really?? When is your tenth birthday? Sever my pipe and declare independence? You mean instead of standing up for myself and others that don't want or need fluoridation? Why would I do that? Seriously, do you really think people that disagree with you should be seen and not heard? Like children? Because that's what we are right, children? Sorry, but it is you that is acting like the child. You that needs the SHA to look after your teeth with their forced medication program and you that is throwing your toys out of the pram when someone says something you can't argue with. Here's a novel idea, how about we leave the water alone, and find another way to treat those people that need and want treatment. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why are pro-fluoridation nutters so unwilling to find a compromise to keep everyone happy?

Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Go put on your hair shirt and live in a cave if you cannot move forward.

Well done for flawlessly proving my point. Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Perhaps it's because of their seemingly unwillingness to answer any questions I ask of them but instead pick out the most minor irrelevant detail and become obsessed with it and or start ridiculing anyone that has a difference of opinion. if you can step out of the school playground for long enough perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to me what benefit fluoridation in the water will provide me with and what, if any risks there are to my health? Hint: Statistics and research are irrelevant, I want to know what it will do for/to me personally.

It will stop your teeth from falling out. The majority do not have an issue with it so as I have said, if you do have an issue, turn off your supply and get it from somewhere else. There you go ...no statistics no research. What else would you like to know?

@ linesman

Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something.
Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

An important lesson must learnt here never again must our local community allow authoritys like SHA the powers to attack the very people they are put there to serve. With everyday that passes SHA is becoming irrelevant and its members will slink away to new pastures. Despite the court ruling I believe the SHA mission to contaminate and poison our water supply will fail and the local people and the passing of time has defeated them.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE ITS TRUE

roger dawson wrote:
@ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned "concentration". It's all about quantity. As I have said to others.....if it bothers you, turn off the stopcock in the road, tell the water authority "no thanks" and do your own thing. It's not as if you are being forced to drink it or wash your teeth!

forest hump wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned "concentration". It's all about quantity. As I have said to others.....if it bothers you, turn off the stopcock in the road, tell the water authority "no thanks" and do your own thing. It's not as if you are being forced to drink it or wash your teeth!

Oh and one more thing. You are in Cheshire so why do you give a t@ss

roger dawson wrote:
@ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps.

I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons:
a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and
b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work.

In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person.

I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

Linesman you're driving me round the bend! Seriously you keep saying there is no evidence to show that fluoride is harmful but there is. Hundreds of studies have been conducted and papers published giving conclusions but because the fluoride lobby have pushed this muck for so long unsuspecting Health bodies believe the mantra. If you had been religiously pushing something and then were faced with the possibility that it may not be all its cooked up to be what do you do? Admit it and leave yourself open to litigation? Remember Asbestos? What people do not realise is that before that number hit the fan opponents had been beavering away for years to get the information out into the open. Please inform yourself of the facts. Brand new book available in October books in Portswood by scientific professionals drawing on all the latest research. 'The case against fluoride'. Ask any water technician about where this stuff is sourced from and how hazardous it is. The bottom line is that they should not use the water supply to medicate a population against its will. If people want it it is available in tablet form. Please do not assume because people are in positions of power that they know everything. The SHA board that voted on whether to put this in the wter were mad up of a cross section of people. To my knowledge there were two mobile phone company bosses on that board. Just because a board is meant to represent medical it is not necessary for them all to have a medical knowledge to sit on the board. Sounds unbelievable BUT it is true. I implore you to get into this subject and understand it. A production in Australia have just put their latest programme on You Tube in the hope of informing people worldwide. You will find it if you type in 'Fire Water: Australias Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace' It is in 9 parts and is a mirror image of what happens in the few UK fluoridated areas.

Linesman wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

The ingredients used to make Warfarin, that is used to stop blood clots, are also used to make rat poison.

Given the correct dose, it is quite safe for human consumption.

Fluoride is the same. Poison if consumed neat, but diluted to the degree that the water companies do, no problem.

Lenesman just read your bit about if diluted not a poison. How can you control the dose people have. They may put it in at the dosing station as 1 part per million but if I drink, bathe more than you I will obviously be imbibing more. Common sense really.

Sorry - I typed Lenessman instead of Linesman.

What do we do then Forest Hump? Why should we source our water elsewhere? And also buying bottled water is costly enough what about for bathing? Fluoride is absorbed through the skin. This measure is all about the inequalities to poor kids - apparently. Well what about the inequality when the poor kids cant afford to have the veneers put on their teeth because it is considered cosmetic and the NHS wont pay? Veneers by the way due to the fluorosis. Good old USA are about to reduce the fluoride in their wter to 00.07 ppm lower than we have naturally occurring in Southampton. Yes naturally - its in our water already as calcium fluoride. When the SHA put out their mantra of 'We want to top up the natural fluoride to 1 ppm' most people would have thought they meant the top up would be with natural fluoride - clever marketing ploy - not the HEXAFLUOROSILLIC ACID from the Phosphate Fertilizer industries that is never treated and is laced with other heavy metals including lead. An educated people is not as easily controlled as an ignorant people.

Calli wrote:
Linesman you're driving me round the bend! Seriously you keep saying there is no evidence to show that fluoride is harmful but there is. Hundreds of studies have been conducted and papers published giving conclusions but because the fluoride lobby have pushed this muck for so long unsuspecting Health bodies believe the mantra. If you had been religiously pushing something and then were faced with the possibility that it may not be all its cooked up to be what do you do? Admit it and leave yourself open to litigation? Remember Asbestos? What people do not realise is that before that number hit the fan opponents had been beavering away for years to get the information out into the open. Please inform yourself of the facts. Brand new book available in October books in Portswood by scientific professionals drawing on all the latest research. 'The case against fluoride'. Ask any water technician about where this stuff is sourced from and how hazardous it is. The bottom line is that they should not use the water supply to medicate a population against its will. If people want it it is available in tablet form. Please do not assume because people are in positions of power that they know everything. The SHA board that voted on whether to put this in the wter were mad up of a cross section of people. To my knowledge there were two mobile phone company bosses on that board. Just because a board is meant to represent medical it is not necessary for them all to have a medical knowledge to sit on the board. Sounds unbelievable BUT it is true. I implore you to get into this subject and understand it. A production in Australia have just put their latest programme on You Tube in the hope of informing people worldwide. You will find it if you type in 'Fire Water: Australias Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace' It is in 9 parts and is a mirror image of what happens in the few UK fluoridated areas.

Having read your post, I guess that it would not take much petrol.
If you had taken the time to read what I have been saying, you would see that I have stated that fluoride was first introduced into the water in the Midlands in 1964 - some 47 years ago.

The area's general health as well as the dental health has been monitored, and no detrimental effects have been recorded.

The average life-span of people in that area has not altered, but the incidence of tooth decay has been considerably reduced.

That, to my mind, is a far better yard-stick to judge the introduction by, rather than what scientists come up with from the confines of their laboratories and the effect that water, with a higher concentration of fluoride than is used in public water, has on white mice.

You asked 'how can you control the dose that people have?' I do not profess to know how it is introduced to the water, but it appears to have been done quite efficiently for 47 years in the Midlands.

Having spent some time in the Midlands, and the Midlanders that I have worked with drank the water. They bathed in the water. They washed their hair in the water. They used the water to clean their teeth and wash their clothes in the water.

I assume that, living in Southampton, you have also been to the beach to paddle/swim the same as I have. I wonder, when you were splashing about and ducking your head under the water, whether you thought about the effluent that is discharged to sea.
Nobody would have forced you to swim in the sea. It would have been your choice.

Perhaps you decided that the sea was not for you, so you decided to go to the swimming baths instead.

Did you wonder what the strong smell was? The chemical used to keep the water fit for the public to bathe in. Had you considered that, if it were not diluted to the right percentage, it was also a poison?
Have you complained to the City Council about that?
Of course not!
You prefer to join the anti-fluoride lobby.

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps. I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons: a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work. In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person. I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

@ linesman

It seems you know as much about the Nazi concentration camps and the goings on there as you do about fluoride. It would be a good idea to avoid what is fed to you down the tube into your front room and speak with those who know better, who have been to these places and who work with the chemicals you speaking up for.
There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view but really, I bet you belong with Hythe who believes in global warming being attributed to man, and that GM foods are needed to feed the world, and that because in live in Cheshire, why do I give a toss?
Truth is, you are all my fellow man in this world, County boundaries are where someone has drawn a line, it has no bearing on true reality.
It seems there are many who need an alarm clock to wake them and bring them into the physical world.

@ linesman

The comment about paranoia : I have a strong concern about the future of my extended family. Calling that paranoia could only come from someone who is complacent, all accepting or apathetic.
I don't wish to undermine any credibilty you have about yourself but do ask yourself, do you pursue study about matters or succumb to being a couch potato and sit agog at just that fed as documentaries by the controlled media or Government spin chanel called BBC? I may guess its the latter

Linesman wrote:

Calli wrote:
Linesman you're driving me round the bend! Seriously you keep saying there is no evidence to show that fluoride is harmful but there is. Hundreds of studies have been conducted and papers published giving conclusions but because the fluoride lobby have pushed this muck for so long unsuspecting Health bodies believe the mantra. If you had been religiously pushing something and then were faced with the possibility that it may not be all its cooked up to be what do you do? Admit it and leave yourself open to litigation? Remember Asbestos? What people do not realise is that before that number hit the fan opponents had been beavering away for years to get the information out into the open. Please inform yourself of the facts. Brand new book available in October books in Portswood by scientific professionals drawing on all the latest research. 'The case against fluoride'. Ask any water technician about where this stuff is sourced from and how hazardous it is. The bottom line is that they should not use the water supply to medicate a population against its will. If people want it it is available in tablet form. Please do not assume because people are in positions of power that they know everything. The SHA board that voted on whether to put this in the wter were mad up of a cross section of people. To my knowledge there were two mobile phone company bosses on that board. Just because a board is meant to represent medical it is not necessary for them all to have a medical knowledge to sit on the board. Sounds unbelievable BUT it is true. I implore you to get into this subject and understand it. A production in Australia have just put their latest programme on You Tube in the hope of informing people worldwide. You will find it if you type in 'Fire Water: Australias Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace' It is in 9 parts and is a mirror image of what happens in the few UK fluoridated areas.

Having read your post, I guess that it would not take much petrol.
If you had taken the time to read what I have been saying, you would see that I have stated that fluoride was first introduced into the water in the Midlands in 1964 - some 47 years ago.

The area's general health as well as the dental health has been monitored, and no detrimental effects have been recorded.

The average life-span of people in that area has not altered, but the incidence of tooth decay has been considerably reduced.

That, to my mind, is a far better yard-stick to judge the introduction by, rather than what scientists come up with from the confines of their laboratories and the effect that water, with a higher concentration of fluoride than is used in public water, has on white mice.

You asked 'how can you control the dose that people have?' I do not profess to know how it is introduced to the water, but it appears to have been done quite efficiently for 47 years in the Midlands.

Having spent some time in the Midlands, and the Midlanders that I have worked with drank the water. They bathed in the water. They washed their hair in the water. They used the water to clean their teeth and wash their clothes in the water.

I assume that, living in Southampton, you have also been to the beach to paddle/swim the same as I have. I wonder, when you were splashing about and ducking your head under the water, whether you thought about the effluent that is discharged to sea.
Nobody would have forced you to swim in the sea. It would have been your choice.

Perhaps you decided that the sea was not for you, so you decided to go to the swimming baths instead.

Did you wonder what the strong smell was? The chemical used to keep the water fit for the public to bathe in. Had you considered that, if it were not diluted to the right percentage, it was also a poison?
Have you complained to the City Council about that?
Of course not!
You prefer to join the anti-fluoride lobby.

You are contradicting yourself!!
If someone chooses to swim in the sea or the baths, that's a personal choice but it is a choice none the less. Nobody is forcing everyone to put chlorine in the home swimming pool are they?? Nobody is being forced to swim in the sea.

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:
Actually, if he'd have argued for fluoridation and mentioned the number of scientists in the US in support of it, would you have still said "I treat their research with the utmost caution."?

Yes! You would have received the same response.
The results of their research invariably produces the results that the company who funded the reasarch wants to hear.

I take it you know how much of the SHA's pro-fluoridation research comes from the USA?

