Decision-making on fluoride was ‘terrible’

Decision-making on fluoride was ‘terrible’

Decision-making on fluoride was ‘terrible’

First published in Fluoride

Southampton residents are having fluoride put in their water against their “expressed wishes”, the House of Lords has been told.

The decision-making process was branded “pretty terrible” by a peer who accused health bosses of “misstatements”.

Earl Baldwin’s comments came as members of the House of Lords raised fears over costs, evidence and local consent before any fluoridation takes place.

The peers were discussing proposals which will transfer power over consultations on fluoridation to local authorities, which will be put out to consultation in the new year.

The Government admitted there were “a great range of views” on the matter and insisted decisions should be taken by local councils, not regional health bodies.

Earl Baldwin, a cross-bench hereditary peer, asked Government whip Baroness Northover to set up a neutral body to rule on the evidence next time another city considers fluoridation.

He said: “Some of the misstatements during the Southampton consultation were pretty terrible.”

He went on to criticise Strategic Health Authorities, the regional bodies that were put in charge of deciding whether fluoride should be added to water.

Related links

He said: “The problem with the unelected SHAs was – is – that they almost inevitably reflected the dominant medical view.

“Fluoridation was a classic case of premature consensus, on weak evidence from the 1950s and 1960s, and it became a kind of sacred cow, resistant to new evidence.”

The Strategic Health Authority had decided to fluoridate Southampton “against the expressed wishes of its population”, he said, pointing to comments by one expert who described the process as a “religion”.

In September, Southampton city councillors voted to oppose the controversial plans after a campaign by opponents of the scheme forced the matter to be debated in the council chamber.

And they agreed to use any future powers to prevent the implementation of a proposed fluoridation scheme by health chiefs.

After a successful legal challenge, South Central SHA is working with Southern Water to determine how fluoride will be added, after defeating a High Court legal challenge. Nearly 200,000 people in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams will be affected by the plans.

Baroness Northover pointed to a study in 2000 that found that adding fluoride to water did decrease the risk of tooth decay.

There were also claims that councils would not be willing to push ahead with fluoridation if they did not get the financial benefits from any improvement in public health.

Labour peer Lord Hunt, the president of the British Fluoridation Society, warned that if local authorities do not have a direct interest in the cost of dental health care, it could be a barrier to them paying out on fluoridation schemes.

But Baroness Northover said councils would be compensated for the costs.

Comments (69)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

says...

  • Score: 0

9:15am Sat 10 Dec 11

Condor Man says...

And all because some people don't clean their teeth. Ludicrous
And all because some people don't clean their teeth. Ludicrous Condor Man
  • Score: 0

9:30am Sat 10 Dec 11

Lone Ranger. says...

A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

9:52am Sat 10 Dec 11

Stillness says...

I just can't see how humanity has managed to exist as long as it has without fluoridation. Ant to think we used to eat food without added chemicals as well! Thank God (however you may see him/her) for progress.
I just can't see how humanity has managed to exist as long as it has without fluoridation. Ant to think we used to eat food without added chemicals as well! Thank God (however you may see him/her) for progress. Stillness
  • Score: 0

10:04am Sat 10 Dec 11

Linesman says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination.

This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:07am Sat 10 Dec 11

Stillness says...

Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination.

This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
Hey that's great, less people die. Some will have to starve to death instead but what the hell.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.[/p][/quote]Hey that's great, less people die. Some will have to starve to death instead but what the hell. Stillness
  • Score: 0

10:09am Sat 10 Dec 11

hulla baloo says...

Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
If you want flouride, make it avialable to those that do.
Dont force it on those that dont.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.[/p][/quote]If you want flouride, make it avialable to those that do. Dont force it on those that dont. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

10:21am Sat 10 Dec 11

ToastyTea says...

haha unlucky those who didn't want it.
haha unlucky those who didn't want it. ToastyTea
  • Score: 0

10:34am Sat 10 Dec 11

freefinker says...

Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination.

This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
.. far from it Linesman.

The scientific peer-reviewed evidence of the harm fluoride causes in the whole body is extensive, compelling and beyond reasonable doubt.

The SHA have deliberately been extremely selective in the dental evidence they have based their decision on and have completely ignored all the rest of the whole-body detriment that fluoride causes.

While I take your point on MMR, with fluoride we don't have "one misinformed person" - just one undemocratic, misinformed and suborn SHA, who don't have the scientific qualifications analyse the depth of data that does exist.

And, as a precautionary tale, perhaps you may remember the nvCJD debacle. How many eminent scientists continually told us "beef is safe"? It wasn't though, was it? In the case of fluoride there is nowhere near the same scientific consensus that fluoride is safe, indeed the volume of evidence as to its detriment is considerable.

So, just on the basis of the Precautionary Principle if nothing else, it would be wise to keep this chemical out of our water supplies.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.[/p][/quote].. far from it Linesman. The scientific peer-reviewed evidence of the harm fluoride causes in the whole body is extensive, compelling and beyond reasonable doubt. The SHA have deliberately been extremely selective in the dental evidence they have based their decision on and have completely ignored all the rest of the whole-body detriment that fluoride causes. While I take your point on MMR, with fluoride we don't have "one misinformed person" - just one undemocratic, misinformed and suborn SHA, who don't have the scientific qualifications analyse the depth of data that does exist. And, as a precautionary tale, perhaps you may remember the nvCJD debacle. How many eminent scientists continually told us "beef is safe"? It wasn't though, was it? In the case of fluoride there is nowhere near the same scientific consensus that fluoride is safe, indeed the volume of evidence as to its detriment is considerable. So, just on the basis of the Precautionary Principle if nothing else, it would be wise to keep this chemical out of our water supplies. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:49am Sat 10 Dec 11

Linesman says...

freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination.

This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
.. far from it Linesman.

The scientific peer-reviewed evidence of the harm fluoride causes in the whole body is extensive, compelling and beyond reasonable doubt.

The SHA have deliberately been extremely selective in the dental evidence they have based their decision on and have completely ignored all the rest of the whole-body detriment that fluoride causes.

While I take your point on MMR, with fluoride we don't have "one misinformed person" - just one undemocratic, misinformed and suborn SHA, who don't have the scientific qualifications analyse the depth of data that does exist.

And, as a precautionary tale, perhaps you may remember the nvCJD debacle. How many eminent scientists continually told us "beef is safe"? It wasn't though, was it? In the case of fluoride there is nowhere near the same scientific consensus that fluoride is safe, indeed the volume of evidence as to its detriment is considerable.

So, just on the basis of the Precautionary Principle if nothing else, it would be wise to keep this chemical out of our water supplies.
The SHA act on the advice of a great deal of scientific research, and also on the evidence obtained from more than half a century of fluoridation of the water supply in the Midlands.

If the SHA 'have been deliberately selective in the dental advice they have based their decision on' as you claim, could it possibly be that you have also been selective in the articles that you read on which you have based your conclusions?

Something tells me that the SHA would have greater resources, both in manpower and finance, that they would use to reach their conclusions.

With regard nvCJD. It was government research that identified the cause, and ensured that animal remains were not fed to cattle. To the best of my knowledge, it was not government scientists that said that it was OK to do this, but probably some commercial company that saw it as a cheap way of making a fast buck.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.[/p][/quote].. far from it Linesman. The scientific peer-reviewed evidence of the harm fluoride causes in the whole body is extensive, compelling and beyond reasonable doubt. The SHA have deliberately been extremely selective in the dental evidence they have based their decision on and have completely ignored all the rest of the whole-body detriment that fluoride causes. While I take your point on MMR, with fluoride we don't have "one misinformed person" - just one undemocratic, misinformed and suborn SHA, who don't have the scientific qualifications analyse the depth of data that does exist. And, as a precautionary tale, perhaps you may remember the nvCJD debacle. How many eminent scientists continually told us "beef is safe"? It wasn't though, was it? In the case of fluoride there is nowhere near the same scientific consensus that fluoride is safe, indeed the volume of evidence as to its detriment is considerable. So, just on the basis of the Precautionary Principle if nothing else, it would be wise to keep this chemical out of our water supplies.[/p][/quote]The SHA act on the advice of a great deal of scientific research, and also on the evidence obtained from more than half a century of fluoridation of the water supply in the Midlands. If the SHA 'have been deliberately selective in the dental advice they have based their decision on' as you claim, could it possibly be that you have also been selective in the articles that you read on which you have based your conclusions? Something tells me that the SHA would have greater resources, both in manpower and finance, that they would use to reach their conclusions. With regard nvCJD. It was government research that identified the cause, and ensured that animal remains were not fed to cattle. To the best of my knowledge, it was not government scientists that said that it was OK to do this, but probably some commercial company that saw it as a cheap way of making a fast buck. Linesman
  • Score: 0

11:14am Sat 10 Dec 11

freefinker says...

Linesman wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination.

This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
.. far from it Linesman.

The scientific peer-reviewed evidence of the harm fluoride causes in the whole body is extensive, compelling and beyond reasonable doubt.

The SHA have deliberately been extremely selective in the dental evidence they have based their decision on and have completely ignored all the rest of the whole-body detriment that fluoride causes.

While I take your point on MMR, with fluoride we don't have "one misinformed person" - just one undemocratic, misinformed and suborn SHA, who don't have the scientific qualifications analyse the depth of data that does exist.

And, as a precautionary tale, perhaps you may remember the nvCJD debacle. How many eminent scientists continually told us "beef is safe"? It wasn't though, was it? In the case of fluoride there is nowhere near the same scientific consensus that fluoride is safe, indeed the volume of evidence as to its detriment is considerable.

So, just on the basis of the Precautionary Principle if nothing else, it would be wise to keep this chemical out of our water supplies.
The SHA act on the advice of a great deal of scientific research, and also on the evidence obtained from more than half a century of fluoridation of the water supply in the Midlands.

If the SHA 'have been deliberately selective in the dental advice they have based their decision on' as you claim, could it possibly be that you have also been selective in the articles that you read on which you have based your conclusions?

Something tells me that the SHA would have greater resources, both in manpower and finance, that they would use to reach their conclusions.

With regard nvCJD. It was government research that identified the cause, and ensured that animal remains were not fed to cattle. To the best of my knowledge, it was not government scientists that said that it was OK to do this, but probably some commercial company that saw it as a cheap way of making a fast buck.
You completely miss my points Linesman.

I do NOT deny that there is evidence that fluoride in water supplies has had an effect in reducing dental caries in children. When you look at the data, however, the difference is minimal – fluoride has only a tiny benefit in the reduction of caries.

The SHA had been tasked with trying to reduce the previously high incidence of dental caries in this area. The fact that the latest statistics show a considerable drop in caries in this area, now making it little different from fluoridated areas, has not been considered by the SHA.

The overwhelming data as to the whole-body effects of fluoride have been ignored by the SHA as it is not part of their remit to reduce dental caries.