If you seriously think this country is any different to the US in regards to how funding affects research you seriously deluded.

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

You're telling me to hug a tree because I don't want fluoride added to my drinking water and yet I need to grow up?? Really?? When is your tenth birthday? Sever my pipe and declare independence? You mean instead of standing up for myself and others that don't want or need fluoridation? Why would I do that? Seriously, do you really think people that disagree with you should be seen and not heard? Like children? Because that's what we are right, children? Sorry, but it is you that is acting like the child. You that needs the SHA to look after your teeth with their forced medication program and you that is throwing your toys out of the pram when someone says something you can't argue with. Here's a novel idea, how about we leave the water alone, and find another way to treat those people that need and want treatment. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why are pro-fluoridation nutters so unwilling to find a compromise to keep everyone happy?

Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Go put on your hair shirt and live in a cave if you cannot move forward.

Well done for flawlessly proving my point. Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Perhaps it's because of their seemingly unwillingness to answer any questions I ask of them but instead pick out the most minor irrelevant detail and become obsessed with it and or start ridiculing anyone that has a difference of opinion. if you can step out of the school playground for long enough perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to me what benefit fluoridation in the water will provide me with and what, if any risks there are to my health? Hint: Statistics and research are irrelevant, I want to know what it will do for/to me personally.

It will stop your teeth from falling out. The majority do not have an issue with it so as I have said, if you do have an issue, turn off your supply and get it from somewhere else. There you go ...no statistics no research. What else would you like to know?

The majority don't have an issue with it??????? Based on what??

Why should I or anyone else turn off their water supply?? Why don't you go buy some fluoride tablets? At least it would save us all this arguing.

Oh and btw, turning off the water supply won't stop anyone from receiving bills for their waste water and even if it did, why should people who don't want more additives in their water have to go out of their way to buy bottled water at more expense?

You are forgetting one crucial thing, the water in this country is owned by the people in this country. That is all of us, not just people who agree with what the SHA want to put in it but everyone. That means anyone has a voice in what goes into it whether you or the SHA like it or not.

There is also no guarantee that it will stop anyone's teeth falling out and you certainly have no idea what it will do to mine; you're not my dentist for a start.

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps. I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons: a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work. In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person. I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

@ linesman It seems you know as much about the Nazi concentration camps and the goings on there as you do about fluoride. It would be a good idea to avoid what is fed to you down the tube into your front room and speak with those who know better, who have been to these places and who work with the chemicals you speaking up for. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view but really, I bet you belong with Hythe who believes in global warming being attributed to man, and that GM foods are needed to feed the world, and that because in live in Cheshire, why do I give a toss? Truth is, you are all my fellow man in this world, County boundaries are where someone has drawn a line, it has no bearing on true reality. It seems there are many who need an alarm clock to wake them and bring them into the physical world.

Stange as it may seem, I was a very good friend of two Polish Jews who survived concentration camps, so the information that I received was not 'down the tube', but straight from the victims' mouths.

With regard your betting habits, it would appear that you are also a loser in that respect as well.

As I have visited Cheshire, for you to chose to live there, it could be assumed by some that you do not give a toss.

I have my religious beliefs, and I certainly do not need a 'Saviour' from Cheshire to come preaching to me that they know best and I know nothing. I remember what happened to the people who followed a self-proclaimed 'saviour' when he persuaded them to follow him to Jonestown.

With regard contradicting myself about swimming in the sea or swimming baths, the same applies to drinking water from the tap. Nobody is forced to drink tap water.

The sales of bottled water have steadily increased since WWII, so there is your alternative. Of course it costs a bit more, but as it is an alternative to what you see is a poison, then it must be well worth the price.

For washing, you can always have a water-butt in the garden so that you can bathe in rainwater, or even get a water diviner in to see whether you can dig a well in your garden. The options are there, it is just a case of getting off your rear-end to do something about it.

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

You're telling me to hug a tree because I don't want fluoride added to my drinking water and yet I need to grow up?? Really?? When is your tenth birthday? Sever my pipe and declare independence? You mean instead of standing up for myself and others that don't want or need fluoridation? Why would I do that? Seriously, do you really think people that disagree with you should be seen and not heard? Like children? Because that's what we are right, children? Sorry, but it is you that is acting like the child. You that needs the SHA to look after your teeth with their forced medication program and you that is throwing your toys out of the pram when someone says something you can't argue with. Here's a novel idea, how about we leave the water alone, and find another way to treat those people that need and want treatment. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why are pro-fluoridation nutters so unwilling to find a compromise to keep everyone happy?

Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Go put on your hair shirt and live in a cave if you cannot move forward.

Well done for flawlessly proving my point. Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Perhaps it's because of their seemingly unwillingness to answer any questions I ask of them but instead pick out the most minor irrelevant detail and become obsessed with it and or start ridiculing anyone that has a difference of opinion. if you can step out of the school playground for long enough perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to me what benefit fluoridation in the water will provide me with and what, if any risks there are to my health? Hint: Statistics and research are irrelevant, I want to know what it will do for/to me personally.

It will stop your teeth from falling out. The majority do not have an issue with it so as I have said, if you do have an issue, turn off your supply and get it from somewhere else. There you go ...no statistics no research. What else would you like to know?

The majority don't have an issue with it??????? Based on what?? Why should I or anyone else turn off their water supply?? Why don't you go buy some fluoride tablets? At least it would save us all this arguing. Oh and btw, turning off the water supply won't stop anyone from receiving bills for their waste water and even if it did, why should people who don't want more additives in their water have to go out of their way to buy bottled water at more expense? You are forgetting one crucial thing, the water in this country is owned by the people in this country. That is all of us, not just people who agree with what the SHA want to put in it but everyone. That means anyone has a voice in what goes into it whether you or the SHA like it or not. There is also no guarantee that it will stop anyone's teeth falling out and you certainly have no idea what it will do to mine; you're not my dentist for a start.

"You are forgetting one crucial thing, the water in this country is owned by the people in this country."

That may have been the case at one time, but not any more. It was sold off long ago. You will be telling me next that we own the electricity company, gas company, British Telecom, British Rail etc etc. The only thing that we have is the air, and that's polluted by an oil refinery, its subsidiaries, incinerators, cars etc etc.

As I have already informed Roger Dawson, the self-professed expert from Cheshire, there is no requirement for you to drink water from the tap.

If you are so concerned, you have a number of alternatives.

You could move to an area where fluoride is not added to the water.

You could buy bottled water for consumption.

You could have a well dug in your garden.

If you are worried about absorbing fluoride through the skin, you can collect rain water, and use that for washing.

If you were to do so, I am certain that you would not be the only paranoid person that would be doing so.

If your mains water remains connected, you can always water the lawn.

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps. I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons: a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work. In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person. I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

@ linesman It seems you know as much about the Nazi concentration camps and the goings on there as you do about fluoride. It would be a good idea to avoid what is fed to you down the tube into your front room and speak with those who know better, who have been to these places and who work with the chemicals you speaking up for. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view but really, I bet you belong with Hythe who believes in global warming being attributed to man, and that GM foods are needed to feed the world, and that because in live in Cheshire, why do I give a toss? Truth is, you are all my fellow man in this world, County boundaries are where someone has drawn a line, it has no bearing on true reality. It seems there are many who need an alarm clock to wake them and bring them into the physical world.

Stange as it may seem, I was a very good friend of two Polish Jews who survived concentration camps, so the information that I received was not 'down the tube', but straight from the victims' mouths.

With regard your betting habits, it would appear that you are also a loser in that respect as well.

As I have visited Cheshire, for you to chose to live there, it could be assumed by some that you do not give a toss.

I have my religious beliefs, and I certainly do not need a 'Saviour' from Cheshire to come preaching to me that they know best and I know nothing. I remember what happened to the people who followed a self-proclaimed 'saviour' when he persuaded them to follow him to Jonestown.

With regard contradicting myself about swimming in the sea or swimming baths, the same applies to drinking water from the tap. Nobody is forced to drink tap water.

The sales of bottled water have steadily increased since WWII, so there is your alternative. Of course it costs a bit more, but as it is an alternative to what you see is a poison, then it must be well worth the price.

For washing, you can always have a water-butt in the garden so that you can bathe in rainwater, or even get a water diviner in to see whether you can dig a well in your garden. The options are there, it is just a case of getting off your rear-end to do something about it.

The same does not apply to drinking water, it's completely different, for one thing and you haven't considered people who aren't able to afford bottled water or get out to buy it and do you really think everyone has a bloody garden?? Get real, you really are showing yourself up to be a complete moron. All the 'facts, statistics and cheery-picked research just hides the fact that beneath it all, you are completely full of it.

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

headworm wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote:

forest hump wrote:

peter sowerby wrote: Contaminated with poison re- fluoride! are you trying to say fluoride is not poison?

Listen to what Linesman is saying! You are missing the point. Flourine, chlorine (table salt, of which contains flourine), bromine and iodine. The Halogens are an irreplaceable part of our pharmaceutical industry. You are obviously not aware of their significant part of everyday life!

I am but just a simple soul, but are you saying fluoride is safe?I still dont understand why I have to drink what you say is part of our pharmaceutical industry products against my will.

I cannot understand what you are saying! I am not saying anything is not a poison. It is all about ingestion levels. If you have an issue with flouridation of water then I suggest you look into chlorination! Another halogen... just a few electrons and protons make it different. If you still have an issue... sever your water pipe and declare independance.

Chlorination is done to clean the water isn't it? Fluoridation for medicinal purposes no? (and waste disposal, money etc) The two are completely different in that respect. Chlorination is not the issue. Ridiculous argument of the week award goes to...

sever your pipe and declare independance. If you do not like it, then do your own thing. Many water authorities have been flouridating water. Go hug a tree and grow up.

You're telling me to hug a tree because I don't want fluoride added to my drinking water and yet I need to grow up?? Really?? When is your tenth birthday? Sever my pipe and declare independence? You mean instead of standing up for myself and others that don't want or need fluoridation? Why would I do that? Seriously, do you really think people that disagree with you should be seen and not heard? Like children? Because that's what we are right, children? Sorry, but it is you that is acting like the child. You that needs the SHA to look after your teeth with their forced medication program and you that is throwing your toys out of the pram when someone says something you can't argue with. Here's a novel idea, how about we leave the water alone, and find another way to treat those people that need and want treatment. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why are pro-fluoridation nutters so unwilling to find a compromise to keep everyone happy?

Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Go put on your hair shirt and live in a cave if you cannot move forward.

Well done for flawlessly proving my point. Why are pro flouridation people nutters? Perhaps it's because of their seemingly unwillingness to answer any questions I ask of them but instead pick out the most minor irrelevant detail and become obsessed with it and or start ridiculing anyone that has a difference of opinion. if you can step out of the school playground for long enough perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to me what benefit fluoridation in the water will provide me with and what, if any risks there are to my health? Hint: Statistics and research are irrelevant, I want to know what it will do for/to me personally.

It will stop your teeth from falling out. The majority do not have an issue with it so as I have said, if you do have an issue, turn off your supply and get it from somewhere else. There you go ...no statistics no research. What else would you like to know?

The majority don't have an issue with it??????? Based on what?? Why should I or anyone else turn off their water supply?? Why don't you go buy some fluoride tablets? At least it would save us all this arguing. Oh and btw, turning off the water supply won't stop anyone from receiving bills for their waste water and even if it did, why should people who don't want more additives in their water have to go out of their way to buy bottled water at more expense? You are forgetting one crucial thing, the water in this country is owned by the people in this country. That is all of us, not just people who agree with what the SHA want to put in it but everyone. That means anyone has a voice in what goes into it whether you or the SHA like it or not. There is also no guarantee that it will stop anyone's teeth falling out and you certainly have no idea what it will do to mine; you're not my dentist for a start.

"You are forgetting one crucial thing, the water in this country is owned by the people in this country."

That may have been the case at one time, but not any more. It was sold off long ago. You will be telling me next that we own the electricity company, gas company, British Telecom, British Rail etc etc. The only thing that we have is the air, and that's polluted by an oil refinery, its subsidiaries, incinerators, cars etc etc.

As I have already informed Roger Dawson, the self-professed expert from Cheshire, there is no requirement for you to drink water from the tap.

If you are so concerned, you have a number of alternatives.

You could move to an area where fluoride is not added to the water.

You could buy bottled water for consumption.

You could have a well dug in your garden.

If you are worried about absorbing fluoride through the skin, you can collect rain water, and use that for washing.

If you were to do so, I am certain that you would not be the only paranoid person that would be doing so.

If your mains water remains connected, you can always water the lawn.

Still no reason given as to why you can't buy some fluoride tablets which, would be a lot less hassle than digging a well in a flat or residential housing.

It seems to me it is you who needs a pulpit to preach your garbage from. Get back on to the subject of poisoning the water supply.Have you figured it out yet? its not going to happen. SHA won the court case but lost the battle. Is that what you are so angry about.

Linesman It is my choice if I bathe in the sea or swimming pool - I can avoid it if needs be. I cannot avoid the water from my tap unless I buy bottled water and have a very expensive filtration system fitted in my house. I already pay my water bills why should I have to shell out more because some children apparently benefit from it? And before you start I brought up 3 daughters on a very tight budget. They do not have any fillings. We all use fluoride free toothpaste. What official studies do you think have been done in Birmingham? They havnt looked because they dont want to find anything. I must ask you do you not agree with freedom from state control? Deep in the US Medical library is yet another new piece of reseach with the conclusion - DONT TOUCH THE STUFF!

Linesman It is my choice if I bathe in the sea or swimming pool - I can avoid it if needs be. I cannot avoid the water from my tap unless I buy bottled water and have a very expensive filtration system fitted in my house. I already pay my water bills why should I have to shell out more because some children apparently benefit from it? And before you start I brought up 3 daughters on a very tight budget. They do not have any fillings. We all use fluoride free toothpaste. What official studies do you think have been done in Birmingham? They havnt looked because they dont want to find anything. I must ask you do you not agree with freedom from state control? Deep in the US Medical library is yet another new piece of reseach with the conclusion - DONT TOUCH THE STUFF!

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps. I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons: a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work. In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person. I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

@ linesman It seems you know as much about the Nazi concentration camps and the goings on there as you do about fluoride. It would be a good idea to avoid what is fed to you down the tube into your front room and speak with those who know better, who have been to these places and who work with the chemicals you speaking up for. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view but really, I bet you belong with Hythe who believes in global warming being attributed to man, and that GM foods are needed to feed the world, and that because in live in Cheshire, why do I give a toss? Truth is, you are all my fellow man in this world, County boundaries are where someone has drawn a line, it has no bearing on true reality. It seems there are many who need an alarm clock to wake them and bring them into the physical world.

Stange as it may seem, I was a very good friend of two Polish Jews who survived concentration camps, so the information that I received was not 'down the tube', but straight from the victims' mouths. With regard your betting habits, it would appear that you are also a loser in that respect as well. As I have visited Cheshire, for you to chose to live there, it could be assumed by some that you do not give a toss. I have my religious beliefs, and I certainly do not need a 'Saviour' from Cheshire to come preaching to me that they know best and I know nothing. I remember what happened to the people who followed a self-proclaimed 'saviour' when he persuaded them to follow him to Jonestown. With regard contradicting myself about swimming in the sea or swimming baths, the same applies to drinking water from the tap. Nobody is forced to drink tap water. The sales of bottled water have steadily increased since WWII, so there is your alternative. Of course it costs a bit more, but as it is an alternative to what you see is a poison, then it must be well worth the price. For washing, you can always have a water-butt in the garden so that you can bathe in rainwater, or even get a water diviner in to see whether you can dig a well in your garden. The options are there, it is just a case of getting off your rear-end to do something about it.

The same does not apply to drinking water, it's completely different, for one thing and you haven't considered people who aren't able to afford bottled water or get out to buy it and do you really think everyone has a bloody garden?? Get real, you really are showing yourself up to be a complete moron. All the 'facts, statistics and cheery-picked research just hides the fact that beneath it all, you are completely full of it.

You lose the plot, so you revert to name calling.
How much tap water do you drink a day?
How much water do you think that you absorb when you have a wash or a shower?
If anyone is so paranoid about it, bearing in mind the amount of pollution in the air that we breath, I would have thought that they would have made sure they budgeted for the cost of bottled water for their tea or coffee.

Calli wrote:
Linesman It is my choice if I bathe in the sea or swimming pool - I can avoid it if needs be. I cannot avoid the water from my tap unless I buy bottled water and have a very expensive filtration system fitted in my house. I already pay my water bills why should I have to shell out more because some children apparently benefit from it? And before you start I brought up 3 daughters on a very tight budget. They do not have any fillings. We all use fluoride free toothpaste. What official studies do you think have been done in Birmingham? They havnt looked because they dont want to find anything. I must ask you do you not agree with freedom from state control? Deep in the US Medical library is yet another new piece of reseach with the conclusion - DONT TOUCH THE STUFF!

What evidence have you that checks have not been done on the dental health of those living in the Midlands that have had fluoride added to their water since 1967?

Are you saying that the NHS records of dental health for the area are just a figment of some civil servant's imagination, or are you claiming to have access to information that is not readily available to the general public?

It is because of the benefits that have been achieved, with no apparent detrimental effects, that the fluoridation of water has been continued.

So you brought up three daughters. Were you one of the parents that did not permit them to have the MMR vaccination?

It was scaremongering by a doctor with little knowledge of the subject that persuaded a number of parents not to let their children have the jab, resulting in drastic consequences in some cases.

There are some people that resist change. They are pessimists, who always look for the worst possible outcome, rather than see the proven benefits.

The fluoridation is being done for the benefit of the vast majority of those being served.

There are always people who look to the past and resist progress.

Believe it or not, despite space travel, proving that the earth is round, there is still in existence a 'Flat Earth Society.'

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps. I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons: a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work. In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person. I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

@ linesman It seems you know as much about the Nazi concentration camps and the goings on there as you do about fluoride. It would be a good idea to avoid what is fed to you down the tube into your front room and speak with those who know better, who have been to these places and who work with the chemicals you speaking up for. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view but really, I bet you belong with Hythe who believes in global warming being attributed to man, and that GM foods are needed to feed the world, and that because in live in Cheshire, why do I give a toss? Truth is, you are all my fellow man in this world, County boundaries are where someone has drawn a line, it has no bearing on true reality. It seems there are many who need an alarm clock to wake them and bring them into the physical world.

Stange as it may seem, I was a very good friend of two Polish Jews who survived concentration camps, so the information that I received was not 'down the tube', but straight from the victims' mouths. With regard your betting habits, it would appear that you are also a loser in that respect as well. As I have visited Cheshire, for you to chose to live there, it could be assumed by some that you do not give a toss. I have my religious beliefs, and I certainly do not need a 'Saviour' from Cheshire to come preaching to me that they know best and I know nothing. I remember what happened to the people who followed a self-proclaimed 'saviour' when he persuaded them to follow him to Jonestown. With regard contradicting myself about swimming in the sea or swimming baths, the same applies to drinking water from the tap. Nobody is forced to drink tap water. The sales of bottled water have steadily increased since WWII, so there is your alternative. Of course it costs a bit more, but as it is an alternative to what you see is a poison, then it must be well worth the price. For washing, you can always have a water-butt in the garden so that you can bathe in rainwater, or even get a water diviner in to see whether you can dig a well in your garden. The options are there, it is just a case of getting off your rear-end to do something about it.

The same does not apply to drinking water, it's completely different, for one thing and you haven't considered people who aren't able to afford bottled water or get out to buy it and do you really think everyone has a bloody garden?? Get real, you really are showing yourself up to be a complete moron. All the 'facts, statistics and cheery-picked research just hides the fact that beneath it all, you are completely full of it.

You lose the plot, so you revert to name calling.
How much tap water do you drink a day?
How much water do you think that you absorb when you have a wash or a shower?
If anyone is so paranoid about it, bearing in mind the amount of pollution in the air that we breath, I would have thought that they would have made sure they budgeted for the cost of bottled water for their tea or coffee.

What has the amount of water I bathe in or drink got to do with anything? I don't care how much water I absorb, so long as there's nothing added to it that I don't want or need.

My argument is not about paranoia, it's about my right not to be forced into drinking medication I don't want or need or having to buy bottled water because the option of of medicinal free water has been taken away from me, effectively switching off my water supply which would be illegal in the UK even if I refused to pay for it; and you think it's not our water??

The only claim the water companies have over it is that they clean it and we pay them for doing so. If we didn't pay and the water companies all went bust, do you think they'd take the water away with them? Why do you think we pay them to remove the waste water? It's our water, we pay them to take it away, and we pay them to clean it and deliver it. If they owned the water and we bought the water from them, how can we have a hose-pipe ban in the summer? If you bought the water you could do what you want with it but you don't and you can't because it's everyone's water.
That's why the water companies can't charge what they like for providing it, why they have no say in what goes into it; they can't even switch it off if you don't pay your water bill.

The pollution in the air has nothing to do with fluoridation so why bring it up and why not answer the questions I keep asking you? You've missed loads because you avoid the one's you have no reasonable answer to. Not that many of your arguments are reasonable. You still haven't told us where someone living in a flat digs their well and maybe when you do you can tell us how you justify expecting a pensioner to carry bottled water home from the supermarket and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it?

You are being completely unreasonable which is why you drove me to name calling but I apologise for calling you a moron... mostly so as not to offend any actual morons who happen to stop by for a read.

I'm sure there are much more accurate words to fit the type of person you are but I don't think there's much use in pointing them out as you've pretty much shown everyone already.

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps. I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons: a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work. In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person. I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

@ linesman It seems you know as much about the Nazi concentration camps and the goings on there as you do about fluoride. It would be a good idea to avoid what is fed to you down the tube into your front room and speak with those who know better, who have been to these places and who work with the chemicals you speaking up for. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view but really, I bet you belong with Hythe who believes in global warming being attributed to man, and that GM foods are needed to feed the world, and that because in live in Cheshire, why do I give a toss? Truth is, you are all my fellow man in this world, County boundaries are where someone has drawn a line, it has no bearing on true reality. It seems there are many who need an alarm clock to wake them and bring them into the physical world.

Stange as it may seem, I was a very good friend of two Polish Jews who survived concentration camps, so the information that I received was not 'down the tube', but straight from the victims' mouths. With regard your betting habits, it would appear that you are also a loser in that respect as well. As I have visited Cheshire, for you to chose to live there, it could be assumed by some that you do not give a toss. I have my religious beliefs, and I certainly do not need a 'Saviour' from Cheshire to come preaching to me that they know best and I know nothing. I remember what happened to the people who followed a self-proclaimed 'saviour' when he persuaded them to follow him to Jonestown. With regard contradicting myself about swimming in the sea or swimming baths, the same applies to drinking water from the tap. Nobody is forced to drink tap water. The sales of bottled water have steadily increased since WWII, so there is your alternative. Of course it costs a bit more, but as it is an alternative to what you see is a poison, then it must be well worth the price. For washing, you can always have a water-butt in the garden so that you can bathe in rainwater, or even get a water diviner in to see whether you can dig a well in your garden. The options are there, it is just a case of getting off your rear-end to do something about it.

The same does not apply to drinking water, it's completely different, for one thing and you haven't considered people who aren't able to afford bottled water or get out to buy it and do you really think everyone has a bloody garden?? Get real, you really are showing yourself up to be a complete moron. All the 'facts, statistics and cheery-picked research just hides the fact that beneath it all, you are completely full of it.

You lose the plot, so you revert to name calling. How much tap water do you drink a day? How much water do you think that you absorb when you have a wash or a shower? If anyone is so paranoid about it, bearing in mind the amount of pollution in the air that we breath, I would have thought that they would have made sure they budgeted for the cost of bottled water for their tea or coffee.