This is the danger of letting unaccountable bodies taking such important decisions – the act with tunnel vision on solving a problem that the data tells us hardly exists.

nvCJD – I think you will find it was government scientists, including the Chief Scientific Officer, who were telling us for a considerable number of years that “beef is safe”. It was the ‘maverick’ dissenters of the scientific community who provided the data that this was not so and eventually convinced the government and its scientists that their previous position was now scientifically untenable.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.[/p][/quote].. far from it Linesman. The scientific peer-reviewed evidence of the harm fluoride causes in the whole body is extensive, compelling and beyond reasonable doubt. The SHA have deliberately been extremely selective in the dental evidence they have based their decision on and have completely ignored all the rest of the whole-body detriment that fluoride causes. While I take your point on MMR, with fluoride we don't have "one misinformed person" - just one undemocratic, misinformed and suborn SHA, who don't have the scientific qualifications analyse the depth of data that does exist. And, as a precautionary tale, perhaps you may remember the nvCJD debacle. How many eminent scientists continually told us "beef is safe"? It wasn't though, was it? In the case of fluoride there is nowhere near the same scientific consensus that fluoride is safe, indeed the volume of evidence as to its detriment is considerable. So, just on the basis of the Precautionary Principle if nothing else, it would be wise to keep this chemical out of our water supplies.[/p][/quote]The SHA act on the advice of a great deal of scientific research, and also on the evidence obtained from more than half a century of fluoridation of the water supply in the Midlands. If the SHA 'have been deliberately selective in the dental advice they have based their decision on' as you claim, could it possibly be that you have also been selective in the articles that you read on which you have based your conclusions? Something tells me that the SHA would have greater resources, both in manpower and finance, that they would use to reach their conclusions. With regard nvCJD. It was government research that identified the cause, and ensured that animal remains were not fed to cattle. To the best of my knowledge, it was not government scientists that said that it was OK to do this, but probably some commercial company that saw it as a cheap way of making a fast buck.[/p][/quote]You completely miss my points Linesman. I do NOT deny that there is evidence that fluoride in water supplies has had an effect in reducing dental caries in children. When you look at the data, however, the difference is minimal – fluoride has only a tiny benefit in the reduction of caries. The SHA had been tasked with trying to reduce the previously high incidence of dental caries in this area. The fact that the latest statistics show a considerable drop in caries in this area, now making it little different from fluoridated areas, has not been considered by the SHA. The overwhelming data as to the whole-body effects of fluoride have been ignored by the SHA as it is not part of their remit to reduce dental caries. This is the danger of letting unaccountable bodies taking such important decisions – the act with tunnel vision on solving a problem that the data tells us hardly exists. nvCJD – I think you will find it was government scientists, including the Chief Scientific Officer, who were telling us for a considerable number of years that “beef is safe”. It was the ‘maverick’ dissenters of the scientific community who provided the data that this was not so and eventually convinced the government and its scientists that their previous position was now scientifically untenable. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:42am Sat 10 Dec 11

Artina says...

To the point, we are a democracy. The wishes of the majority were ignored. This was forced upon us. No one should have medication forced upon them against their wishes. I personally have very nice teeth thank-you and do not want to drink, bathe and water my vegetables in flouride contaminated water. That should be my choice.
To the point, we are a democracy. The wishes of the majority were ignored. This was forced upon us. No one should have medication forced upon them against their wishes. I personally have very nice teeth thank-you and do not want to drink, bathe and water my vegetables in flouride contaminated water. That should be my choice. Artina
  • Score: 0

11:43am Sat 10 Dec 11

Artina says...

To the point, we are a democracy. The wishes of the majority were ignored. This was forced upon us. No one should have medication forced upon them against their wishes. I personally have very nice teeth thank-you and do not want to drink, bathe and water my vegetables in flouride contaminated water. That should be my choice.
To the point, we are a democracy. The wishes of the majority were ignored. This was forced upon us. No one should have medication forced upon them against their wishes. I personally have very nice teeth thank-you and do not want to drink, bathe and water my vegetables in flouride contaminated water. That should be my choice. Artina
  • Score: 0

11:51am Sat 10 Dec 11

Lone Ranger. says...

I agree with your sentiments entirely .....
....... However, how do you know that you are in the majority ........ perhaps just the "loudest".
I agree with your sentiments entirely ..... ....... However, how do you know that you are in the majority ........ perhaps just the "loudest". Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Sat 10 Dec 11

freefinker says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
I agree with your sentiments entirely .....
....... However, how do you know that you are in the majority ........ perhaps just the "loudest".
.. is it 'majority' or not that decides?

The public consultation certainly came out hugely against this proposal, but as you say, this may just be the 'loudest'

The point Artina makes, and I totally agree with, is that NOBODY should have medication forced upon them against their will. That, surely, is a fundamental human right.

And, before someone retaliates that we all have to put up with chlorine in our public water supplies, there is a huge fundamental difference. Chlorine is added to ensure the water is safe to drink - NOT as a mass medication for a specific medical condition. Fluoride has no effect on water safety - it is added ONLY as a medication.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: I agree with your sentiments entirely ..... ....... However, how do you know that you are in the majority ........ perhaps just the "loudest".[/p][/quote].. is it 'majority' or not that decides? The public consultation certainly came out hugely against this proposal, but as you say, this may just be the 'loudest' The point Artina makes, and I totally agree with, is that NOBODY should have medication forced upon them against their will. That, surely, is a fundamental human right. And, before someone retaliates that we all have to put up with chlorine in our public water supplies, there is a huge fundamental difference. Chlorine is added to ensure the water is safe to drink - NOT as a mass medication for a specific medical condition. Fluoride has no effect on water safety - it is added ONLY as a medication. freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Bagamn says...

In paying my bill to Southern Water, I expect perfect, clear water that has no imprities in it. I am therefore entitled to not pay my Water Bill as they are not using pure water. Would this stand up in Court?
In paying my bill to Southern Water, I expect perfect, clear water that has no imprities in it. I am therefore entitled to not pay my Water Bill as they are not using pure water. Would this stand up in Court? Bagamn
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Goldenwight says...

freefinker, your statement "flouiride (sic) in water supplies has had an effect in reducing dental caries" is a major understatement along the lines of "Nagasaki was a large bomb" or 'Chalotte Church is quite pretty.'

Large levels of fluoride salts reduce the incidence of dental problems massively. Whether they have other effects is another matter which is not being considered here.

Perhaps we should introduce bromide salts to the water supply in the hope of (in 30 years) reducing our incidence of morons?
freefinker, your statement "flouiride (sic) in water supplies has had an effect in reducing dental caries" is a major understatement along the lines of "Nagasaki was a large bomb" or 'Chalotte Church is quite pretty.' Large levels of fluoride salts reduce the incidence of dental problems massively. Whether they have other effects is another matter which is not being considered here. Perhaps we should introduce bromide salts to the water supply in the hope of (in 30 years) reducing our incidence of morons? Goldenwight
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Stillness says...

Goldenwight wrote:
freefinker, your statement "flouiride (sic) in water supplies has had an effect in reducing dental caries" is a major understatement along the lines of "Nagasaki was a large bomb" or 'Chalotte Church is quite pretty.'

Large levels of fluoride salts reduce the incidence of dental problems massively. Whether they have other effects is another matter which is not being considered here.

Perhaps we should introduce bromide salts to the water supply in the hope of (in 30 years) reducing our incidence of morons?
I like the bit where you say "whether they have any side effects is another matter." Perhaps the other matter is something that matters more than the state of our teeth. If people want extra fluoride for the sake of their teeth I believe that there are a number of toothpastes available with it added. The difference being that those who do not want to use it do not have it forced down their throats, and I do mean forced. Still I guess it's good news if you sell bottled water.
[quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: freefinker, your statement "flouiride (sic) in water supplies has had an effect in reducing dental caries" is a major understatement along the lines of "Nagasaki was a large bomb" or 'Chalotte Church is quite pretty.' Large levels of fluoride salts reduce the incidence of dental problems massively. Whether they have other effects is another matter which is not being considered here. Perhaps we should introduce bromide salts to the water supply in the hope of (in 30 years) reducing our incidence of morons?[/p][/quote]I like the bit where you say "whether they have any side effects is another matter." Perhaps the other matter is something that matters more than the state of our teeth. If people want extra fluoride for the sake of their teeth I believe that there are a number of toothpastes available with it added. The difference being that those who do not want to use it do not have it forced down their throats, and I do mean forced. Still I guess it's good news if you sell bottled water. Stillness
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Sat 10 Dec 11

AdrianMonk says...

Here's my question:

Is this chemical once in my water supply safe for my rabbits, dog, cat, fish, etc.?
.
Stuff the children - I'm just thinking of the animals.
Here's my question: Is this chemical once in my water supply safe for my rabbits, dog, cat, fish, etc.? . Stuff the children - I'm just thinking of the animals. AdrianMonk
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Sat 10 Dec 11

freefinker says...

Goldenwight wrote:
freefinker, your statement "flouiride (sic) in water supplies has had an effect in reducing dental caries" is a major understatement along the lines of "Nagasaki was a large bomb" or 'Chalotte Church is quite pretty.'

Large levels of fluoride salts reduce the incidence of dental problems massively. Whether they have other effects is another matter which is not being considered here.

Perhaps we should introduce bromide salts to the water supply in the hope of (in 30 years) reducing our incidence of morons?
1) 'Large levels of fluoride salts reduce the incidence of dental problems massively' is not true. While there IS a small decline in caries, and it is small according to the latest data, there is also a large increase in dental fluorosis - so, the net incidence of 'dental problems' is far from a reduction.

2) 'Whether they have other effects is another matter which is not being considered here' - says you, but not me. If the SHA don't also consider the whole-body detrimental effects of introducing fluoride, then in my opinion they are being totally negligent. Quite frankly, that's equivalent to saying because seat belts DO sometimes cause some rib injuries, we should stop using them and totally disregard the worse dangers of flying through a glass windscreen at high speed.

A holistic approach should always be taken on the introduction of any new public health and/or safety measure. You have to weigh up ALL the pros and cons – something the SHA was not asked to do and, in fact, did not do.
[quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: freefinker, your statement "flouiride (sic) in water supplies has had an effect in reducing dental caries" is a major understatement along the lines of "Nagasaki was a large bomb" or 'Chalotte Church is quite pretty.' Large levels of fluoride salts reduce the incidence of dental problems massively. Whether they have other effects is another matter which is not being considered here. Perhaps we should introduce bromide salts to the water supply in the hope of (in 30 years) reducing our incidence of morons?[/p][/quote]1) 'Large levels of fluoride salts reduce the incidence of dental problems massively' is not true. While there IS a small decline in caries, and it is small according to the latest data, there is also a large increase in dental fluorosis - so, the net incidence of 'dental problems' is far from a reduction. 2) 'Whether they have other effects is another matter which is not being considered here' - says you, but not me. If the SHA don't also consider the whole-body detrimental effects of introducing fluoride, then in my opinion they are being totally negligent. Quite frankly, that's equivalent to saying because seat belts DO sometimes cause some rib injuries, we should stop using them and totally disregard the worse dangers of flying through a glass windscreen at high speed. A holistic approach should always be taken on the introduction of any new public health and/or safety measure. You have to weigh up ALL the pros and cons – something the SHA was not asked to do and, in fact, did not do. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Rob444 says...

People who want fluoride should be given free fluoride tablets. Why aren't they?

The SHA appears to be anonymous and afraid to answer such questions. Memories of Hitler's way of doing things.
People who want fluoride should be given free fluoride tablets. Why aren't they? The SHA appears to be anonymous and afraid to answer such questions. Memories of Hitler's way of doing things. Rob444
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Stillness says...

Rob444 wrote:
People who want fluoride should be given free fluoride tablets. Why aren't they?

The SHA appears to be anonymous and afraid to answer such questions. Memories of Hitler's way of doing things.
That's the end of this topic then lol.
[quote][p][bold]Rob444[/bold] wrote: People who want fluoride should be given free fluoride tablets. Why aren't they? The SHA appears to be anonymous and afraid to answer such questions. Memories of Hitler's way of doing things.[/p][/quote]That's the end of this topic then lol. Stillness
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Linesman says...

Artina wrote:
To the point, we are a democracy. The wishes of the majority were ignored. This was forced upon us. No one should have medication forced upon them against their wishes. I personally have very nice teeth thank-you and do not want to drink, bathe and water my vegetables in flouride contaminated water. That should be my choice.
There has been a noisy minority who have raised objections, but of the total number that would be affected, it is an extremely small minority.

The vast majority would appear to have no objection.
[quote][p][bold]Artina[/bold] wrote: To the point, we are a democracy. The wishes of the majority were ignored. This was forced upon us. No one should have medication forced upon them against their wishes. I personally have very nice teeth thank-you and do not want to drink, bathe and water my vegetables in flouride contaminated water. That should be my choice.[/p][/quote]There has been a noisy minority who have raised objections, but of the total number that would be affected, it is an extremely small minority. The vast majority would appear to have no objection. Linesman
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Linesman says...