What has the amount of water I bathe in or drink got to do with anything? I don't care how much water I absorb, so long as there's nothing added to it that I don't want or need. My argument is not about paranoia, it's about my right not to be forced into drinking medication I don't want or need or having to buy bottled water because the option of of medicinal free water has been taken away from me, effectively switching off my water supply which would be illegal in the UK even if I refused to pay for it; and you think it's not our water?? The only claim the water companies have over it is that they clean it and we pay them for doing so. If we didn't pay and the water companies all went bust, do you think they'd take the water away with them? Why do you think we pay them to remove the waste water? It's our water, we pay them to take it away, and we pay them to clean it and deliver it. If they owned the water and we bought the water from them, how can we have a hose-pipe ban in the summer? If you bought the water you could do what you want with it but you don't and you can't because it's everyone's water. That's why the water companies can't charge what they like for providing it, why they have no say in what goes into it; they can't even switch it off if you don't pay your water bill. The pollution in the air has nothing to do with fluoridation so why bring it up and why not answer the questions I keep asking you? You've missed loads because you avoid the one's you have no reasonable answer to. Not that many of your arguments are reasonable. You still haven't told us where someone living in a flat digs their well and maybe when you do you can tell us how you justify expecting a pensioner to carry bottled water home from the supermarket and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it? You are being completely unreasonable which is why you drove me to name calling but I apologise for calling you a moron... mostly so as not to offend any actual morons who happen to stop by for a read. I'm sure there are much more accurate words to fit the type of person you are but I don't think there's much use in pointing them out as you've pretty much shown everyone already.

If you do not want to drink or bathe in water that has had chemicals added to it, then do not use the water that you get out of your tap.

If you think that it is nice, pure water that comes from springs in some place untouched by the industrial revolution centuries ago, then think again. A very high proportion is recycled water.

What do you think happens to the water that you flush down the toilet after you have evacuated your bowels or drained down your bladder?

It is filtered, has chemicals added to kill off bateria, and is then returned to you for you to 'get your own back'!

I note that you end your diatribe with more name calling which, as I have pointed out already, is a sure sign that you are either frustrated because your arguments make no sense whatsoever or are just being very childish.

As I have stated elsewhere. Drink bottled water and save rainwater to bathe in and use your mains water to flush the toilet.

It may cost you a bit more, but if it puts your mind at rest, it has to be worth it.

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps. I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons: a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work. In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person. I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

@ linesman It seems you know as much about the Nazi concentration camps and the goings on there as you do about fluoride. It would be a good idea to avoid what is fed to you down the tube into your front room and speak with those who know better, who have been to these places and who work with the chemicals you speaking up for. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view but really, I bet you belong with Hythe who believes in global warming being attributed to man, and that GM foods are needed to feed the world, and that because in live in Cheshire, why do I give a toss? Truth is, you are all my fellow man in this world, County boundaries are where someone has drawn a line, it has no bearing on true reality. It seems there are many who need an alarm clock to wake them and bring them into the physical world.

Stange as it may seem, I was a very good friend of two Polish Jews who survived concentration camps, so the information that I received was not 'down the tube', but straight from the victims' mouths. With regard your betting habits, it would appear that you are also a loser in that respect as well. As I have visited Cheshire, for you to chose to live there, it could be assumed by some that you do not give a toss. I have my religious beliefs, and I certainly do not need a 'Saviour' from Cheshire to come preaching to me that they know best and I know nothing. I remember what happened to the people who followed a self-proclaimed 'saviour' when he persuaded them to follow him to Jonestown. With regard contradicting myself about swimming in the sea or swimming baths, the same applies to drinking water from the tap. Nobody is forced to drink tap water. The sales of bottled water have steadily increased since WWII, so there is your alternative. Of course it costs a bit more, but as it is an alternative to what you see is a poison, then it must be well worth the price. For washing, you can always have a water-butt in the garden so that you can bathe in rainwater, or even get a water diviner in to see whether you can dig a well in your garden. The options are there, it is just a case of getting off your rear-end to do something about it.

The same does not apply to drinking water, it's completely different, for one thing and you haven't considered people who aren't able to afford bottled water or get out to buy it and do you really think everyone has a bloody garden?? Get real, you really are showing yourself up to be a complete moron. All the 'facts, statistics and cheery-picked research just hides the fact that beneath it all, you are completely full of it.

You lose the plot, so you revert to name calling. How much tap water do you drink a day? How much water do you think that you absorb when you have a wash or a shower? If anyone is so paranoid about it, bearing in mind the amount of pollution in the air that we breath, I would have thought that they would have made sure they budgeted for the cost of bottled water for their tea or coffee.

What has the amount of water I bathe in or drink got to do with anything? I don't care how much water I absorb, so long as there's nothing added to it that I don't want or need. My argument is not about paranoia, it's about my right not to be forced into drinking medication I don't want or need or having to buy bottled water because the option of of medicinal free water has been taken away from me, effectively switching off my water supply which would be illegal in the UK even if I refused to pay for it; and you think it's not our water?? The only claim the water companies have over it is that they clean it and we pay them for doing so. If we didn't pay and the water companies all went bust, do you think they'd take the water away with them? Why do you think we pay them to remove the waste water? It's our water, we pay them to take it away, and we pay them to clean it and deliver it. If they owned the water and we bought the water from them, how can we have a hose-pipe ban in the summer? If you bought the water you could do what you want with it but you don't and you can't because it's everyone's water. That's why the water companies can't charge what they like for providing it, why they have no say in what goes into it; they can't even switch it off if you don't pay your water bill. The pollution in the air has nothing to do with fluoridation so why bring it up and why not answer the questions I keep asking you? You've missed loads because you avoid the one's you have no reasonable answer to. Not that many of your arguments are reasonable. You still haven't told us where someone living in a flat digs their well and maybe when you do you can tell us how you justify expecting a pensioner to carry bottled water home from the supermarket and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it? You are being completely unreasonable which is why you drove me to name calling but I apologise for calling you a moron... mostly so as not to offend any actual morons who happen to stop by for a read. I'm sure there are much more accurate words to fit the type of person you are but I don't think there's much use in pointing them out as you've pretty much shown everyone already.

If you do not want to drink or bathe in water that has had chemicals added to it, then do not use the water that you get out of your tap.

If you think that it is nice, pure water that comes from springs in some place untouched by the industrial revolution centuries ago, then think again. A very high proportion is recycled water.

What do you think happens to the water that you flush down the toilet after you have evacuated your bowels or drained down your bladder?

It is filtered, has chemicals added to kill off bateria, and is then returned to you for you to 'get your own back'!

I note that you end your diatribe with more name calling which, as I have pointed out already, is a sure sign that you are either frustrated because your arguments make no sense whatsoever or are just being very childish.

As I have stated elsewhere. Drink bottled water and save rainwater to bathe in and use your mains water to flush the toilet.

It may cost you a bit more, but if it puts your mind at rest, it has to be worth it.

I apologise for name calling...
just not on weekdays.

You still can't answer the questions I asked you but you still repeat yourself despite my already replying to all of the points you raised yet again?? I really don't think you can be reading my replies??

If you're going to present an argument to someone, perhaps you could have the decency of elaborating on it when someone asks a question about it.

I'm not saying you do this all the time, but I've repeatedly asked how you justify your position in regards to the practicalities of people having to source their own water but, you keep ignoring those questions. Why?

So to quote from my previous post...
"You still haven't told us where someone living in a flat digs their well and maybe when you do you can tell us how you justify expecting a pensioner to carry bottled water home from the supermarket and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it?"

Also, do I really need to point out the different reasons for which chemicals are added to our water supply?
There's is a massive difference between using chemicals to clean the water and adding fluoride for medicinal purposes (even though it isn't recognised officially as medicinal) to it.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the difference.

Perhaps you would also be so kind to explain why you believe the inconvenience of having to avoid a service fundamental to survival should lay at the door of those who don't want something added to their water and not at those who do?
It seems an extreme approach to take in a free society when those that want more fluoride could consume it without inconveniencing anyone if they chose.

The one that no-one can get past is that if you were to dump some of this stuff in the sea and report yourself to the relevant authority you will certainly be prosecuted for polluting the environment. It just speaks for itself but for some people their first opinion becomes a mindset. It's just people.

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote:

Linesman wrote:

roger dawson wrote: @ linesman Go ahead, suck up to anyone who has the word 'authority' in their title who tells you something. Begin researching how the Nazis put Fluoride in the water they gave to the Jews in concentration camps so that they became subdued, allowing thousands of people to be controlled by but a handful, literally less than ten men. I have been on the fluoride case for years and the evidence is overwhelming but if you wish to believe the opposite, theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that well-fed guards, who were well armed and also had trained dogs also had a bearing on why the Jews, who had travelled for days in cattle trucks, without food or water, were easily subdued in concentration camps. I doubt very much that fluoride was used in the water given to the Jews, for two reasons: a) The elderly and those too young to work were not kept long enough to warrant any water and b) The fittest were required to work, and so they were given just sufficient for them to work. In some camps where Mengle worked, experiments of various kinds were carried out, but none that have been recorded were done just to subdue a person. I am not surprised to hear that you have been on the fluoride case for years. You do appear rather paranoid about it.

@ linesman It seems you know as much about the Nazi concentration camps and the goings on there as you do about fluoride. It would be a good idea to avoid what is fed to you down the tube into your front room and speak with those who know better, who have been to these places and who work with the chemicals you speaking up for. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view but really, I bet you belong with Hythe who believes in global warming being attributed to man, and that GM foods are needed to feed the world, and that because in live in Cheshire, why do I give a toss? Truth is, you are all my fellow man in this world, County boundaries are where someone has drawn a line, it has no bearing on true reality. It seems there are many who need an alarm clock to wake them and bring them into the physical world.

Stange as it may seem, I was a very good friend of two Polish Jews who survived concentration camps, so the information that I received was not 'down the tube', but straight from the victims' mouths. With regard your betting habits, it would appear that you are also a loser in that respect as well. As I have visited Cheshire, for you to chose to live there, it could be assumed by some that you do not give a toss. I have my religious beliefs, and I certainly do not need a 'Saviour' from Cheshire to come preaching to me that they know best and I know nothing. I remember what happened to the people who followed a self-proclaimed 'saviour' when he persuaded them to follow him to Jonestown. With regard contradicting myself about swimming in the sea or swimming baths, the same applies to drinking water from the tap. Nobody is forced to drink tap water. The sales of bottled water have steadily increased since WWII, so there is your alternative. Of course it costs a bit more, but as it is an alternative to what you see is a poison, then it must be well worth the price. For washing, you can always have a water-butt in the garden so that you can bathe in rainwater, or even get a water diviner in to see whether you can dig a well in your garden. The options are there, it is just a case of getting off your rear-end to do something about it.

The same does not apply to drinking water, it's completely different, for one thing and you haven't considered people who aren't able to afford bottled water or get out to buy it and do you really think everyone has a bloody garden?? Get real, you really are showing yourself up to be a complete moron. All the 'facts, statistics and cheery-picked research just hides the fact that beneath it all, you are completely full of it.

You lose the plot, so you revert to name calling. How much tap water do you drink a day? How much water do you think that you absorb when you have a wash or a shower? If anyone is so paranoid about it, bearing in mind the amount of pollution in the air that we breath, I would have thought that they would have made sure they budgeted for the cost of bottled water for their tea or coffee.

What has the amount of water I bathe in or drink got to do with anything? I don't care how much water I absorb, so long as there's nothing added to it that I don't want or need. My argument is not about paranoia, it's about my right not to be forced into drinking medication I don't want or need or having to buy bottled water because the option of of medicinal free water has been taken away from me, effectively switching off my water supply which would be illegal in the UK even if I refused to pay for it; and you think it's not our water?? The only claim the water companies have over it is that they clean it and we pay them for doing so. If we didn't pay and the water companies all went bust, do you think they'd take the water away with them? Why do you think we pay them to remove the waste water? It's our water, we pay them to take it away, and we pay them to clean it and deliver it. If they owned the water and we bought the water from them, how can we have a hose-pipe ban in the summer? If you bought the water you could do what you want with it but you don't and you can't because it's everyone's water. That's why the water companies can't charge what they like for providing it, why they have no say in what goes into it; they can't even switch it off if you don't pay your water bill. The pollution in the air has nothing to do with fluoridation so why bring it up and why not answer the questions I keep asking you? You've missed loads because you avoid the one's you have no reasonable answer to. Not that many of your arguments are reasonable. You still haven't told us where someone living in a flat digs their well and maybe when you do you can tell us how you justify expecting a pensioner to carry bottled water home from the supermarket and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it? You are being completely unreasonable which is why you drove me to name calling but I apologise for calling you a moron... mostly so as not to offend any actual morons who happen to stop by for a read. I'm sure there are much more accurate words to fit the type of person you are but I don't think there's much use in pointing them out as you've pretty much shown everyone already.

If you do not want to drink or bathe in water that has had chemicals added to it, then do not use the water that you get out of your tap. If you think that it is nice, pure water that comes from springs in some place untouched by the industrial revolution centuries ago, then think again. A very high proportion is recycled water. What do you think happens to the water that you flush down the toilet after you have evacuated your bowels or drained down your bladder? It is filtered, has chemicals added to kill off bateria, and is then returned to you for you to 'get your own back'! I note that you end your diatribe with more name calling which, as I have pointed out already, is a sure sign that you are either frustrated because your arguments make no sense whatsoever or are just being very childish. As I have stated elsewhere. Drink bottled water and save rainwater to bathe in and use your mains water to flush the toilet. It may cost you a bit more, but if it puts your mind at rest, it has to be worth it.

I apologise for name calling... just not on weekdays. You still can't answer the questions I asked you but you still repeat yourself despite my already replying to all of the points you raised yet again?? I really don't think you can be reading my replies?? If you're going to present an argument to someone, perhaps you could have the decency of elaborating on it when someone asks a question about it. I'm not saying you do this all the time, but I've repeatedly asked how you justify your position in regards to the practicalities of people having to source their own water but, you keep ignoring those questions. Why? So to quote from my previous post... "You still haven't told us where someone living in a flat digs their well and maybe when you do you can tell us how you justify expecting a pensioner to carry bottled water home from the supermarket and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it?" Also, do I really need to point out the different reasons for which chemicals are added to our water supply? There's is a massive difference between using chemicals to clean the water and adding fluoride for medicinal purposes (even though it isn't recognised officially as medicinal) to it. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the difference. Perhaps you would also be so kind to explain why you believe the inconvenience of having to avoid a service fundamental to survival should lay at the door of those who don't want something added to their water and not at those who do? It seems an extreme approach to take in a free society when those that want more fluoride could consume it without inconveniencing anyone if they chose.

OK. Persons living in flats.
Have you ever seen how water is provided to areas when water mains have been damaged and the water cut off? Water bowsers deliver to an area, and the water is collected.
Anyone who is so worried about the introduction of Fluoride can always arrange for water to be provided in ten gallon barrels.
Where there is a will, there's a way. It just depends on how much it means to you. The vast majority don't object to its introduction as is evidenced by the number that protest compared with the number that will be affected.

As in so many cases, the wishes of the majority, in this case the silent majority, are catered to. If that were not the case, we would only be able to buy vegetables that are organically grown and all our eggs would be free-range.

Like non-fluoridated water, those things are available, at a greater cost, to those who think that they are a more healthy option, even though there is no evidence to show that by doing so you live longer or visit the doctor less. I imagine that, for some, it has a placebo effect.

If the plan to fluoridate water was dropped, I have no doubt that the self same people would be mounting another campaign against something that everyone else considers to be a good idea. In the forces, they were the ones that were always out of step.

With regard Roger Dawson's comment.
As regards dumping fluoride in the sea, it would depend on the amount that was dumped, and the area in which it was dumped. If it were to produce the same concentration as the concentration proposed for drinking water, I would assume that the authority to which you reported your actions to, would probably refer question your mentality.

If you are really interested Roger, may I suggest you take the action yourself, and report back the results.

@ linesman.

I already know what the outcome would be if I were to dump ANY amount of fluoride anywhere. It is you who struggles with the belief that it is a severe pollutant and is poisonous to any living organism. I suppose it just so happens that you prefer other people to make decisions for you, even when they have a monopoly over your tap water.
The education system in the western world merely endeavours to instill compliance into children in the hope they will become programmed to be compliant when they become adult, and I have to say, with many people it works well.
Best advice linesman--Question Everything, do your homework, know the corruption that is steering all of our lives. Either that or don't bother at all and accept everything that is thrown at you. Have you ever challenged anything because you thought it was not right?

Also @ linesman;

You are completely ignorant of the inconvenience your alternative solutions would be for people and quite arrogant towards anyone who opposes fluoridation. You seem to have no concept of compromise, not a second thought about finding a solution that suits everyone to keep the peace and help maintain a balanced society.
Your outlandish assumptions and generalisations of those people opposed to fluoridation are far worse than a little name calling too; how many do you know, you certainly don't know me well at all.

What facts do you have to support your theory that there is a silent majority in support of fluoridation? It is just as likely in this apathetic society that there is a silent majority opposed to fluoridation. Most of the people I know are against it but simply believe the decision is out of their hands but they don't spend their days thinking about it. They find it depressing to talk about because they feel they have no power over such decisions.

Maybe you know as many people for it, but either way, you can't possibly speak for a silent majority which you can't possibly know exists.

Do you think the people protesting and rioting in the streets over the Poll Tax were the only people opposed to it? Of course not, most people detested the poll tax and I strongly suspect that most people would say their council tax is too high and poorly spent but do most people do anything about it? No they don't because we live in a largely apathetic society. A powerless people in a democracy that has for many years operated as little more than a dictatorship that tip-toes around us so as not to wake us all up.
Lucky for those people that do have the courage to speak out (despite the ridicule it often attracts and the arrogance it brings out in others) are growing in number and things will change for the better even in these difficult times. Just bear in mind that if it gets worse in the short term, there will come a time when you are fundamentally opposed to something (like myself wanting to put something in your mouth!) and when you can't have your way because another 'proven' group of professionals say they know best despite your objections you will learn a harsh lesson about compromise and how the majority (though there probably isn't one in this case) are not always right.

I feel sorry for you and all those like you I really do. Even more so that you will find my taking pity on you to be so insulting though I suspect you will probably choose not to take offense publicly in this instance. Mind you, having said that, you will probably go out of your way to do the exact opposite of anything I might expect from you because there is little doubt in my mind that there is nothing we could ever agree on when I open my mouth (or type) first.

Perhaps if you made it through this rather long and boring post you might answer the question you missed.

"...and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it?"

Yawn.

roger dawson wrote:
@ linesman. I already know what the outcome would be if I were to dump ANY amount of fluoride anywhere. It is you who struggles with the belief that it is a severe pollutant and is poisonous to any living organism. I suppose it just so happens that you prefer other people to make decisions for you, even when they have a monopoly over your tap water. The education system in the western world merely endeavours to instill compliance into children in the hope they will become programmed to be compliant when they become adult, and I have to say, with many people it works well. Best advice linesman--Question Everything, do your homework, know the corruption that is steering all of our lives. Either that or don't bother at all and accept everything that is thrown at you. Have you ever challenged anything because you thought it was not right?

If you DUMP things, then you expect to be prosecuted.
The Health Authority are not intending to DUMP fluoride in the water, but add it as a prescribed amount.
I am quite prepared to accept the advice given by people qualified to give that advice, but I am very suspicious of people, of whom I have no knowledge and whose motives I suspect, trying to convince me that they know more that the professionals.
With regard your question about me challenging anything because I thought it was not right, I can answer in the affermative.
I have challenged a ruling as far as Europe, but could proceed no further because of cost. I have also challenged other proposals. In each case, I know the subject on which I am challenging.
Similarly, I have been active in supporting proposals.
With fluoridation, I am prepared to accept the experts' opinion, not that of the 'gifted amateurs'.

headworm wrote:
Also @ linesman; You are completely ignorant of the inconvenience your alternative solutions would be for people and quite arrogant towards anyone who opposes fluoridation. You seem to have no concept of compromise, not a second thought about finding a solution that suits everyone to keep the peace and help maintain a balanced society. Your outlandish assumptions and generalisations of those people opposed to fluoridation are far worse than a little name calling too; how many do you know, you certainly don't know me well at all. What facts do you have to support your theory that there is a silent majority in support of fluoridation? It is just as likely in this apathetic society that there is a silent majority opposed to fluoridation. Most of the people I know are against it but simply believe the decision is out of their hands but they don't spend their days thinking about it. They find it depressing to talk about because they feel they have no power over such decisions. Maybe you know as many people for it, but either way, you can't possibly speak for a silent majority which you can't possibly know exists. Do you think the people protesting and rioting in the streets over the Poll Tax were the only people opposed to it? Of course not, most people detested the poll tax and I strongly suspect that most people would say their council tax is too high and poorly spent but do most people do anything about it? No they don't because we live in a largely apathetic society. A powerless people in a democracy that has for many years operated as little more than a dictatorship that tip-toes around us so as not to wake us all up. Lucky for those people that do have the courage to speak out (despite the ridicule it often attracts and the arrogance it brings out in others) are growing in number and things will change for the better even in these difficult times. Just bear in mind that if it gets worse in the short term, there will come a time when you are fundamentally opposed to something (like myself wanting to put something in your mouth!) and when you can't have your way because another 'proven' group of professionals say they know best despite your objections you will learn a harsh lesson about compromise and how the majority (though there probably isn't one in this case) are not always right. I feel sorry for you and all those like you I really do. Even more so that you will find my taking pity on you to be so insulting though I suspect you will probably choose not to take offense publicly in this instance. Mind you, having said that, you will probably go out of your way to do the exact opposite of anything I might expect from you because there is little doubt in my mind that there is nothing we could ever agree on when I open my mouth (or type) first. Perhaps if you made it through this rather long and boring post you might answer the question you missed. "...and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it?" Yawn.

"You seem to have no concept of compromise."

In this case, that has to be one of the most stupid comments that have been made to date.

The issue is, fluoride or no fluoride. There is no half-way measure which could, in any way, be termed a compromise.

For you not to have grasped that fact would tend to indicate that it is you that is completely ignorant.

What facts to I have that there is a Silent Majority in favour of fluoridation. I do not have facts, no more than you have that the majority are against it.

However, it is usual that when there is an unpopular measure proposed, it is the protesters that come out in force. Student grant protests being an example. What protests have there been about the proposal to fluoridate the water? When you consider the area affected and the number of housholds in that area, hardly anyone has bothered. They accept that the experts are right, and that there will be benefits.

You mention the Poll Tax riots. That was about the fairness of the tax. The Lord of the Manor paying as much as someone living in a 'two up, two down' tenement house. The Lord of the Manor had a good deal, and did not complain, but the vast majority, virtually all in the lower income bracket, did. The majority knew it was wrong, protested and it was kicked out.

Now, the vast majority are NOT protesting. It is a comparatively few people with plenty of time on their hands, with nothing better to do.

There is no need to feel sorry for me. I am at peace with the world. I can see the wisdom of fluoridation, and accept the wisdom of those who will add it at the correct dilution, for the benefit of us all - you included!

Linesman wrote:

headworm wrote:
Also @ linesman; You are completely ignorant of the inconvenience your alternative solutions would be for people and quite arrogant towards anyone who opposes fluoridation. You seem to have no concept of compromise, not a second thought about finding a solution that suits everyone to keep the peace and help maintain a balanced society. Your outlandish assumptions and generalisations of those people opposed to fluoridation are far worse than a little name calling too; how many do you know, you certainly don't know me well at all. What facts do you have to support your theory that there is a silent majority in support of fluoridation? It is just as likely in this apathetic society that there is a silent majority opposed to fluoridation. Most of the people I know are against it but simply believe the decision is out of their hands but they don't spend their days thinking about it. They find it depressing to talk about because they feel they have no power over such decisions. Maybe you know as many people for it, but either way, you can't possibly speak for a silent majority which you can't possibly know exists. Do you think the people protesting and rioting in the streets over the Poll Tax were the only people opposed to it? Of course not, most people detested the poll tax and I strongly suspect that most people would say their council tax is too high and poorly spent but do most people do anything about it? No they don't because we live in a largely apathetic society. A powerless people in a democracy that has for many years operated as little more than a dictatorship that tip-toes around us so as not to wake us all up. Lucky for those people that do have the courage to speak out (despite the ridicule it often attracts and the arrogance it brings out in others) are growing in number and things will change for the better even in these difficult times. Just bear in mind that if it gets worse in the short term, there will come a time when you are fundamentally opposed to something (like myself wanting to put something in your mouth!) and when you can't have your way because another 'proven' group of professionals say they know best despite your objections you will learn a harsh lesson about compromise and how the majority (though there probably isn't one in this case) are not always right. I feel sorry for you and all those like you I really do. Even more so that you will find my taking pity on you to be so insulting though I suspect you will probably choose not to take offense publicly in this instance. Mind you, having said that, you will probably go out of your way to do the exact opposite of anything I might expect from you because there is little doubt in my mind that there is nothing we could ever agree on when I open my mouth (or type) first. Perhaps if you made it through this rather long and boring post you might answer the question you missed. "...and why it's not easier for everyone if those that want fluoride go and buy it?" Yawn.