Bagamn wrote:
In paying my bill to Southern Water, I expect perfect, clear water that has no imprities in it. I am therefore entitled to not pay my Water Bill as they are not using pure water. Would this stand up in Court?
I think you can rest assured that there are no imprities in your tap water however, the water that comes out of you tap is not pure. If you want pure water, buy distilled water.

Tap water, like spring and well water, is not pure.

When it leaves a river or a reservoir, it goes through filtres and chemical treatment before it comes out of your tap, and has travelled through pipes that are also cleaned with chemicals.
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: In paying my bill to Southern Water, I expect perfect, clear water that has no imprities in it. I am therefore entitled to not pay my Water Bill as they are not using pure water. Would this stand up in Court?[/p][/quote]I think you can rest assured that there are no imprities in your tap water however, the water that comes out of you tap is not pure. If you want pure water, buy distilled water. Tap water, like spring and well water, is not pure. When it leaves a river or a reservoir, it goes through filtres and chemical treatment before it comes out of your tap, and has travelled through pipes that are also cleaned with chemicals. Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

We were promised that fluoridation would not be imposed on against our consult. There WAS a massive consultation exercise, public meetings, and official and unofficial polls. All showed the majority of local people who chose to express a view were against.
There were a lot of very well informed people who are perfectly capable of reading and understanding the literature, and the risks, including some dentists and health professionals who also campaigned against the SHA riding roughshod over the public objections.
We expressed our view, and we do not want these toxic industrial waste products put in our water under the guise that it may help a few people who dont bother to clean their teeth.
Fluoridation will CAUSE health problems. Who to? To the responsible people and children who DO clean their teeth. Those who use fluoride toothpaste twice a day, and floss will fluoride coated dental tape will be at much higher risk of dental fluorosis. What is that you may ask? Awful brown stains on the teeth, and the only thing that can be done is to have expensive dental veneers put on your teeth to cover them. Just google dental fluorosis, and you will see some of the horrible staining that can result from this unecessary adulteration of our water supply.
Why should the responsible have to suffer the systemic health problems of swallowing fluoride, in their drinking water, from their cooking water, when the feckless will still have the same problems anyway, as they eat ready meals and drink fizzy drinks.
Give out free toothpaste to the poor. Dont poison the rest of us thanks! This is enforced medication against the will of the publication. Dont get me started on the other toxins you get added with the fluoride as a "bonus" from the industrial waste processes that generate the fluoride.
Thank God the House of Lords are looking at it!
And fluoride is of course a poison. Heaven forbid they add too much, or the system develops a fault.
Plus, the dose you will get will be worse if you are closer to where they add it in the system.
We were promised that fluoridation would not be imposed on against our consult. There WAS a massive consultation exercise, public meetings, and official and unofficial polls. All showed the majority of local people who chose to express a view were against. There were a lot of very well informed people who are perfectly capable of reading and understanding the literature, and the risks, including some dentists and health professionals who also campaigned against the SHA riding roughshod over the public objections. We expressed our view, and we do not want these toxic industrial waste products put in our water under the guise that it may help a few people who dont bother to clean their teeth. Fluoridation will CAUSE health problems. Who to? To the responsible people and children who DO clean their teeth. Those who use fluoride toothpaste twice a day, and floss will fluoride coated dental tape will be at much higher risk of dental fluorosis. What is that you may ask? Awful brown stains on the teeth, and the only thing that can be done is to have expensive dental veneers put on your teeth to cover them. Just google dental fluorosis, and you will see some of the horrible staining that can result from this unecessary adulteration of our water supply. Why should the responsible have to suffer the systemic health problems of swallowing fluoride, in their drinking water, from their cooking water, when the feckless will still have the same problems anyway, as they eat ready meals and drink fizzy drinks. Give out free toothpaste to the poor. Dont poison the rest of us thanks! This is enforced medication against the will of the publication. Dont get me started on the other toxins you get added with the fluoride as a "bonus" from the industrial waste processes that generate the fluoride. Thank God the House of Lords are looking at it! And fluoride is of course a poison. Heaven forbid they add too much, or the system develops a fault. Plus, the dose you will get will be worse if you are closer to where they add it in the system. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Also there are concerns about the effects on babies, as it passes across the placental barrier.

"Because of the risk for dental fluorosis, and the lack of demonstrable benefit from ingesting fluoride before teeth erupt, the American Dental Association - and a growing number of dental researchers - recommend that children under 12 months of age should not consume fluoridated water while babies under 6 months of age should not receive any fluoride drops or pills.

Fluoridated drinking water contains up to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk (1000 ppb in fluoridated tap water vs 5-10 ppb in breast milk). As a result, babies consuming formula made with fluoridated tap water are exposed to much higher levels of fluoride than a breast-fed infant. (A baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest).

Dental fluorosis is not the only risk from early-life exposure to fluoride. A recent review in The Lancet describes fluoride as "an emerging neurotoxic substance" that may damage the developing brain. The National Research Council has identified fluoride as an "endocrine disrupter" that may impair thyroid function, while recent research from Harvard University has found a possible connection between fluoride and bone cancer."

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/health/infa
nt/
Also there are concerns about the effects on babies, as it passes across the placental barrier. "Because of the risk for dental fluorosis, and the lack of demonstrable benefit from ingesting fluoride before teeth erupt, the American Dental Association - and a growing number of dental researchers - recommend that children under 12 months of age should not consume fluoridated water while babies under 6 months of age should not receive any fluoride drops or pills. Fluoridated drinking water contains up to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk (1000 ppb in fluoridated tap water vs 5-10 ppb in breast milk). As a result, babies consuming formula made with fluoridated tap water are exposed to much higher levels of fluoride than a breast-fed infant. (A baby drinking fluoridated formula receives the highest dosage of fluoride among all age groups in the population (0.1-0.2+ mg/kg/day), whereas a breast-fed infant receives the lowest). Dental fluorosis is not the only risk from early-life exposure to fluoride. A recent review in The Lancet describes fluoride as "an emerging neurotoxic substance" that may damage the developing brain. The National Research Council has identified fluoride as an "endocrine disrupter" that may impair thyroid function, while recent research from Harvard University has found a possible connection between fluoride and bone cancer." http://www.fluoridea lert.org/health/infa nt/ Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

The Americans are waking up to the fact that fluoridation has more negative health consequences than benefits.

The industrial companies that want to get shot of this waste product without having to pay for safe disposal would much rather get paid by us for adding it into our drinking water.

But we all will pay the price

Fluoride Exposure During Infancy - Infants have impaired ability to excrete fluoride: (back to top)

"Overall, an average of 86.8% of the dose was retained by the infants, which is about 50% higher than would be expected for adults... There is a clear need for more information about the renal handling and general metabolism of fluoride in young children..."
SOURCE: Whitford GM. (1994). Intake and metabolism of fluoride. Advances in Dental Research 8:5-14.

"the uptake of fluoride into bone is greatest in infants and young children. Thus, infants who drink mainly powdered formula reconstituted with fluoridated water are likely to be a high-risk group for developing both skeletal fluorosis and hip fractures in old age."
SOURCE: Diesendorf M, Diesendorf A. (1997). Suppression by medical journals of a warning about overdosing formula-fed infants with fluoride. Accountability in Research 5:225-237.

"Our data suggest that the fluoride contribution of water used to reconstitute infant feedings is a major determinant of primary tooth fluorosis."
SOURCE: Marshall TA, et al. (2004). Associations between Intakes of Fluoride from Beverages during Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary Teeth. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23:108-16.

"Like bones, a child's teeth are alive and growing. Flourosis is the result of fluoride rearranging the crystalline structure of a tooth's enamel as it is still growing. It is evidence of fluoride's potency and ability to cause physiologic changes within the body, and raises concerns about similar damage that may be occurring in the bones."
SOURCE: Environmental Working Group, "National Academy Calls for Lowering Fluoride Limits in Tap Water", March 22, 2006.

"A linear correlation between the Dean index of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures was observed among both children and adults."
SOURCE: Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. (2001). Well Water Fluoride, Dental fluorosis, Bone Fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride 34(2): 139-149.

"it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion."
SOURCE: Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto. (2000). Why I am now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water.

FLUORIDE & the BRAIN

Fluoride's ability to damage the brain represents one of the most active areas of research on fluoride toxicity today.

Concern about fluoride's impact on the brain has been fueled by 18 human studies (from China, Mexico, India, and Iran) reporting IQ deficits among children exposed to excess fluoride, by 4 human studies indicating that fluoride can enter, and damage, the fetal brain; and by a growing number of animal studies finding damage to brain tissue (at levels as low as 1 ppm) and impairment of learning and memory among fluoride-treated groups.

According to the US National Research Council, "it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."

Fluoride's potential to impair thyroid function is most clearly illustrated by the fact that -- up until the 1970s -- European doctors used fluoride as a thyroid-suppressing medication for patients with hyperthyroidism (over-active thyroid). Fluoride was utilized because it was found effective at reducing the activity of the thyroid gland - even at doses as low as 2 mg/day.

Fluoride has been found to cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in government animal studies and rates of osteosarcoma among young males living in fluoridated areas have been found to be higher than young males living in unfluoridated areas. Osteosarcoma, while rare, is a very serious cancer. Children who develop osteosarcoma face a high probability of death (usually within 3 years) or amputation.
The Americans are waking up to the fact that fluoridation has more negative health consequences than benefits. The industrial companies that want to get shot of this waste product without having to pay for safe disposal would much rather get paid by us for adding it into our drinking water. But we all will pay the price Fluoride Exposure During Infancy - Infants have impaired ability to excrete fluoride: (back to top) "Overall, an average of 86.8% of the dose was retained by the infants, which is about 50% higher than would be expected for adults... There is a clear need for more information about the renal handling and general metabolism of fluoride in young children..." SOURCE: Whitford GM. (1994). Intake and metabolism of fluoride. Advances in Dental Research 8:5-14. "the uptake of fluoride into bone is greatest in infants and young children. Thus, infants who drink mainly powdered formula reconstituted with fluoridated water are likely to be a high-risk group for developing both skeletal fluorosis and hip fractures in old age." SOURCE: Diesendorf M, Diesendorf A. (1997). Suppression by medical journals of a warning about overdosing formula-fed infants with fluoride. Accountability in Research 5:225-237. "Our data suggest that the fluoride contribution of water used to reconstitute infant feedings is a major determinant of primary tooth fluorosis." SOURCE: Marshall TA, et al. (2004). Associations between Intakes of Fluoride from Beverages during Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary Teeth. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23:108-16. "Like bones, a child's teeth are alive and growing. Flourosis is the result of fluoride rearranging the crystalline structure of a tooth's enamel as it is still growing. It is evidence of fluoride's potency and ability to cause physiologic changes within the body, and raises concerns about similar damage that may be occurring in the bones." SOURCE: Environmental Working Group, "National Academy Calls for Lowering Fluoride Limits in Tap Water", March 22, 2006. "A linear correlation between the Dean index of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures was observed among both children and adults." SOURCE: Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. (2001). Well Water Fluoride, Dental fluorosis, Bone Fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride 34(2): 139-149. "it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion." SOURCE: Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto. (2000). Why I am now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water. FLUORIDE & the BRAIN Fluoride's ability to damage the brain represents one of the most active areas of research on fluoride toxicity today. Concern about fluoride's impact on the brain has been fueled by 18 human studies (from China, Mexico, India, and Iran) reporting IQ deficits among children exposed to excess fluoride, by 4 human studies indicating that fluoride can enter, and damage, the fetal brain; and by a growing number of animal studies finding damage to brain tissue (at levels as low as 1 ppm) and impairment of learning and memory among fluoride-treated groups. According to the US National Research Council, "it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." Fluoride's potential to impair thyroid function is most clearly illustrated by the fact that -- up until the 1970s -- European doctors used fluoride as a thyroid-suppressing medication for patients with hyperthyroidism (over-active thyroid). Fluoride was utilized because it was found effective at reducing the activity of the thyroid gland - even at doses as low as 2 mg/day. Fluoride has been found to cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in government animal studies and rates of osteosarcoma among young males living in fluoridated areas have been found to be higher than young males living in unfluoridated areas. Osteosarcoma, while rare, is a very serious cancer. Children who develop osteosarcoma face a high probability of death (usually within 3 years) or amputation. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Water fluoridation accidents, resulting in excess levels of fluoride in water, have been one of the sources of acute fluoride poisoning.