"You seem to have no concept of compromise."

In this case, that has to be one of the most stupid comments that have been made to date.

The issue is, fluoride or no fluoride. There is no half-way measure which could, in any way, be termed a compromise.

For you not to have grasped that fact would tend to indicate that it is you that is completely ignorant.

What facts to I have that there is a Silent Majority in favour of fluoridation. I do not have facts, no more than you have that the majority are against it.

However, it is usual that when there is an unpopular measure proposed, it is the protesters that come out in force. Student grant protests being an example. What protests have there been about the proposal to fluoridate the water? When you consider the area affected and the number of housholds in that area, hardly anyone has bothered. They accept that the experts are right, and that there will be benefits.

You mention the Poll Tax riots. That was about the fairness of the tax. The Lord of the Manor paying as much as someone living in a 'two up, two down' tenement house. The Lord of the Manor had a good deal, and did not complain, but the vast majority, virtually all in the lower income bracket, did. The majority knew it was wrong, protested and it was kicked out.

Now, the vast majority are NOT protesting. It is a comparatively few people with plenty of time on their hands, with nothing better to do.

There is no need to feel sorry for me. I am at peace with the world. I can see the wisdom of fluoridation, and accept the wisdom of those who will add it at the correct dilution, for the benefit of us all - you included!

Compromise is finding a solution that keeps the as many people as possible happy. In this case, it would be finding a way to fluoridate those that want it while not affecting the lives of those that don't. There's nothing unrealistic or stupid about that.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp is it?

This is very observant of you:
"Now, the vast majority are NOT protesting. It is a comparatively few people with plenty of time on their hands, with nothing better to do."

How on earth do you know how much time people you have never met have on their hands and whether they have nothing better to do??

From this:
"As in so many cases, the wishes of the majority, in this case the silent majority, are catered to."

To this:
"What facts to I have that there is a Silent Majority in favour of fluoridation. I do not have facts, no more than you have that the majority are against it."

A very quick change indeed but did I ever say the majority were against it?

I was against the student fees, the forest sell-offs, fuel duty increases, joining the EU. These are all arguably unpopular yet I did not actively protest on any of them. In fact, unless you consider a fair few posts on here and a couple of other news websites, it could be said that I haven't really protested about fluoridation yet I am vehemently opposed to it, as are friends and relations who haven't even gone as far as commenting on a news web site.

For some, it simply winds them up too much and the stress of it all is too much. I know that sounds far fetched, but I promise you I am not making it up.

Like I said, apathy, a 'someone else will do it for me' attitude undeniably so typical of todays Britain.
Take the student fees for just one example, did all the students who supported the action attend the protests? Of course not, I suspect a minority of them did and an even smaller minority of other supporters like myself who sat at home reading about it or watching it on the news.

How about the fuel duty being so much higher now than when we had the fuel blockades? Have people suddenly stopped disagreeing or have they just accepted that they are powerless in the decision making? #
They feel there's nothing they can do and it's easier and a lot less hassle to change the channel and let someone else do something about it.

This is the country we live in. Sadly it gives anyone who does agree with unpopular decisions a much louder voice which I imagine is why you show such arrogance. It doesn't matter if it's just a few people right? That just gives you more credibility and them less and oh boy will you let them know it!

So, would it not be better for everyone, if those that want it go get it, and those that don't, don't? You know, like statins to lower cholesterol and prevent heart disease. Some people take statins, other change their diet and get some exercise.

The vast majority are not complaining about fluoridation, it is just a few, who think that they are better informed than the professionals, who are protesting.

Just like the small minority who objected to their children having the MMR vaccination, and are now seeing that the experts were correct, and some of their children are now suffering the consequences of their 'Mummy knows best' attitude.

These protesters are the sort of people who, against all reason, would claim that the tail wags the dog, rather than the dog wags the tail.

As I said, there can be no compromise when it is a case of either adding fluoride or not adding it, or do you think that it would be possible to add fluoride one day and not add it the next, so that you could drink on alternate days?

You accuse me of arrogance, just because I express my opinion as strongly as you do.

I am pleased that you do not accuse me of name calling, which is what you have done, which does nothing to soften my approach or my opinion, but rather shows you in a poor light.

If there were a way for the South Hants Water to provide the option of fluoridated or non-fluoridated water to its customers, that would be ideal, but how do you imagine that would be achieved, and at what cost?

Each residence to have two water supplies, from two different sources, with all the roads dug up to have the parallel system laid.

The resultant costs would be passed on to the consumer - You and Me - and we would find that it would result in it being far cheaper to take a bath in spa water.

Water is Sold to us.

No residence is forced to have mains water.

If you buy it, you accept it.

@ linesman,
food for thought.
As the population is getting older and the incidence of heart disease is becoming common, would it be a good idea to put a measure of aspirin into the drinking water to allay the effects of heart disease on the population? On the strength of your belief system as to how the water supply should be adulterated you will probably agree, or if you don't that would make you inconsistent with your stated view-----But wait a minute, years after telling people to take half an aspirin a day to fend off heart attacks, it has now been discovered that taking aspirin on a daily basis has no beneficial effects at all, in fact it is now known to be detrimental, causing digestion ailments. oooopps!! I don't know, these experts tch, tch.

roger dawson wrote:
@ linesman, food for thought. As the population is getting older and the incidence of heart disease is becoming common, would it be a good idea to put a measure of aspirin into the drinking water to allay the effects of heart disease on the population? On the strength of your belief system as to how the water supply should be adulterated you will probably agree, or if you don't that would make you inconsistent with your stated view-----But wait a minute, years after telling people to take half an aspirin a day to fend off heart attacks, it has now been discovered that taking aspirin on a daily basis has no beneficial effects at all, in fact it is now known to be detrimental, causing digestion ailments. oooopps!! I don't know, these experts tch, tch.

For a start, I have not got the scientific expertise to say whether adding Asprin to the water supply would be a good idea or not, or even whether it would be possible, and I would certainly not be involved in the scientific research.

There used to be adverts for 'drinka pinta milka day' which told us of the benefits of drinking milk, but that was not pushed by the NHS scientists , but the Milk Marketing Board.

With regard Asprin being prescribed. I go to my doctor, because I am aware that his years of training and experience puts him in a better position to know what would benefit my health and what does not. He, not only has better access to the latest information, but also has the expertise to understand what he is reading, with the ability to 'sort the wheat from the chaff.'

There is a saying, 'A little knowledge in dangerous', and by reading what some of the posters on this subject have printed, I think that there are a hell of a lot of them that show that there is a lot of truth in these old sayings.

I note that there is to be a legal challenge to the court's ruling.

Another old saying is, 'Actions speak louder than words.'

I bet that the vast majority of those bellyaching about fluoride will not be dipping their hands in their pockets to help with the legal costs.

@ linesman,

It is heartening to know that you went to your GP and asked his/her opinion regarding the human ingestion of fluoride, before you decided to support the cause. But then perhaps you didn't, you errrr believed the announcement just as it came to you, without question.
I have to say linesman, your attitude to what is acceptable for you, your offspring and your fellow man is inconsistent. Either you accept the principle of medicating the water supply, or you don't. You are doing both so good luck with your path of least resistance.

@ linesman,

It is heartening to know that you went to your GP and asked his/her opinion regarding the human ingestion of fluoride, before you decided to support the cause. But then perhaps you didn't, you errrr believed the announcement just as it came to you, without question.
I have to say linesman, your attitude to what is acceptable for you, your offspring and your fellow man is inconsistent. Either you accept the principle of medicating the water supply, or you don't. You are doing both so good luck with your path of least resistance.

roger dawson wrote:
@ linesman, It is heartening to know that you went to your GP and asked his/her opinion regarding the human ingestion of fluoride, before you decided to support the cause. But then perhaps you didn't, you errrr believed the announcement just as it came to you, without question. I have to say linesman, your attitude to what is acceptable for you, your offspring and your fellow man is inconsistent. Either you accept the principle of medicating the water supply, or you don't. You are doing both so good luck with your path of least resistance.

You appear to have the shakes Roger, perhaps you need medication.

I consult my doctor, and take his advice and also any medicine that he prescribes.

I am well aware that there are some people who have a 'Home Doctor' book that they consult before visiting their doctor, so that they can tell the doctor what is wrong with them.

Not having medical training, I am not into self-diagnosis. You may be, but I am not.

I fail to see what I have said has any inconsistency whatsoever.

If tests were carried out, by a recognised, reputable body, and they concluded that adding Asprin to the water supply was beneficial, then I would accept their findings.

As it is, I have no idea whether it would be possible to do such a thing, and if it were, would the cost involved make the price charged for the water delivered beyond the pocket of those being supplied?

Maybe there would be a reaction between Asprin and Fluoride, negating the beneficial effects of both, meaning a choice would have to be made - which one to add.

With no scientific background, I would never claim that I were better qualified to than those who conduct the research, and reach the decisions.

I also have no faith whatsoever in others, with a non-scientific background, who claim that they know best.

It was such a group that went against the advice of the health experts, and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccine, and it is some of their children that now suffer the consequences of their parents' ignorance and stupidity.

Can I just mention that fluoridation has nothing to do with the MMR vaccinations and if you need to keep bringing it up to 'strengthen' your case for fluoridation, it makes your arguments look very week indeed.

Still can't answer the very simple questions I asked you to support your view that those who don't want fluoride should suffer inconvenience because of those that do; regardless of how many.

Why can't you find a source for your own fluoride? It doesn't have to be supplied via the water mains, I am sure there are plenty of ways to increase fluoride consumption for those that feel they need it though quite why anyone would want to consume it to protect their teeth is beyond my comprehension.

Whether you choose to accept it or not, this will open the door to other forms of 'medication' being added to the water. Of course they too won't be classed as medication because that would fall foul of the human rights act; for a very good reason too.

Everyone in this country has a right to the water coming into their house and nobody can be expected to find it elsewhere. Do some research into who owns the water. We do not buy the water, we pay for the supply and cleaning of it. The water companies are mandated to supply it even if we refuse to pay them. They do not own the water so they cannot sell it.

So what then gives the SHA the right to mess with OUR water? Who said they get to decide what goes in it? The Government gave them the power to do this and because they now have that power the Government will refuse to get involved in their decision making process. It's a very clever maneuver ensuring the Government can implement what ever they want and avoid all the fallout from it both now and in the future. It's all part of Cameron's big society plan which in essence is simply removing the link between the electorate and the Government. Decisions made on a local level yes, but only by those put in a position of power by those at the top, not decisions made by local people when they can be ignored by 'experts' who know best.

It doesn't even matter how many people support it to the SHA. Do you really think that is a democratic process? On something so fundamental as the supply of water it shouldn't be anything less should it?

headworm wrote:
Can I just mention that fluoridation has nothing to do with the MMR vaccinations and if you need to keep bringing it up to 'strengthen' your case for fluoridation, it makes your arguments look very week indeed. Still can't answer the very simple questions I asked you to support your view that those who don't want fluoride should suffer inconvenience because of those that do; regardless of how many. Why can't you find a source for your own fluoride? It doesn't have to be supplied via the water mains, I am sure there are plenty of ways to increase fluoride consumption for those that feel they need it though quite why anyone would want to consume it to protect their teeth is beyond my comprehension. Whether you choose to accept it or not, this will open the door to other forms of 'medication' being added to the water. Of course they too won't be classed as medication because that would fall foul of the human rights act; for a very good reason too. Everyone in this country has a right to the water coming into their house and nobody can be expected to find it elsewhere. Do some research into who owns the water. We do not buy the water, we pay for the supply and cleaning of it. The water companies are mandated to supply it even if we refuse to pay them. They do not own the water so they cannot sell it. So what then gives the SHA the right to mess with OUR water? Who said they get to decide what goes in it? The Government gave them the power to do this and because they now have that power the Government will refuse to get involved in their decision making process. It's a very clever maneuver ensuring the Government can implement what ever they want and avoid all the fallout from it both now and in the future. It's all part of Cameron's big society plan which in essence is simply removing the link between the electorate and the Government. Decisions made on a local level yes, but only by those put in a position of power by those at the top, not decisions made by local people when they can be ignored by 'experts' who know best. It doesn't even matter how many people support it to the SHA. Do you really think that is a democratic process? On something so fundamental as the supply of water it shouldn't be anything less should it?

It would appear that although you have read what I have written about MMR, you appear not to have understood what I was saying.

I was comparing the parents who, although they had no scientific background, were prepared to accept the opinion of one doctor, as opposed to that of the BMA and government scientists, with the anti-fluoride brigade. Like the anti-MMR parents, they listen to a scare story, and think that they know best.

On the advice of my local dentist, my childrens' teeth were given fluoride treatment more than 30 years ago, and they have excellent teeth.

As it is only a very small minority of the area affected that are protesting against the addition of fluoride, it would appear that the vast majority are accepting the good sense of its inclusion, so the minority should accept it.

Yes! I do think that is the democratic process.

It would appear that the vast majority can see the good sense of fluoridation, having been made aware of the beneficial effect it has had on the teeth of people in the Midlands, who have had the benefit of this treatment since 1964. 46 years of benefit, with no detrimental side effects. That's good enough for them and good enough for me.

Of course, with your vast scientific background, and years of experience in that field, you have come to a different conclusion to all the others.

If you did National Service, I expect you were the only one in the platoon that was in-step when marching.

You are talking out of your backside.

You have no idea about majority opinion on this issue. None whatsoever so stop pretending you do or assuming the majority is in agreement with you. YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!

Secondly, stop trying to make out I am against fluoridation because of health reasons or scientific reasons. You are trying to insult me by pointing out I'm not a scientist? So only scientists get to have a say on an important human rights issue?

I have said time and again why I am against fluoridation so your statistics in the midlands mean nothing yet you keep repeating them like a broken record but you still can't answer my question about why people who want fluoride can't simply get it for themselves and leave everyone else out of it.
For heavens sake, is it that much of a difficult question for you?? I am starting to wonder if you're not some sort of advanced computer system pretending to be human. Please answer the question why you can't source your own fluoride and leave me out of it??

My health is none of your business.

Try not to forget that you just said that your children were given fluoride treatment 30 years ago. How so? Is it not an option for people now??

National Service?? What you on about?? Battery getting low?

It may have escaped your notice, but it is those that are against change that protest and demonstrate, carrying banners, where those that accept the proposal realise the benefit to be achieved. That is the case with fluoride, and having seen the number of protesters, compared with the number of people that accept fluoridation as a benefit for all, I come to the conclusion that the majority are in favour.

How can I be trying to insult you by saying you are not a scientist? How is that an insult? Have you lost touch with the English language?

If anyone is being insulting it is the person who resorts to name-calling instead of putting a logical argument.

With regard your health situation, you are right, it is none of my concern, but I can imagine that it has raised may questions amonst your family.

The fluoride treatment that my children were given was not NHS, but paid for by myself, on advice given from various sources. It has proved to be most effective. I have no idea whether it is still an option as I have had no reason to ask.

With regard the question that you claim I refuse to answer.

The reason for fluoridation is to improve the dental health of everyone, and that includes those who are not very well educated, and those who are amongst the poorest in society. It could well come under the heading of Care in the community. To include those who need our help.

I had assumed that you would be aware that there was a time whey males, in their late teens, were required to serve in the armed forces for a couple of years.

If you had been called upon to have done your National Service, I could imagine that when your platoon was on the march, you would claim that you were the only one in step.

Actually I have two left feet so ner. lol

So some people have bad teeth and they need my help. Isn't that why we have the NHS and pay National Insurance? Isn't that why we have free education?

It's not my fault someone didn't go to school, or someone didn't brush their teeth but, I already pay towards their health and education problems. If the people we pay aren't capable of providing for the people we are paying them to care for, ie the poor and uneducated for example, then that's an issue they need to sort out. Forcing the water companies to put fluoride in the water is an extreme option and as you have stated yourself, there are other options to protect one's teeth. You are living proof are you not?
If those options aren't available for the poor or uneducated then they can be addressed without expecting everyone else to medicate via the tap.

Why aren't the SHA shouting from the rooftops about the lack of NHS dentists? Could it be perhaps that there's no money to be made in providing more NHS dentistry?

Your opinion on a silent majority has no teeth whatsoever (no pun intended) As I said before, I don't know anyone in favor of fluoridation but also don't know one person with a banner and the time or inclination to actively protest about it. This doesn't not mean they do not exist and thankfully professional research and democracy does not use the same logic when deciding what the majority want in this country... yet.

I exist, yet I have not actively protested except on here (if you call this active!), a couple of forums and a few unanswered emails to the SHA. No surprise there. I am living proof that protestors exist whilst remaining inactive on a number of issues but if I had the time and money available to take time off work to participate then I would but like most people, in this current financial climate, time and money aren't in great supply.

You will also find that poorer people tend to housing and unemployment benefits, something I have to provide for myself on a below average income yet I still manage to brush my teeth because I am an adult like any other responsible for my own health. The SHA are not my parents, and I am not a child (though I reserve the right to act like one).

I never said pointing out I wasn't a scientist was insulting and you never pointed it out. However, you were being sarcastic with your remarks about my 'vast scientific background' which could be regarded as insulting which is why I merely 'asked' you (with a question mark on the end) if that's what you were trying to do.
My name calling was accompanied with a logical argument which backs up my earlier suggestion that you aren't reading my posts fully. (that's sarcasm btw) ;)

A typical 'Sod you Jack, I'm alright' attitude. It is those who have not had the education, who have somehow slipped through the net, that also need to be cared for.

It is also the case that, despite a good diet and regular health and dental care, not all teeth are same. My sister and I were brought up on the same diet and the same dental care, yet she has worn false teeth for years, and I have practically a full set, and there is only three years difference in our ages.

If you are so worried about paying for the health of others, the cost of fluordation is minimal compared to the cost to the NHS resulting from the effects of bad dental care. The mouth is the gateway to the body, and with bad teeth being a source of infection, the mass improvement in dental care should cut NHS costs in the long run.

With regard your comment, 'If the people we pay aren't capable of providing for the people we are paying them to care for ie the poor and the uneducated for example, then that's an issue they need to sort out.' By fluoridating the water, that is just what they are doing, and the intelligencia are benefitting at the same time.

As I have said, the cost of fluoridation is relatively small, but it is steadily rising because the cost of the legal action to prevent fluoridation is not being met by the protesters, but also those who see the proven benefits. Now that there is to be an appeal, the barristers involved will be laughing all the way to the bank, the protesters will have had a few days in the spotlight, and the costs will, once again, be picked up by Joe Public.

I don't know how much fluoridating the water costs, neither do I care. What I said was, I already pay taxes towards people's health so if people have bad teeth, it's obviously not being spent very wisely (no surprise there).

Fluoridation doesn't have to be the answer. It's an easy one size fits all solution that kills two birds with one stone and either makes or saves someone a great deal of money. Purely coincidental of course.

It's fine to compromise on things to improve society but there is such a thing as going too far and my opinion, (and that of the human rights act) is that forced medication is a step too far.

That's not a 'Sod you Jack, I'm alright' attitude at all. I would have the same attitude for any mass medication program through the water supply because it's not the behavior of a free & democratic society. It is the behavior however of a nannying, interfering society with a Government who have cleverly taken themselves out of the decision making process keeping themselves out of the firing line whilst handing absolute power over our lives to a small group of unelected 'professionals'.
We have no say in this at all so even if you are right about a silent majority (which you aren't) it would make no difference. They don't need to know how many people are for or against and they really don't give a **** one way or another because they have the power to decide for us all regardless of what we think individually or collectively.

Where is the democracy in that?

There is none, it is both foolish and irresponsible to trust otherwise. Future generations will have to live with the ignorance we show today and it's things like this that will set a precedent for future interference in our lives.

It's not worth losing an ounce of democracy to save any number of teeth which could (and should already) be protected by other means.

You seem to think bad teeth, being in the mouth or the 'gateway to the rest of the body' is an important root cause of other medical problems as well as teeth therefore fluoridation will 'cut NHS costs in the long run' ?

Not sure if that's what you meant.

If we are looking at causes of problems, and costs, then we shouldn't have reached the fluoride debate at all. It is poor and uneducated people that need our help the most so lets tackle the root cause of that problem such as being poor and uneducated.
You must surely agree with me on this?

But wait a minute, we have a Government that have devalued the pound, cut back public services (health included) and increased the cost of education and of course travel costs as well as making it more difficult to get financial help through benefits and also advice in times of financial hardship...

...but they are concerned about teeth??

I think it's time to face the fact that they don't give a **** about any of us; teeth or no teeth.

The democracy is that the government, both national and local, are democratically elected, and take their decisions for the benefit of us all.

They listen to all groups and take the action that they consider appropriate.

It has proved beneficial in the Midlands, with detrimental effects on the population in that area, but scaremongering by a small group with their own agenda are just causing mischief. As I have previously said, there always seems to be a 'flock of sheep' who latch on to the predictions of a 'prophet of doom' as was the case with the doctor who advised against children being given the MMR vaccine. A little knowledge is dangerous, and they appear keen to listen to those with a little knowledge, rather than those who have the experience gained over decades.

With regard the legality of, what you claim is, mass medication, it is my understanding that the courts had not considered it to be against anyone's human rights.

I'll let you know what I am against. I am against having to contribute to the cost of the legal fees of these people who are challenging the proposed fluoridation of water. If, as you claim, the majority of people are against it, then I consider that they should band together and put their money where their mouth is.

I bet that if they were asked to contribute, they would soon change their minds and agree that fluoridation was not so bad after all - especially those who claim that their income is below the national average!

The recent case was not about the human rights aspect at all was it? I thought it was against the water company? The water company has no say in it so in that respect, the whole case certainly seems like a waste of money to me.

As I have previously stated though; mass medication of this sort is a breach of the human rights act, that is a fact however, because Fluoride is not recognised as a form of medication it is in a legal sense until proven otherwise, exempt from the act.
On one hand they are telling us about it's medicinal benefits while on the other claiming it's not medication.

That is wrong on so many levels.

The fact is, regardless of how it is classified, they are using it as medication so surely a decent lawyer should be able to convince a judge that mass medicating with it is in breach of the Act.

But, like I have stated, there is always a compromise if people are willing to explore and find a solution to suit everyone. How about adding it to milk so that people who want it can obtain it easily and those that don't can avoid it? Now there's a reasonable compromise no? Ok so it won't ensure everyone gets it, but at least all those that do will have the option and it can be regulated on an individual basis ie kids can have it even if the adults in the same household feel they don't need it.

I expect you will dismiss the idea as unworkable or unrealistic though. You seem to prefer the scenario of no individual choice whatsoever and no compromise. A socialist ideology more than a democratic one I would say.

Sadly though, I suspect the truth of the matter is that despite your misguided trust in the SHA, and your assumptions about a silent majority in favor of fluoridation, you can easily imagine that if Fluoridated Milk were available off the shelf in the supermarket, the shelves would be stacked full of the stuff and hardly anyone would buy it.

Or would your silent majority suddenly show itself and be lapping it up right there in the aisles?

I think not.

You are right. There is an alternative solution. Buy your water at the supermarket if you are that worried.

Add it to milk?

There are people who are allergic to milk who would not be able to benefit, but I have yet to hear of anyone that is allergic to water.

It is all very well to keep complaining about your human rights, but human rights of some have to be balanced against the rights of the many, which is why some people are deprived of their human rights by being locked up in prisons or secure hospitals. They lose their freedom for the benefit of the majority.

There are also cases where typhoid carriers have been detained in hospital with barrier nursing, for the benefit of the populace. I suppose you would want them let loose as well as their human rights have been denied.

Probably not, because all you are concerned about is yourself. As I have said earlier, a case of 'Sod you Jack, I'm alright!'

Quit talking out of your backside. What the hell do typhoid patients have to do with the fluoride debate? Nothing, it's totally irrelevant to fluoridation of our water or anything I have said.

What I said about human rights was purely in relation to the human rights act which the UK is a party to. The act is non negotiable, it's not a choice the Government or the SHA get to make but they are using a loophole to force fluoride into the water supply. Forcibly medicating people with something not regarded as medication. You really can't see the irony in that?