Fluoride is a powerful poison - more acutely poisonous than lead. This explains why fluoride is the active ingredient in many pesticides and rodenticides. It also explains why accidental over-ingestion of fluoride can cause serious toxic symptoms.

Malfunctioning water-fluoridation equipment, leading to excess levels of fluoride in water, has been another periodic source of acute fluoride poisoning

-----------------

Worcester Telegram & Gazette
10/25/2003

Marlboro water flooded with fluoride
Stuck valve in treatment plant caused toxic release

by Steven H. Foskett Jr

A malfunctioning valve at a local water station caused nearly six times the normal amount of fluoride to flow into drinking water in parts of the city yesterday, state and local officials said.

Residents and businesses along Millham Street, Boundary Street and lower sections of Robin Hill Road and the surrounding area were instructed to flush the hot and cold taps in their faucets for at least 10 minutes....

...A DEP flier distributed to residents and businesses advised them to take extreme care when flushing their pipes, and not to come into contact with the water, which could cause burning, skin irritation or both. The flier assured residents that the problem had been fixed, but still requested that they take proper precautions.

Mr. Suuberg said that from around 10 a.m. to noon yesterday, there was a "chemical overfeed of fluoride" into the water system.

He said that officials at the Millham Water Treatment Plant told the DEP that a valve malfunction allowed a concentrated level of fluoride - which is normally used in the water to fight tooth decay in the city - to flow into the water system.

"A regular level of fluoride in the system is under four parts per million," Mr. Suuberg said. "After two hours, tests showed the fluoride level at 24 parts per million."...
Water fluoridation accidents, resulting in excess levels of fluoride in water, have been one of the sources of acute fluoride poisoning. Fluoride is a powerful poison - more acutely poisonous than lead. This explains why fluoride is the active ingredient in many pesticides and rodenticides. It also explains why accidental over-ingestion of fluoride can cause serious toxic symptoms. Malfunctioning water-fluoridation equipment, leading to excess levels of fluoride in water, has been another periodic source of acute fluoride poisoning ----------------- Worcester Telegram & Gazette 10/25/2003 Marlboro water flooded with fluoride Stuck valve in treatment plant caused toxic release by Steven H. Foskett Jr A malfunctioning valve at a local water station caused nearly six times the normal amount of fluoride to flow into drinking water in parts of the city yesterday, state and local officials said. Residents and businesses along Millham Street, Boundary Street and lower sections of Robin Hill Road and the surrounding area were instructed to flush the hot and cold taps in their faucets for at least 10 minutes.... ...A DEP flier distributed to residents and businesses advised them to take extreme care when flushing their pipes, and not to come into contact with the water, which could cause burning, skin irritation or both. The flier assured residents that the problem had been fixed, but still requested that they take proper precautions. Mr. Suuberg said that from around 10 a.m. to noon yesterday, there was a "chemical overfeed of fluoride" into the water system. He said that officials at the Millham Water Treatment Plant told the DEP that a valve malfunction allowed a concentrated level of fluoride - which is normally used in the water to fight tooth decay in the city - to flow into the water system. "A regular level of fluoride in the system is under four parts per million," Mr. Suuberg said. "After two hours, tests showed the fluoride level at 24 parts per million."... Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Even the body who push for fluoridation admit that four in a hundred people influoridated areas will have the unsighltly brown staining of dental fluorosis.

This cant be fixed, all you can do is get into an EXPENSIVE rigmarole of having veneers - which tend to need to be redone

Dental veneers tend to cost £300 - £1500 EACH and last five to ten years.

Is it any wonder some of the dental profession are keen to ride roughshod over public concerns, I ask myself?
Even the body who push for fluoridation admit that four in a hundred people influoridated areas will have the unsighltly brown staining of dental fluorosis. This cant be fixed, all you can do is get into an EXPENSIVE rigmarole of having veneers - which tend to need to be redone Dental veneers tend to cost £300 - £1500 EACH and last five to ten years. Is it any wonder some of the dental profession are keen to ride roughshod over public concerns, I ask myself? Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

And even if some irresponsible infants end up with a few more fillings or tooth removals, guess what!

THEY GROW A NEW SET!

Is it fair that the healthy ones among us who drink a lot of tap water will have to worry about the effects and costs of dental fluorosis, the increased cancer risks, the increased risks of thyroid problems, the increased risks of hip fractures in old age (which are, lets remind ourselves, a leading cause of DEATH in the elderly)

How much of the pressure for fluoridation is coming from well funded lobbies in the chemical industry, I wonder. I would suspect quite a bit.
And even if some irresponsible infants end up with a few more fillings or tooth removals, guess what! THEY GROW A NEW SET! Is it fair that the healthy ones among us who drink a lot of tap water will have to worry about the effects and costs of dental fluorosis, the increased cancer risks, the increased risks of thyroid problems, the increased risks of hip fractures in old age (which are, lets remind ourselves, a leading cause of DEATH in the elderly) How much of the pressure for fluoridation is coming from well funded lobbies in the chemical industry, I wonder. I would suspect quite a bit. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Surely poor teeth in young children is a useful indicator of incapable, neglectful and potentially abusive parents.

Would it not be better to simply take these children into care and put them up for adoption, rather than leave them in the care of parents who are incapable of supervising them cleaning their teeth? It doesnt take long, and isnt exactly tricky. Everyone else manages it.

Adding fluoride to the water may simply help to mask symptoms of neglect, and put children at risk of more serious consequences.
Surely poor teeth in young children is a useful indicator of incapable, neglectful and potentially abusive parents. Would it not be better to simply take these children into care and put them up for adoption, rather than leave them in the care of parents who are incapable of supervising them cleaning their teeth? It doesnt take long, and isnt exactly tricky. Everyone else manages it. Adding fluoride to the water may simply help to mask symptoms of neglect, and put children at risk of more serious consequences. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Paramjit Bahia says...

Condor Man wrote:
And all because some people don't clean their teeth. Ludicrous
Also because some of us went to wrong dentists who used to mint money through ‘Drill & Fill’ scams. Myself being one of those who suffered from this scandal, all because once I went to a bloody crook instead of my normal two dentists (one here other in India). Both were surprised when I saw them next because both said till then my teeth were perfect
.
These days extracting teeth for SOME of the shady ones in this profession is becoming the trick of the trade
.
With the introduction of paying privateers out of NHS for other medical treatments (Unfortunately the thatcherite policy introduced by unprincipled shamelessly closet conservatives the NuLabourites who have hijacked the party of great socialist Bevan) this disease of professional greed could spread into other parts of health care, as in some cases it happens in other places. For example a doctor friend of mine in India told me how disturbingly large number in his profession are making mega money through such scandals
.
Apart from many other reasons possibility of such shameful money minting loopholes are also the reasons why whole of health care should be directly provided by the NHS. So that professionals get a set wage and there is no chance for some shady characters to make profits.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: And all because some people don't clean their teeth. Ludicrous[/p][/quote]Also because some of us went to wrong dentists who used to mint money through ‘Drill & Fill’ scams. Myself being one of those who suffered from this scandal, all because once I went to a bloody crook instead of my normal two dentists (one here other in India). Both were surprised when I saw them next because both said till then my teeth were perfect . These days extracting teeth for SOME of the shady ones in this profession is becoming the trick of the trade . With the introduction of paying privateers out of NHS for other medical treatments (Unfortunately the thatcherite policy introduced by unprincipled shamelessly closet conservatives the NuLabourites who have hijacked the party of great socialist Bevan) this disease of professional greed could spread into other parts of health care, as in some cases it happens in other places. For example a doctor friend of mine in India told me how disturbingly large number in his profession are making mega money through such scandals . Apart from many other reasons possibility of such shameful money minting loopholes are also the reasons why whole of health care should be directly provided by the NHS. So that professionals get a set wage and there is no chance for some shady characters to make profits. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Paramjit Bahia says...

Can somebody post the names of those Southampton councillors who voted for adding fluoride to our drinking water? PLEASE
Can somebody post the names of those Southampton councillors who voted for adding fluoride to our drinking water? PLEASE Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

The council voted to oppose it

It is the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) which are to blame for blatantly ignoring the results of the required public consultation.
The council voted to oppose it It is the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) which are to blame for blatantly ignoring the results of the required public consultation. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Paramjit Bahia says...

Artina wrote:
To the point, we are a democracy. The wishes of the majority were ignored. This was forced upon us. No one should have medication forced upon them against their wishes. I personally have very nice teeth thank-you and do not want to drink, bathe and water my vegetables in flouride contaminated water. That should be my choice.
Yes we are not only supposed to be a democracy our nation, the great mother of modern democracy, also apart from lecturing rest of the world on democracy sometimes even goes on to bomb countries under the excuse of its introduction. But UK still keeps the unelected House of Lords and nobody ever votes for the head of the state.
So don't be surprised over them ignoring the voices of sanity
[quote][p][bold]Artina[/bold] wrote: To the point, we are a democracy. The wishes of the majority were ignored. This was forced upon us. No one should have medication forced upon them against their wishes. I personally have very nice teeth thank-you and do not want to drink, bathe and water my vegetables in flouride contaminated water. That should be my choice.[/p][/quote]Yes we are not only supposed to be a democracy our nation, the great mother of modern democracy, also apart from lecturing rest of the world on democracy sometimes even goes on to bomb countries under the excuse of its introduction. But UK still keeps the unelected House of Lords and nobody ever votes for the head of the state. So don't be surprised over them ignoring the voices of sanity Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Sat 10 Dec 11

freefinker says...

@ Sotonians_lets_pull_
together.

Much though I have a strong aversion to being on the same side as you in any debate, I must say you have marshalled an impressive case with facts, sources and convincing arguments.

Unfortunately, those who want to add this chemical to our water supply are blinkered to the evidence of harm, rely on a small subset of the available data and are determined to push on despite the democratic opposition of ALL the local councils that will be affected by this decision.

Reasoned argument, compelling peer-reviewed scientific research and morality do not seem to have any influence on this unqualified and undemocratic quango.
@ Sotonians_lets_pull_ together. Much though I have a strong aversion to being on the same side as you in any debate, I must say you have marshalled an impressive case with facts, sources and convincing arguments. Unfortunately, those who want to add this chemical to our water supply are blinkered to the evidence of harm, rely on a small subset of the available data and are determined to push on despite the democratic opposition of ALL the local councils that will be affected by this decision. Reasoned argument, compelling peer-reviewed scientific research and morality do not seem to have any influence on this unqualified and undemocratic quango. freefinker
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Stillness says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
And all because some people don't clean their teeth. Ludicrous
Also because some of us went to wrong dentists who used to mint money through ‘Drill & Fill’ scams. Myself being one of those who suffered from this scandal, all because once I went to a bloody crook instead of my normal two dentists (one here other in India). Both were surprised when I saw them next because both said till then my teeth were perfect
.
These days extracting teeth for SOME of the shady ones in this profession is becoming the trick of the trade
.
With the introduction of paying privateers out of NHS for other medical treatments (Unfortunately the thatcherite policy introduced by unprincipled shamelessly closet conservatives the NuLabourites who have hijacked the party of great socialist Bevan) this disease of professional greed could spread into other parts of health care, as in some cases it happens in other places. For example a doctor friend of mine in India told me how disturbingly large number in his profession are making mega money through such scandals
.
Apart from many other reasons possibility of such shameful money minting loopholes are also the reasons why whole of health care should be directly provided by the NHS. So that professionals get a set wage and there is no chance for some shady characters to make profits.
I thought I had seen this posted on this page before but I cant see it. Ah, of course, it's the same old story you use on every post. Tory this, Thatcher that, have a go at something new once in a while will you there's a good chap.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: And all because some people don't clean their teeth. Ludicrous[/p][/quote]Also because some of us went to wrong dentists who used to mint money through ‘Drill & Fill’ scams. Myself being one of those who suffered from this scandal, all because once I went to a bloody crook instead of my normal two dentists (one here other in India). Both were surprised when I saw them next because both said till then my teeth were perfect . These days extracting teeth for SOME of the shady ones in this profession is becoming the trick of the trade . With the introduction of paying privateers out of NHS for other medical treatments (Unfortunately the thatcherite policy introduced by unprincipled shamelessly closet conservatives the NuLabourites who have hijacked the party of great socialist Bevan) this disease of professional greed could spread into other parts of health care, as in some cases it happens in other places. For example a doctor friend of mine in India told me how disturbingly large number in his profession are making mega money through such scandals . Apart from many other reasons possibility of such shameful money minting loopholes are also the reasons why whole of health care should be directly provided by the NHS. So that professionals get a set wage and there is no chance for some shady characters to make profits.[/p][/quote]I thought I had seen this posted on this page before but I cant see it. Ah, of course, it's the same old story you use on every post. Tory this, Thatcher that, have a go at something new once in a while will you there's a good chap. Stillness
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Sat 10 Dec 11

BMWDellboy says...