So there are a few people allergic to milk... and? So what, does that mean no-one should have fluoridated milk??
What a ridiculous statement to make and the worst argument against fluoridating milk I will probably ever hear considering how much hassle it would save, how easy and cheap it would be to implement and operate as well as no more expensive court cases which there will be if they keep trying to force people to accept something they have no moral or legal obligation to have.

It is you that has a sod everyone else attitude; to anyone who doesn't want fluoride in their water. You are completely incapable of any form of compromise. If there were no people allergic to Milk you'd come up with something equally ridiculous because you must have your way. The protestors are the enemy and they must be defeated for the sake of democracy! LOL

Why are you so against the idea that there might be a workable compromise? A solution to suit everyone?

You can't give a good reason why it can't be added to milk because there isn't one. Many children across the country already 'benefit' from fluoridated milk, it's not a new idea but it's a fair idea and like I already said, it's cheap and it is a proven system that works. But no, you can't see it because you've set your heart on fluoridated water whatever the cost. Sod everyone else so long as you get your way.

Tell me, if my attitude is a sod everyone attitude, how is it I am the only person on this page talking about a compromise?

You are talking nonsense.

headworm wrote:
Quit talking out of your backside. What the hell do typhoid patients have to do with the fluoride debate? Nothing, it's totally irrelevant to fluoridation of our water or anything I have said. What I said about human rights was purely in relation to the human rights act which the UK is a party to. The act is non negotiable, it's not a choice the Government or the SHA get to make but they are using a loophole to force fluoride into the water supply. Forcibly medicating people with something not regarded as medication. You really can't see the irony in that? So there are a few people allergic to milk... and? So what, does that mean no-one should have fluoridated milk?? What a ridiculous statement to make and the worst argument against fluoridating milk I will probably ever hear considering how much hassle it would save, how easy and cheap it would be to implement and operate as well as no more expensive court cases which there will be if they keep trying to force people to accept something they have no moral or legal obligation to have. It is you that has a sod everyone else attitude; to anyone who doesn't want fluoride in their water. You are completely incapable of any form of compromise. If there were no people allergic to Milk you'd come up with something equally ridiculous because you must have your way. The protestors are the enemy and they must be defeated for the sake of democracy! LOL Why are you so against the idea that there might be a workable compromise? A solution to suit everyone? You can't give a good reason why it can't be added to milk because there isn't one. Many children across the country already 'benefit' from fluoridated milk, it's not a new idea but it's a fair idea and like I already said, it's cheap and it is a proven system that works. But no, you can't see it because you've set your heart on fluoridated water whatever the cost. Sod everyone else so long as you get your way. Tell me, if my attitude is a sod everyone attitude, how is it I am the only person on this page talking about a compromise? You are talking nonsense.

If I am talking out of my backside, then I must assume that you were the person they were the person they were thinking about when the expression, 'as thick as two short planks' entered common use.

It is you that have been bellyaching about human rights because you wanted the minority view to outweigh that of the majority. I explained to you how the minority - typhoid carriers - are confined in hospitals and barrier nursed, for the protection of the majority. I would have thought that anyone with a grain of intelligence would have grasped the relevance. What a pity that you, with your tunnel vision, could not see it.

They are kept there, not because they want to be, but because it is for the public good.

With regard your argument on fluoridating milk. I have no doubt that it could be added to milk, but was unaware of it being done already. Perhaps you could enlighten me on which areas benefit. I would assume that alongside fluridated milk there would be non-fluridated milk. Probably alongside bottles of non-fluoridated water. A customer choice.

The cost of fluordating milk would, in all probability, be considerably more expensive than the water process, with the price of non-fluoridated milk being increased considerably so that the fluoridated milk would appear to be cheaper than it would actually cost.

It makes me wonder why bottled water that is sold in Supermarkets costs so much when it is supposed to be 'pure spring water' which I assume to mean that it does not go through a filtration process.

"Tell me, if my attitude is a sod everyone attitude, how is it I am the only person on this page talking about a compromise?"

1) You are not the only one talking about a compromise. I have said that bottled water is readily available for those who those who think that they know best.

2) Although you have claimed to be a below average wage-earner, you appear to have a hell of a lot of time on your hands to fill this site with a lot of garbage, most of which I very much doubt that you believe in.

3) If you were to get out and about and talk to people, instead of being a loner, spending your spare-time in front of a computer screen, you may find that the only people who share your view are nerds like yourself.

4) If I were still working and not retired, instead of spending time on here, having fun winding you up, I would be seeking to improve myself so that I would get promotion or move to a job where I was not earning less than the national average.

lol very good, but a load of nonsense which I have come to expect from you oddly enough.

Back on topic for a minute, the reason your typhoid point is irrelevant is because the human rights act contains a provision for the rare circumstances where it is in the interest of public safety to restrict a persons freedoms. I was arguing in favor of the act so I'm not about to be selective about it over something which is irrelevant to the fluoride debate.
I see you are also still claiming to be in a majority you have yet to prove exists. Crazy.

You have no idea about my private or working life. Not the first idea so why bother speculating? You couldn't wind me up if I had a key in my back with your name on it and an instruction manual tattooed on the back of my head. The nonsense you come out with is just funny; for entertainment value, some of your responses and arguments have truly been priceless.

It comes as no surprise to hear that winding people up is a favorite past-time of yours because it certainly explains some of your arrogant ideas about fluoridation. I never really thought you meant them anyway but it was a good chance to get some of my own points across and practice my writing skills so thank you for that it's appreciated.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I spend a lot of time on here, I don't but when I have posted my opinions on here I have written exactly what I believe, why wouldn't I?
Unlike you, I haven't spent time on here trying (and failing) to wind people up but I suppose that's the sort of hobby a retired man with a successful career behind him has. All those days out, enjoying the sunshine, gardening or socialising with all the friends he's accumulated over 60 odd years amnd the family he's raised wouldn't take up much time now would it?

Maybe if you'd followed your advice to me and spent a little time improving yourself when you were my age you'd actually have something more entertaining to do now instead of wasting your retirement supporting something you likely never see the benefit of in your lifetime.

You are correct, I have no idea about your working life, but unless you admit to being a liar, I know that you are earning less than the national average because that is what you have told me. If you are satisfied with that, good for you. There are plenty of people about who lack ambition, so you are not alone.

You are right, it does not take much time to find your latest rant and pleased to note that it is giving you the opportunity to practice your writing skills. If you did not suffer from the same problem that you claim that I have, you would have friends that you could exercise the skill with.

Yes, I have had a successful career that has taken me to many countries and provided me with a nice pension, so I have no complaints. The children are married and have homes of their own and I am fit enough to do my gardening and visit my club and various associations, to meet up with friends. You are right, it does not take up much time, when you have plenty of time to do it. It gives me an opportunity to hear the views of a wide range of people, which is how I come to the conclusion that a large majority of people are in favour of fluoridation.

The fact that I may not personally receive any benefit from water fluoridation is of little consequence because I am not a 'sod you Jack, I'm alright' person like yourself. I want what is best for the majority, not what is best for me and to hell with the rest. That appears to be the big difference in my outlook on life and yours.

You are correct, I have no idea about your working life, but unless you admit to being a liar, I know that you are earning less than the national average because that is what you have told me. If you are satisfied with that, good for you. There are plenty of people about who lack ambition, so you are not alone.

You are right, it does not take much time to find your latest rant and pleased to note that it is giving you the opportunity to practice your writing skills. If you did not suffer from the same problem that you claim that I have, you would have friends that you could exercise the skill with.

Yes, I have had a successful career that has taken me to many countries and provided me with a nice pension, so I have no complaints. The children are married and have homes of their own and I am fit enough to do my gardening and visit my club and various associations, to meet up with friends. You are right, it does not take up much time, when you have plenty of time to do it. It gives me an opportunity to hear the views of a wide range of people, which is how I come to the conclusion that a large majority of people are in favour of fluoridation.

The fact that I may not personally receive any benefit from water fluoridation is of little consequence because I am not a 'sod you Jack, I'm alright' person like yourself. I want what is best for the majority, not what is best for me and to hell with the rest. That appears to be the big difference in my outlook on life and yours.

I already established for you that you do indeed have sod everyone else attitude.
ie your complete unwillingness to accept any form of compromise. You must have your way, it must be right, it must be the majority... all based on opinion, not a single iota of factual reasoning to back up the claim that it is best for the majority. Not a single thing.

Please, don't now go and repeat yourself with statistics. I am not talking about science or health, I am talking about the right of all of us to decide what goes into our water, and what goes into our bodies.

Your only solution is for people who don't want fluoride is to buy bottled water.... on and of course build a well.. in a flat, or shared housing and for older generations to carry water home from the shops or sod them right??

You are so presumptuous, you think you know me even a little bit? Let me tell you now, you have no idea about me or my life, just as I have none about you. Regardless, you'll happily assume I am satisfied with my below average earnings and doing nothing to change it or 'improve myself'. You are delusional if you really believe you have any idea about me and it's all besides the point anyway and has nothing to do with the debate which you keep straying from because you cannot and will not accept that adding it to milk is a valid & workable alternative.

Have you even bothered to look into it? You obviously took the time to look into statistics for fluoridation and the science in support of it but why won't you look into or even show an ounce of curiosity into a possible alternative that may suit the vast majority of people and save lots of time and money for everyone?
Instead you immediately set about thinking up reasons why it won't work. It may cost more money than adding it to water, but it's the companies disposing of it that have to pay, so surely, that money going to a dairy farmer is an immediate plus for fluoridated Milk?
It won't affect the price of Milk if the companies supplying it have to pay the farmer; at least not in a negative way.
Unless I am looking at it all wrong of course but I didn't think the companies supplying it were going to be paid for something they currently have to pay thousands of pounds per ton to dispose of?

Not that it matters, because like I said, you have no interest in seeing if anything else will work, only proving that it can't because of your own sod everyone else attitude to anyone who disagrees with your extremist view that we should all be medicated because some people can't take responsibility for themselves or are uneducated and/or poor.
It doesn't matter to you that these are all symptoms of a much bigger problem with our society than teeth. it doesn't matter if tackling them would achieve far greater results as well as improve teeth in the long run. So long as you get your way for the good of everyone and evil loner geeks like me shut up and put the human rights act back on the shelf where it belongs.

'I am talking about the right of all of us to decide what goes into our water and into our bodies.'

So everyone in the street, except for one genius, who thinks they know a damned sight more than the experts, wants the water to be fluoridated, and the self-professed expert has the right to veto it.

Yeah! That sounds democratic. The tail should wag the dog.

I have no doubt that fluoride could be added to milk, but there are many people who are unable to tolerate milk, but I have yet to hear of anyone that has a water intollerance. I have no doubt that you have, because you appear to know everything.

With regard the cost of milk fluoridation, I'm afraid that I cannot follow your convaluted explanation of how it would not make it more expensive, or the bit about milk being disposed of. I have known of milk being poured away during a foot and mouth outbreak and also during a farmers' protest at low milk prices, but not poured away on a daily basis. Many a dairy farm has closed down because it was no longer economic though.

OK! If you are happy with a below average wage, and have no ambition to improve your lot, that is your perogative. It gives you more time to spend time on here, pontificating on how bright you are and how arrogant I am. Personally, I would not wish to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, like between Woolston and Thornhill, but it takes all types to make up a world.

I didn't mean milk being disposed of, I meant the fluoride. It costs thousands of pounds per ton to be disposed of so that money could be paid to dairy farmers instead.

I never said I was happy with a below average wage or doing nothing about it. I said you'll happily assume it as it appears you have.

I also never said I knew better than any experts, my knowledge on the benefits of implications of consuming fluoride are irrelevant to the point I have been making, a point that you cannot get your head around.

Can you imagine what sort of world we would live in if Governments could medicate us however they liked with legislation to prevent them. Circumventing the legislation through a convenient loophole does not make it the right thing to do.

Of course there are some people who can't tolerate milk, so what. The numbers are insignificant. Some people are allergic to eggs but they still manage to eat cake. There's always an alternative and those people could easily be catered for should they choose to ingest fluoride.

At least we all get a choice.

I never once mentioned how bright I am or that I'm stuck anywhere but you go ahead and keep putting words in my mouth. Keep straying from the subject if it makes you feel big and clever.

Wooo, you know I live between Woolston and Thornhill, are you going to start stalking me with all that spare time you have? lol