AdrianMonk wrote:
Here's my question:

Is this chemical once in my water supply safe for my rabbits, dog, cat, fish, etc.?
.
Stuff the children - I'm just thinking of the animals.
And here is my comment :-

You are a real jerk, is your Dad "Sotonians_lets_pull
_together"
[quote][p][bold]AdrianMonk[/bold] wrote: Here's my question: Is this chemical once in my water supply safe for my rabbits, dog, cat, fish, etc.? . Stuff the children - I'm just thinking of the animals.[/p][/quote]And here is my comment :- You are a real jerk, is your Dad "Sotonians_lets_pull _together" BMWDellboy
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Shergold says...

To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained.

Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on.

Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride;
http://www.all-natur
al.com/fleffect.html


Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth.

Read the HAF;
http://hampshireagai
nstfluoridation.blog
spot.com/
for more info.
ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups.
Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced.
The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion.

Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already.
Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet.

6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!!

Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience???
((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))
To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained. Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on. Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride; http://www.all-natur al.com/fleffect.html Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth. Read the HAF; http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.com/ for more info. ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups. Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced. The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion. Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already. Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet. 6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!! Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience??? ((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.)) Shergold
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Shergold says...

To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained.

Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on.

Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride;
http://www.all-natur
al.com/fleffect.html


Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth.

Read the HAF;
http://hampshireagai
nstfluoridation.blog
spot.com/
for more info.
ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups.
Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced.
The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion.

Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already.
Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet.

6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!!

Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience???
((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))
To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained. Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on. Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride; http://www.all-natur al.com/fleffect.html Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth. Read the HAF; http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.com/ for more info. ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups. Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced. The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion. Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already. Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet. 6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!! Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience??? ((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.)) Shergold
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Sat 10 Dec 11

Paramjit Bahia says...

Shergold wrote:
To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained.

Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on.

Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride;
http://www.all-natur

al.com/fleffect.html



Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth.

Read the HAF;
http://hampshireagai

nstfluoridation.blog

spot.com/
for more info.
ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups.
Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced.
The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion.

Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already.
Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet.

6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!!

Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience???
((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))
Shergold, Thanks for that.
Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides
.
I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side.

.
[quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained. Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on. Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride; http://www.all-natur al.com/fleffect.html Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth. Read the HAF; http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.com/ for more info. ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups. Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced. The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion. Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already. Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet. 6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!! Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience??? ((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))[/p][/quote]Shergold, Thanks for that. Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides . I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side. . Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

12:33am Sun 11 Dec 11

freefinker says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Shergold wrote:
To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained.

Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on.

Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride;
http://www.all-natur


al.com/fleffect.html




Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth.

Read the HAF;
http://hampshireagai


nstfluoridation.blog


spot.com/
for more info.
ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups.
Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced.
The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion.

Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already.
Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet.

6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!!

Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience???
((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))
Shergold, Thanks for that.
Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides
.
I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side.

.
I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: -
Sue Blatchford.
Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B).
Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual).
Sarah Bogle.
and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's)

They really did shame themselves as a group.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained. Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on. Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride; http://www.all-natur al.com/fleffect.html Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth. Read the HAF; http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.com/ for more info. ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups. Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced. The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion. Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already. Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet. 6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!! Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience??? ((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))[/p][/quote]Shergold, Thanks for that. Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides . I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side. .[/p][/quote]I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: - Sue Blatchford. Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B). Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual). Sarah Bogle. and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's) They really did shame themselves as a group. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:40am Sun 11 Dec 11

freefinker says...

.. oh deary me Echo!!

**** = a s s

You see how stupid your censoring filter is. I can still post it, but with gaps between the letters - although why you want to censor a noun who's meaning is 'a hoofed mammal of the horse family' is beyond me.
.. oh deary me Echo!! **** = a s s You see how stupid your censoring filter is. I can still post it, but with gaps between the letters - although why you want to censor a noun who's meaning is 'a hoofed mammal of the horse family' is beyond me. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:57am Sun 11 Dec 11

Stillness says...

W e l l s a i d . T h a t t o l d t h e m .
W e l l s a i d . T h a t t o l d t h e m . Stillness
  • Score: 0

1:24am Sun 11 Dec 11

Paramjit Bahia says...

freefinker wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Shergold wrote:
To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained.

Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on.

Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride;
http://www.all-natur



al.com/fleffect.html





Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth.

Read the HAF;
http://hampshireagai



nstfluoridation.blog



spot.com/
for more info.
ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups.
Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced.
The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion.

Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already.
Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet.

6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!!

Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience???
((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))
Shergold, Thanks for that.
Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides
.
I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side.

.
I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: -
Sue Blatchford.
Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B).
Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual).
Sarah Bogle.
and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's)

They really did shame themselves as a group.
Many thans for the info
.
People should remember them when these people come for re-election next time
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained. Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on. Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride; http://www.all-natur al.com/fleffect.html Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth. Read the HAF; http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.com/ for more info. ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups. Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced. The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion. Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already. Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet. 6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!! Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience??? ((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))[/p][/quote]Shergold, Thanks for that. Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides . I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side. .[/p][/quote]I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: - Sue Blatchford. Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B). Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual). Sarah Bogle. and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's) They really did shame themselves as a group.[/p][/quote]Many thans for the info . People should remember them when these people come for re-election next time Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

6:11am Sun 11 Dec 11

Aussie Fluoride Fighter says...

You really need to look at the evidence that is right before your eyes.

Australia - the Greens have just proposed to add to the Medicare levy in order to raise enough ash to try and deal with the huge increase in tooth decay - and they most of Australia has been fluordated for over 50 years? Tell me that water fluoridation works - bullshite!

And - we are paying a leading player for fluoridation to find out why tooth decay in Australia is on the rise - irrespective of water fluoridation - Professor John Spencer what a dill he is but the government is a bigger dill for paying him several millions of dollars to research this.

And look at the problem with tooth decay in the USA - mainly in fluoridated areas.

If you can't see this your name must be "Blind Freddie".
You really need to look at the evidence that is right before your eyes. Australia - the Greens have just proposed to add to the Medicare levy in order to raise enough ash to try and deal with the huge increase in tooth decay - and they most of Australia has been fluordated for over 50 years? Tell me that water fluoridation works - bullshite! And - we are paying a leading player for fluoridation to find out why tooth decay in Australia is on the rise - irrespective of water fluoridation - Professor John Spencer what a dill he is but the government is a bigger dill for paying him several millions of dollars to research this. And look at the problem with tooth decay in the USA - mainly in fluoridated areas. If you can't see this your name must be "Blind Freddie". Aussie Fluoride Fighter
  • Score: 0

10:14am Sun 11 Dec 11

Lone Ranger. says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Shergold wrote:
To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained.

Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on.

Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride;
http://www.all-natur




al.com/fleffect.html






Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth.

Read the HAF;
http://hampshireagai




nstfluoridation.blog




spot.com/
for more info.
ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups.
Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced.
The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion.

Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already.
Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet.

6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!!

Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience???
((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))
Shergold, Thanks for that.
Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides
.
I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side.

.
I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: -
Sue Blatchford.
Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B).
Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual).
Sarah Bogle.
and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's)

They really did shame themselves as a group.
Many thans for the info
.
People should remember them when these people come for re-election next time
If everyone remembers the cr@p that comes from all the parties then i wouldnt think anyone will bother to vote again.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained. Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on. Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride; http://www.all-natur al.com/fleffect.html Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth. Read the HAF; http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.com/ for more info. ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups. Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced. The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion. Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already. Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet. 6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!! Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience??? ((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))[/p][/quote]Shergold, Thanks for that. Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides . I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side. .[/p][/quote]I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: - Sue Blatchford. Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B). Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual). Sarah Bogle. and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's) They really did shame themselves as a group.[/p][/quote]Many thans for the info . People should remember them when these people come for re-election next time[/p][/quote]If everyone remembers the cr@p that comes from all the parties then i wouldnt think anyone will bother to vote again. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

10:20am Sun 11 Dec 11

Linesman says...

Aussie Fluoride Fighter wrote:
You really need to look at the evidence that is right before your eyes.

Australia - the Greens have just proposed to add to the Medicare levy in order to raise enough ash to try and deal with the huge increase in tooth decay - and they most of Australia has been fluordated for over 50 years? Tell me that water fluoridation works - bullshite!

And - we are paying a leading player for fluoridation to find out why tooth decay in Australia is on the rise - irrespective of water fluoridation - Professor John Spencer what a dill he is but the government is a bigger dill for paying him several millions of dollars to research this.

And look at the problem with tooth decay in the USA - mainly in fluoridated areas.

If you can't see this your name must be "Blind Freddie".
Could it possibly be that the rise in detected tooth decay in Australia is because there is an increase in the population from immigrants, from virtually all parts of the world, who have not had the benefits of fluoride in their early years?

I have no idea about tooth decay in any specific areas of the USA, but it is significantly less in the Midlands here where fluoride has been in the water for half a century.

I do not have to look to all parts of the globe to see what some anti-flouride group thinks, and if I did, I would not now in what proportions they dilute the fluoride, I only need to look to the Midlands and the proven benefits.
[quote][p][bold]Aussie Fluoride Fighter[/bold] wrote: You really need to look at the evidence that is right before your eyes. Australia - the Greens have just proposed to add to the Medicare levy in order to raise enough ash to try and deal with the huge increase in tooth decay - and they most of Australia has been fluordated for over 50 years? Tell me that water fluoridation works - bullshite! And - we are paying a leading player for fluoridation to find out why tooth decay in Australia is on the rise - irrespective of water fluoridation - Professor John Spencer what a dill he is but the government is a bigger dill for paying him several millions of dollars to research this. And look at the problem with tooth decay in the USA - mainly in fluoridated areas. If you can't see this your name must be "Blind Freddie".[/p][/quote]Could it possibly be that the rise in detected tooth decay in Australia is because there is an increase in the population from immigrants, from virtually all parts of the world, who have not had the benefits of fluoride in their early years? I have no idea about tooth decay in any specific areas of the USA, but it is significantly less in the Midlands here where fluoride has been in the water for half a century. I do not have to look to all parts of the globe to see what some anti-flouride group thinks, and if I did, I would not now in what proportions they dilute the fluoride, I only need to look to the Midlands and the proven benefits. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:22am Sun 11 Dec 11

Linesman says...

correction to my last. ".......if I did, I would not Know in what proportions.........
."
correction to my last. ".......if I did, I would not Know in what proportions......... ." Linesman
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Sun 11 Dec 11

Inform Al says...

Bagamn wrote:
In paying my bill to Southern Water, I expect perfect, clear water that has no imprities in it. I am therefore entitled to not pay my Water Bill as they are not using pure water. Would this stand up in Court?
You will not be alone, I can prove the adverse effects fluoride has to my health from past experience so will not be paying for my water supply to be poisoned.
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: In paying my bill to Southern Water, I expect perfect, clear water that has no imprities in it. I am therefore entitled to not pay my Water Bill as they are not using pure water. Would this stand up in Court?[/p][/quote]You will not be alone, I can prove the adverse effects fluoride has to my health from past experience so will not be paying for my water supply to be poisoned. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Sun 11 Dec 11

Paramjit Bahia says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Shergold wrote:
To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained.

Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on.

Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride;
http://www.all-natur





al.com/fleffect.html







Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth.

Read the HAF;
http://hampshireagai





nstfluoridation.blog





spot.com/
for more info.
ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups.
Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced.
The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion.

Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already.
Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet.

6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!!

Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience???
((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))
Shergold, Thanks for that.
Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides
.
I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side.

.
I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: -
Sue Blatchford.
Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B).
Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual).
Sarah Bogle.
and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's)

They really did shame themselves as a group.
Many thans for the info
.
People should remember them when these people come for re-election next time
If everyone remembers the cr@p that comes from all the parties then i wouldnt think anyone will bother to vote again.
Percentage of people turning out to vote and their faith in political class has been going down, is the proof that most people do tend to remember the misdemeanour of slippery like snakes twin tongued councillors and MPs
.
But the big mouths keep on putting that down to apathy, which is not the whole truth, an average person tends to observe, tries to give reasonable chances, eventually gets fed up and delivers the verdict either by abstaining or by putting the cross in hurtful place on the ballot paper.
It was done to Tories in 1997 and we all know what happened 13 years later to Brown led conservatised NuLabour. People were promised prosperity but provided with poverty and increasing unemployment.
Locally Southampton had become a safe city for Labour but then betrayals of Labour values by reincarnated version of colonial commissioners Arnold and freemason’s wife useless Bridle handed over the power to likes of Royston Smith
.
Sadly by the look of it many local members of Milliband’s mob still have not learnt their lessons, vote on fluoride was one example and failing to back the unions against Tories is another
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained. Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on. Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride; http://www.all-natur al.com/fleffect.html Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth. Read the HAF; http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.com/ for more info. ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups. Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced. The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion. Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already. Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet. 6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!! Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience??? ((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))[/p][/quote]Shergold, Thanks for that. Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides . I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side. .[/p][/quote]I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: - Sue Blatchford. Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B). Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual). Sarah Bogle. and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's) They really did shame themselves as a group.[/p][/quote]Many thans for the info . People should remember them when these people come for re-election next time[/p][/quote]If everyone remembers the cr@p that comes from all the parties then i wouldnt think anyone will bother to vote again.[/p][/quote]Percentage of people turning out to vote and their faith in political class has been going down, is the proof that most people do tend to remember the misdemeanour of slippery like snakes twin tongued councillors and MPs . But the big mouths keep on putting that down to apathy, which is not the whole truth, an average person tends to observe, tries to give reasonable chances, eventually gets fed up and delivers the verdict either by abstaining or by putting the cross in hurtful place on the ballot paper. It was done to Tories in 1997 and we all know what happened 13 years later to Brown led conservatised NuLabour. People were promised prosperity but provided with poverty and increasing unemployment. Locally Southampton had become a safe city for Labour but then betrayals of Labour values by reincarnated version of colonial commissioners Arnold and freemason’s wife useless Bridle handed over the power to likes of Royston Smith . Sadly by the look of it many local members of Milliband’s mob still have not learnt their lessons, vote on fluoride was one example and failing to back the unions against Tories is another Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sun 11 Dec 11

Lumavich1984 says...

It's CRAZY adding fluoride to our Water!!! Fluoride is in Toothpaste and MouthWash... If people decide NOT to brush there teeth and not look after there oral health, then that there problem! Don't punish others for other people mistakes! Simple's!
It's CRAZY adding fluoride to our Water!!! Fluoride is in Toothpaste and MouthWash... If people decide NOT to brush there teeth and not look after there oral health, then that there problem! Don't punish others for other people mistakes! Simple's! Lumavich1984
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Sun 11 Dec 11

Linesman says...

Lumavich1984 wrote:
It's CRAZY adding fluoride to our Water!!! Fluoride is in Toothpaste and MouthWash... If people decide NOT to brush there teeth and not look after there oral health, then that there problem! Don't punish others for other people mistakes! Simple's!
It is not that simple.

The mouth is the gateway to health. If it were just tooth decay that is the problem, I would probably agree with you, but is the illnesses that they cause that is what has to be addressed.

Hospitals do not turn away people who smoke and have a health problem that is related to smoking, and similarly, they do not refuse to treat those who have a drink related illness, so I very much doubt that they would refuse to treat people that have problems that has been caused by tooth decay.

Fags and booze are heavily taxed, which helps the NHS, but you can't put a tax of rotten teeth.
[quote][p][bold]Lumavich1984[/bold] wrote: It's CRAZY adding fluoride to our Water!!! Fluoride is in Toothpaste and MouthWash... If people decide NOT to brush there teeth and not look after there oral health, then that there problem! Don't punish others for other people mistakes! Simple's![/p][/quote]It is not that simple. The mouth is the gateway to health. If it were just tooth decay that is the problem, I would probably agree with you, but is the illnesses that they cause that is what has to be addressed. Hospitals do not turn away people who smoke and have a health problem that is related to smoking, and similarly, they do not refuse to treat those who have a drink related illness, so I very much doubt that they would refuse to treat people that have problems that has been caused by tooth decay. Fags and booze are heavily taxed, which helps the NHS, but you can't put a tax of rotten teeth. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Sun 11 Dec 11

Shergold says...

Hi - linesman

Just because you THINK that the midlands is ok cos everyone is flouridated. Then go and look at the 30% increase in fluorosis kids in the midlands.Go and tell them it is ok I dare you.

I have just read that a few yrs back that parents sued colgate cos their kids got fluorosis.

(1996)Here is the info:

"Sharon and Trevor Isaacs, of Highams Park, Essex, were paid by Colgate after their 10-year-old son Kevin (left) was diagnosed as suffering from dental fluorosis, where the tooth's enamel is mottled by fluoride. "

Their water was not even flouridated. this kid brushed his teeth twice a day and was not allowed to eat sweets.

" "I always used Colgate's Minty Gel and the pea-sized amount as recommended. I rang Colgate, but they said he would be all right." Mrs Isaacs said Kevin, who was teased at school over his "rotten teeth", had now been treated.

A letter from Colgate-Palmolive shows the company believed the cost of coating Kevin's teeth when he reached 17 would be £1,000. He has since had the mottled enamel removed."

So it seems we can sue??

Other parents have been trying to do the same:

Julian Middleton, a Nottingham-based solicitor acting for more than 200 children with fluorosis, said the payment could help families in their battle for legal aid. "We regard it as extremely significant - albeit it has been made without liability. "Fluoride is one of the most poisonous substances known to man. Experts say it is a cause of fluorosis. Yet there is nothing to say what is a safe dose for children, or to make parents aware of side effects."

Who will be the solicitor for a class action? now??
Sweden got the problem under control with their kids WITHOUT the use of fluoride but they did a very effective job of going into schools.

Kids teeth in this area HAVE improved and so that arguement to add fluoride is getting weaker.

The main thing that has happened in this town, is that there are more NHS dentists available then there used to be.
Hi - linesman Just because you THINK that the midlands is ok cos everyone is flouridated. Then go and look at the 30% increase in fluorosis kids in the midlands.Go and tell them it is ok I dare you. I have just read that a few yrs back that parents sued colgate cos their kids got fluorosis. (1996)Here is the info: "Sharon and Trevor Isaacs, of Highams Park, Essex, were paid by Colgate after their 10-year-old son Kevin (left) was diagnosed as suffering from dental fluorosis, where the tooth's enamel is mottled by fluoride. " Their water was not even flouridated. this kid brushed his teeth twice a day and was not allowed to eat sweets. " "I always used Colgate's Minty Gel and the pea-sized amount as recommended. I rang Colgate, but they said he would be all right." Mrs Isaacs said Kevin, who was teased at school over his "rotten teeth", had now been treated. A letter from Colgate-Palmolive shows the company believed the cost of coating Kevin's teeth when he reached 17 would be £1,000. He has since had the mottled enamel removed." So it seems we can sue?? Other parents have been trying to do the same: Julian Middleton, a Nottingham-based solicitor acting for more than 200 children with fluorosis, said the payment could help families in their battle for legal aid. "We regard it as extremely significant - albeit it has been made without liability. "Fluoride is one of the most poisonous substances known to man. Experts say it is a cause of fluorosis. Yet there is nothing to say what is a safe dose for children, or to make parents aware of side effects." Who will be the solicitor for a class action? now?? Sweden got the problem under control with their kids WITHOUT the use of fluoride but they did a very effective job of going into schools. Kids teeth in this area HAVE improved and so that arguement to add fluoride is getting weaker. The main thing that has happened in this town, is that there are more NHS dentists available then there used to be. Shergold
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Sun 11 Dec 11

Shergold says...

I never thought I would read about children dying from fluoride piosioning in the last century ( it was worse in the 19c)
but I just found this from authers den.com:

..."Unfortunately, there are cases of children dying after a routine cleaning of teeth at the dentist, as in the tragic case of a 3-year old Brooklyn boy in 1974 whose parents were awarded $750,000 after a lethal dose of fluoride at a dental clinic.

There are many other such tragic deaths of children for fluoride poisoning."...

I do know a local parent who has a little boy that knocked his teeth while playing and they went to the General and the professionals painted his teeth with Fluoride paint. She yelled at them!!! for doing that as they did NOT ask her permission.
Later on his teeth fell out. luckily it was his milk teeth.
But that means a few yrs of no front teeth for this boy till his permanent teeth will grow through.

I hope the house of lords will hurry up and give the council powers so that they can so NO!!! then the alloted costs can be used for something better!!!!
I never thought I would read about children dying from fluoride piosioning in the last century ( it was worse in the 19c) but I just found this from authers den.com: ..."Unfortunately, there are cases of children dying after a routine cleaning of teeth at the dentist, as in the tragic case of a 3-year old Brooklyn boy in 1974 whose parents were awarded $750,000 after a lethal dose of fluoride at a dental clinic. There are many other such tragic deaths of children for fluoride poisoning."... I do know a local parent who has a little boy that knocked his teeth while playing and they went to the General and the professionals painted his teeth with Fluoride paint. She yelled at them!!! for doing that as they did NOT ask her permission. Later on his teeth fell out. luckily it was his milk teeth. But that means a few yrs of no front teeth for this boy till his permanent teeth will grow through. I hope the house of lords will hurry up and give the council powers so that they can so NO!!! then the alloted costs can be used for something better!!!! Shergold
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Sun 11 Dec 11

Inform Al says...

Linesman wrote:
Aussie Fluoride Fighter wrote:
You really need to look at the evidence that is right before your eyes.

Australia - the Greens have just proposed to add to the Medicare levy in order to raise enough ash to try and deal with the huge increase in tooth decay - and they most of Australia has been fluordated for over 50 years? Tell me that water fluoridation works - bullshite!

And - we are paying a leading player for fluoridation to find out why tooth decay in Australia is on the rise - irrespective of water fluoridation - Professor John Spencer what a dill he is but the government is a bigger dill for paying him several millions of dollars to research this.

And look at the problem with tooth decay in the USA - mainly in fluoridated areas.

If you can't see this your name must be "Blind Freddie".
Could it possibly be that the rise in detected tooth decay in Australia is because there is an increase in the population from immigrants, from virtually all parts of the world, who have not had the benefits of fluoride in their early years?

I have no idea about tooth decay in any specific areas of the USA, but it is significantly less in the Midlands here where fluoride has been in the water for half a century.

I do not have to look to all parts of the globe to see what some anti-flouride group thinks, and if I did, I would not now in what proportions they dilute the fluoride, I only need to look to the Midlands and the proven benefits.
One of the 'proven' benefits was my being diagnosed with coeliac disease on my return from a course in Birmingham, since drinking normal water my health has restored and I am able to ignore the gluten free diet. On looking into my past health I discovered that a similar condition occured when I was in the Newcastle area, which was fluoridated in 1968. I am already making plans to move to Kent should the local Health Authority decide to poison me.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Aussie Fluoride Fighter[/bold] wrote: You really need to look at the evidence that is right before your eyes. Australia - the Greens have just proposed to add to the Medicare levy in order to raise enough ash to try and deal with the huge increase in tooth decay - and they most of Australia has been fluordated for over 50 years? Tell me that water fluoridation works - bullshite! And - we are paying a leading player for fluoridation to find out why tooth decay in Australia is on the rise - irrespective of water fluoridation - Professor John Spencer what a dill he is but the government is a bigger dill for paying him several millions of dollars to research this. And look at the problem with tooth decay in the USA - mainly in fluoridated areas. If you can't see this your name must be "Blind Freddie".[/p][/quote]Could it possibly be that the rise in detected tooth decay in Australia is because there is an increase in the population from immigrants, from virtually all parts of the world, who have not had the benefits of fluoride in their early years? I have no idea about tooth decay in any specific areas of the USA, but it is significantly less in the Midlands here where fluoride has been in the water for half a century. I do not have to look to all parts of the globe to see what some anti-flouride group thinks, and if I did, I would not now in what proportions they dilute the fluoride, I only need to look to the Midlands and the proven benefits.[/p][/quote]One of the 'proven' benefits was my being diagnosed with coeliac disease on my return from a course in Birmingham, since drinking normal water my health has restored and I am able to ignore the gluten free diet. On looking into my past health I discovered that a similar condition occured when I was in the Newcastle area, which was fluoridated in 1968. I am already making plans to move to Kent should the local Health Authority decide to poison me. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

11:53am Mon 12 Dec 11

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Shergold wrote:
To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained.

Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on.

Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride;
http://www.all-natur




al.com/fleffect.html






Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth.

Read the HAF;
http://hampshireagai




nstfluoridation.blog




spot.com/
for more info.
ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups.
Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced.
The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion.

Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already.
Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet.

6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!!

Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience???
((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))
Shergold, Thanks for that.
Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides
.
I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side.

.
I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: -
Sue Blatchford.
Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B).
Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual).
Sarah Bogle.
and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's)

They really did shame themselves as a group.
Many thans for the info
.
People should remember them when these people come for re-election next time
Most of our Political members supported Flluoridation of our tap water MP's and Councillors alike including R Smith, but when they saw public opinion going agaist it change there minds over the matter with major elections coming up.
And what freefinker said about Councilor Noon appys to all Political memebers not just one, mind you having Sciencist as Politicians would be very dangerest and should be the last type of people with fincanciers allowed into politics, they are to narrow minded and only see things one way.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: To Paramjit Bahia - most councillors voted NOT to add the Fluoride. 70% there abouts. The stupid councillors that think it is OK to pioson you were mostly Labour. A few abstained. Adrian Monk - animals will be affected go to youtube and search for Fluoride problems in California. Animals were getting really sick. There are some sickening sights of how bad horses are getting and I mean change of personality. They would not touch the water and prefered the snow till owners figured out what was going on. Read this page about various scientific studies about ALL the bad effects about Fluoride; http://www.all-natur al.com/fleffect.html Fluoride affects your thyroid, eosteoporosis, maybe rickets, arthuritis,as well as fluorosis of the teeth. Read the HAF; http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.com/ for more info. ALL because the big Fluoride producing companies must be giving millions to the various political groups. Next time you buy fertilizer, or some aluminium product think about the fluoride gases, that was produced. The first study in Texas in the 1940's was just cioncidental.Even the main technican/Scientist was surprised at how the authorities took up the info. and since used it all out of proportion. Read the WHO site for the awful stories about who has suffered already. Politicans want you to feel DISEMPOWERED that is the real reason they do it just to say 'you will do as we say'.just so that you are supposed to shut up and behave like some puppet. 6,500 VERY well informed AND local people said NO WAY!!!! Next step???is more protest and more civil disobedience??? ((At least you can buy a fluoride filter and take if off your water bill.))[/p][/quote]Shergold, Thanks for that. Having spoken to some of my friends in conservatised NuLabour, I could not extract the names of those who voted for or sat on their hands. So I am trying to find which ones of my former colleagues want to force feed poison to the people and have publically said so and which cowards are playing both sides . I am told that virtually all the Tory Councillors voted against, so we opposed to this idea were virtually betrayed by our own side. .[/p][/quote]I couldn't see all those in the Labour group who voted in favour of poisoning us, but those I could see raise their hands were: - Sue Blatchford. Satvir Kaur (who hadn't a clue what was going on and was being extensively coached by Sue B). Simon Letts (surprisingly for an intelligent and independent thinking individual). Sarah Bogle. and John Noon (who made a complete **** of himself by showing up his scientific illiteracy - which is on a par with southy's) They really did shame themselves as a group.[/p][/quote]Many thans for the info . People should remember them when these people come for re-election next time[/p][/quote]Most of our Political members supported Flluoridation of our tap water MP's and Councillors alike including R Smith, but when they saw public opinion going agaist it change there minds over the matter with major elections coming up. And what freefinker said about Councilor Noon appys to all Political memebers not just one, mind you having Sciencist as Politicians would be very dangerest and should be the last type of people with fincanciers allowed into politics, they are to narrow minded and only see things one way. southy
  • Score: 0

11:46am Tue 13 Dec 11

Artina says...

The SHA put aside £400,000 to fight the wishes of the public. That public money could have gone towards a mobile unit that travels junior schools, educating the children themselves on dental health care. Therefore missing out the 'ignorant parent'. Begging the question: Why are they ignorant?...Maybe a lack of education on the subject! Just medicating everyone will only keep the public ignorant to the real answer. A good diet, and regular brushing with a flouride paste if you wish. CHOICE.
The SHA put aside £400,000 to fight the wishes of the public. That public money could have gone towards a mobile unit that travels junior schools, educating the children themselves on dental health care. Therefore missing out the 'ignorant parent'. Begging the question: Why are they ignorant?...Maybe a lack of education on the subject! Just medicating everyone will only keep the public ignorant to the real answer. A good diet, and regular brushing with a flouride paste if you wish. CHOICE. Artina
  • Score: 0

11:49am Tue 13 Dec 11

Artina says...

Another thought: Who will be supplying our poison? Maybe a big industry that has it as a waste product. Illegal to dump it at sea, therefore what a great way to dispose of chemical waste...feed it to the poor and ignorant.
Another thought: Who will be supplying our poison? Maybe a big industry that has it as a waste product. Illegal to dump it at sea, therefore what a great way to dispose of chemical waste...feed it to the poor and ignorant. Artina
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Tue 13 Dec 11

leelee29 says...

Flouride is evil!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=bpAOSXJdS
7M&feature=g-all
Flouride is evil!!!!!! http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=bpAOSXJdS 7M&feature=g-all leelee29
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Tue 13 Dec 11

leelee29 says...

Link above dosn't work for some reason. This one does :)

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=78GT922ug
xI&feature=related
Link above dosn't work for some reason. This one does :) http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=78GT922ug xI&feature=related leelee29
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Tue 13 Dec 11

leelee29 says...

Dont forget to remove spaces, when you paste address into url bar. :)
Dont forget to remove spaces, when you paste address into url bar. :) leelee29
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Tue 13 Dec 11

Artina says...

The link works fine leelee. Thanks for sharing, very informative. I am just horrified that my body will be used as a toxic waste dumping ground. I grow fresh veg, eat organic, have an average BMI for my height and my teeth are just fine. Every aspect of my life will be polluted with flouride, my veg, my cooking, and bathing, (flouride is absorbed through the skin). It's just appalling how 12 people have enforced this evil on us. Daresay they do not live in the areas to be poisoned.
The link works fine leelee. Thanks for sharing, very informative. I am just horrified that my body will be used as a toxic waste dumping ground. I grow fresh veg, eat organic, have an average BMI for my height and my teeth are just fine. Every aspect of my life will be polluted with flouride, my veg, my cooking, and bathing, (flouride is absorbed through the skin). It's just appalling how 12 people have enforced this evil on us. Daresay they do not live in the areas to be poisoned. Artina
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Thu 15 Dec 11

AspieMum says...

Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination.

This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
One section of the population the flouride puts at risk is those who are babies that are bottle fed- you need an alternative source of water but is it safe to use bottle water or does that have too many minerals? Not every woman can breast feed and I don't mean don't put enough effort in to trying. For example you may need medicine that cannot be taken if you breast feed or you have had a double mastectomy. Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.[/p][/quote]One section of the population the flouride puts at risk is those who are babies that are bottle fed- you need an alternative source of water but is it safe to use bottle water or does that have too many minerals? Not every woman can breast feed and I don't mean don't put enough effort in to trying. For example you may need medicine that cannot be taken if you breast feed or you have had a double mastectomy. Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)? AspieMum
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Thu 15 Dec 11

AspieMum says...

AspieMum wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination.

This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
One section of the population the flouride puts at risk is those who are babies that are bottle fed- you need an alternative source of water but is it safe to use bottle water or does that have too many minerals? Not every woman can breast feed and I don't mean don't put enough effort in to trying. For example you may need medicine that cannot be taken if you breast feed or you have had a double mastectomy. Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?
And something I forgot: you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles. Not everyone will be able to afford that quantity of bottle water especially when Universal Credit kicks in- but even now for those who are amongst the ever increasing numbers of unemployed. Other people with in our society too may find it hard to buy that amount of bottle water.
[quote][p][bold]AspieMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.[/p][/quote]One section of the population the flouride puts at risk is those who are babies that are bottle fed- you need an alternative source of water but is it safe to use bottle water or does that have too many minerals? Not every woman can breast feed and I don't mean don't put enough effort in to trying. For example you may need medicine that cannot be taken if you breast feed or you have had a double mastectomy. Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?[/p][/quote]And something I forgot: you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles. Not everyone will be able to afford that quantity of bottle water especially when Universal Credit kicks in- but even now for those who are amongst the ever increasing numbers of unemployed. Other people with in our society too may find it hard to buy that amount of bottle water. AspieMum
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Thu 15 Dec 11

AspieMum says...

AspieMum wrote:
AspieMum wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
A referendum is required.
.
There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object.
.
It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.
There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination.

This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.
One section of the population the flouride puts at risk is those who are babies that are bottle fed- you need an alternative source of water but is it safe to use bottle water or does that have too many minerals? Not every woman can breast feed and I don't mean don't put enough effort in to trying. For example you may need medicine that cannot be taken if you breast feed or you have had a double mastectomy. Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?
And something I forgot: you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles. Not everyone will be able to afford that quantity of bottle water especially when Universal Credit kicks in- but even now for those who are amongst the ever increasing numbers of unemployed. Other people with in our society too may find it hard to buy that amount of bottle water.
Babies taken in to care or adopted as babies will be amongst those that cannot be breast fed unless adopted/fostered by someone already breast feeding a baby of their own (which is probably unlikely).
[quote][p][bold]AspieMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AspieMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: A referendum is required. . There are indeed campaigners who do not want the flouridation in the water system ....... but there are clearly residents that do or dont object. . It would also be interesting to know if the campaigners against the proposal actually live in the area's conderned.[/p][/quote]There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination. This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth.[/p][/quote]One section of the population the flouride puts at risk is those who are babies that are bottle fed- you need an alternative source of water but is it safe to use bottle water or does that have too many minerals? Not every woman can breast feed and I don't mean don't put enough effort in to trying. For example you may need medicine that cannot be taken if you breast feed or you have had a double mastectomy. Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?[/p][/quote]And something I forgot: you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles. Not everyone will be able to afford that quantity of bottle water especially when Universal Credit kicks in- but even now for those who are amongst the ever increasing numbers of unemployed. Other people with in our society too may find it hard to buy that amount of bottle water.[/p][/quote]Babies taken in to care or adopted as babies will be amongst those that cannot be breast fed unless adopted/fostered by someone already breast feeding a baby of their own (which is probably unlikely). AspieMum
  • Score: 0

9:53pm Sun 18 Dec 11

Shergold says...

Hi PEOPLE time to dispell some myths!!

"you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles" - just remeber you can take off the cost of filtering and take it off your water bill. Read the councils against fluoride web site. There s A LOT of info there.

http://www.ukcaf.org
/

"Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?"
Breast milk has the fluoride level .004. so nature does a great filtering job.

"This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth."
you are the one that does not read anything. Campaigners are the ones that ARE BETTER read than you are. We do NOT take every story as gospel at all.

There is a huge pile of good info. out there you just have to find it and read it.
Have you watched the fluoride lecture that Professor Connett and did an the book he wrote??

"There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination."

Do you mean the mental retardation problems kids had and still have?
Would want your kid to go from being the average noisy kid to one that could not hold its head or talk straight within 24 hrs after injection?
I saw the documentaries yrs ago and got a bit sus then, as I never got all my vaccinations as a kid as my health suffered a lot then.

But whooping cough was around then, I never got vaccinated against that either my system could not handle it at the age of 3.

Several doctors over the years have been concerned about giving three vacinations at once to a child that does not have muuch of an immune system in the first place.
Better educated parents either went looking for the single jabs and got better results, or waited till their kids were a bit older so that they HAD an immune system - (which is the better way to go if you decide you want your kids to have vaccination.)
The REAL story is there are a lot more autistic kids around now than there ever was the numbers have risen consistently, but this government and the pharmacuetical industries do NOT WANT you to know the truth other wise there would be more class action suites. they dont want that now do they??

The bottom line here is look after your immune system your self stop beleiving in what you are told do your own research there is plenty of good info out there.
Hi PEOPLE time to dispell some myths!! "you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles" - just remeber you can take off the cost of filtering and take it off your water bill. Read the councils against fluoride web site. There s A LOT of info there. http://www.ukcaf.org / "Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?" Breast milk has the fluoride level .004. so nature does a great filtering job. "This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth." you are the one that does not read anything. Campaigners are the ones that ARE BETTER read than you are. We do NOT take every story as gospel at all. There is a huge pile of good info. out there you just have to find it and read it. Have you watched the fluoride lecture that Professor Connett and did an the book he wrote?? "There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination." Do you mean the mental retardation problems kids had and still have? Would want your kid to go from being the average noisy kid to one that could not hold its head or talk straight within 24 hrs after injection? I saw the documentaries yrs ago and got a bit sus then, as I never got all my vaccinations as a kid as my health suffered a lot then. But whooping cough was around then, I never got vaccinated against that either my system could not handle it at the age of 3. Several doctors over the years have been concerned about giving three vacinations at once to a child that does not have muuch of an immune system in the first place. Better educated parents either went looking for the single jabs and got better results, or waited till their kids were a bit older so that they HAD an immune system - (which is the better way to go if you decide you want your kids to have vaccination.) The REAL story is there are a lot more autistic kids around now than there ever was the numbers have risen consistently, but this government and the pharmacuetical industries do NOT WANT you to know the truth other wise there would be more class action suites. they dont want that now do they?? The bottom line here is look after your immune system your self stop beleiving in what you are told do your own research there is plenty of good info out there. Shergold
  • Score: 0

12:29am Mon 19 Dec 11

Inform Al says...

Shergold wrote:
Hi PEOPLE time to dispell some myths!! "you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles" - just remeber you can take off the cost of filtering and take it off your water bill. Read the councils against fluoride web site. There s A LOT of info there. http://www.ukcaf.org / "Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?" Breast milk has the fluoride level .004. so nature does a great filtering job. "This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth." you are the one that does not read anything. Campaigners are the ones that ARE BETTER read than you are. We do NOT take every story as gospel at all. There is a huge pile of good info. out there you just have to find it and read it. Have you watched the fluoride lecture that Professor Connett and did an the book he wrote?? "There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination." Do you mean the mental retardation problems kids had and still have? Would want your kid to go from being the average noisy kid to one that could not hold its head or talk straight within 24 hrs after injection? I saw the documentaries yrs ago and got a bit sus then, as I never got all my vaccinations as a kid as my health suffered a lot then. But whooping cough was around then, I never got vaccinated against that either my system could not handle it at the age of 3. Several doctors over the years have been concerned about giving three vacinations at once to a child that does not have muuch of an immune system in the first place. Better educated parents either went looking for the single jabs and got better results, or waited till their kids were a bit older so that they HAD an immune system - (which is the better way to go if you decide you want your kids to have vaccination.) The REAL story is there are a lot more autistic kids around now than there ever was the numbers have risen consistently, but this government and the pharmacuetical industries do NOT WANT you to know the truth other wise there would be more class action suites. they dont want that now do they?? The bottom line here is look after your immune system your self stop beleiving in what you are told do your own research there is plenty of good info out there.
Doesn't alter the FACT that I myelf have a proven allergy to fluoridated water and there must be others like me who will be victims of the poisoning of our drinking water.
[quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: Hi PEOPLE time to dispell some myths!! "you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles" - just remeber you can take off the cost of filtering and take it off your water bill. Read the councils against fluoride web site. There s A LOT of info there. http://www.ukcaf.org / "Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?" Breast milk has the fluoride level .004. so nature does a great filtering job. "This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth." you are the one that does not read anything. Campaigners are the ones that ARE BETTER read than you are. We do NOT take every story as gospel at all. There is a huge pile of good info. out there you just have to find it and read it. Have you watched the fluoride lecture that Professor Connett and did an the book he wrote?? "There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination." Do you mean the mental retardation problems kids had and still have? Would want your kid to go from being the average noisy kid to one that could not hold its head or talk straight within 24 hrs after injection? I saw the documentaries yrs ago and got a bit sus then, as I never got all my vaccinations as a kid as my health suffered a lot then. But whooping cough was around then, I never got vaccinated against that either my system could not handle it at the age of 3. Several doctors over the years have been concerned about giving three vacinations at once to a child that does not have muuch of an immune system in the first place. Better educated parents either went looking for the single jabs and got better results, or waited till their kids were a bit older so that they HAD an immune system - (which is the better way to go if you decide you want your kids to have vaccination.) The REAL story is there are a lot more autistic kids around now than there ever was the numbers have risen consistently, but this government and the pharmacuetical industries do NOT WANT you to know the truth other wise there would be more class action suites. they dont want that now do they?? The bottom line here is look after your immune system your self stop beleiving in what you are told do your own research there is plenty of good info out there.[/p][/quote]Doesn't alter the FACT that I myelf have a proven allergy to fluoridated water and there must be others like me who will be victims of the poisoning of our drinking water. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sat 24 Dec 11

AspieMum says...

Inform Al wrote:
Shergold wrote:
Hi PEOPLE time to dispell some myths!! "you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles" - just remeber you can take off the cost of filtering and take it off your water bill. Read the councils against fluoride web site. There s A LOT of info there. http://www.ukcaf.org / "Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?" Breast milk has the fluoride level .004. so nature does a great filtering job. "This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth." you are the one that does not read anything. Campaigners are the ones that ARE BETTER read than you are. We do NOT take every story as gospel at all. There is a huge pile of good info. out there you just have to find it and read it. Have you watched the fluoride lecture that Professor Connett and did an the book he wrote?? "There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination." Do you mean the mental retardation problems kids had and still have? Would want your kid to go from being the average noisy kid to one that could not hold its head or talk straight within 24 hrs after injection? I saw the documentaries yrs ago and got a bit sus then, as I never got all my vaccinations as a kid as my health suffered a lot then. But whooping cough was around then, I never got vaccinated against that either my system could not handle it at the age of 3. Several doctors over the years have been concerned about giving three vacinations at once to a child that does not have muuch of an immune system in the first place. Better educated parents either went looking for the single jabs and got better results, or waited till their kids were a bit older so that they HAD an immune system - (which is the better way to go if you decide you want your kids to have vaccination.) The REAL story is there are a lot more autistic kids around now than there ever was the numbers have risen consistently, but this government and the pharmacuetical industries do NOT WANT you to know the truth other wise there would be more class action suites. they dont want that now do they?? The bottom line here is look after your immune system your self stop beleiving in what you are told do your own research there is plenty of good info out there.
Doesn't alter the FACT that I myelf have a proven allergy to fluoridated water and there must be others like me who will be victims of the poisoning of our drinking water.
It looks like those affected badly will be those with an allergy, unborn children and babies, pets,... What about those who brush their teeth regularly with a flouride toothpaste? Will they now get an overdose? Can you use mineral (bottled) water for making up baby milk or does it have too many minerals (not every mum can breast feed- some for medical reasons outside their control)? What about the extra expense of bottle water on parents/pregnant women with low incomes? Will they get free safe water to protect their babies or will it have to come out of the family's food money? Probably the later. What about babies outside the target areas who will unknown to their parents get flourinated water because they can't target it properly, which was in a previous news report in the Echo. Everyone who will even accidentally get flourinated water needs to know in case such water is unsuitable or even dangerous for them and their household, whatever species they may be (i.e. including pets). They should be required to contact each household personally and not rely on newpaper reports. Also what of the waste of money on the public consultation when they had no intention of abiding by the result (unless they get the result they want of course)?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: Hi PEOPLE time to dispell some myths!! "you need to be able to afford the bottled water to be able to use it for you baby's or babies' bottles" - just remeber you can take off the cost of filtering and take it off your water bill. Read the councils against fluoride web site. There s A LOT of info there. http://www.ukcaf.org / "Also have they proved that the flouride won't end up in breast milk or harm unborn children- including the effects of any contaminants that come with it by accident as apparently it will be another industry's waste that will be the source of flouride (apparently unlike in touthpaste)?" Breast milk has the fluoride level .004. so nature does a great filtering job. "This fluoride scare is very similar. The vast majority of the anti-brigade have little or no knowledge of the subject, and take every scare story as the gospel truth." you are the one that does not read anything. Campaigners are the ones that ARE BETTER read than you are. We do NOT take every story as gospel at all. There is a huge pile of good info. out there you just have to find it and read it. Have you watched the fluoride lecture that Professor Connett and did an the book he wrote?? "There are children that are suffering the after effects of Mumps, Measles and Rubella because their parents listened to one misinformed person and did not permit their children to have the MMR vaccination." Do you mean the mental retardation problems kids had and still have? Would want your kid to go from being the average noisy kid to one that could not hold its head or talk straight within 24 hrs after injection? I saw the documentaries yrs ago and got a bit sus then, as I never got all my vaccinations as a kid as my health suffered a lot then. But whooping cough was around then, I never got vaccinated against that either my system could not handle it at the age of 3. Several doctors over the years have been concerned about giving three vacinations at once to a child that does not have muuch of an immune system in the first place. Better educated parents either went looking for the single jabs and got better results, or waited till their kids were a bit older so that they HAD an immune system - (which is the better way to go if you decide you want your kids to have vaccination.) The REAL story is there are a lot more autistic kids around now than there ever was the numbers have risen consistently, but this government and the pharmacuetical industries do NOT WANT you to know the truth other wise there would be more class action suites. they dont want that now do they?? The bottom line here is look after your immune system your self stop beleiving in what you are told do your own research there is plenty of good info out there.[/p][/quote]Doesn't alter the FACT that I myelf have a proven allergy to fluoridated water and there must be others like me who will be victims of the poisoning of our drinking water.[/p][/quote]It looks like those affected badly will be those with an allergy, unborn children and babies, pets,... What about those who brush their teeth regularly with a flouride toothpaste? Will they now get an overdose? Can you use mineral (bottled) water for making up baby milk or does it have too many minerals (not every mum can breast feed- some for medical reasons outside their control)? What about the extra expense of bottle water on parents/pregnant women with low incomes? Will they get free safe water to protect their babies or will it have to come out of the family's food money? Probably the later. What about babies outside the target areas who will unknown to their parents get flourinated water because they can't target it properly, which was in a previous news report in the Echo. Everyone who will even accidentally get flourinated water needs to know in case such water is unsuitable or even dangerous for them and their household, whatever species they may be (i.e. including pets). They should be required to contact each household personally and not rely on newpaper reports. Also what of the waste of money on the public consultation when they had no intention of abiding by the result (unless they get the result they want of course)? AspieMum
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree