Fluoride protestors demo at Southampton Civic Centre (From Daily Echo)

middle sign - dose doesnt matter???
depends what type I suppose.

Now call me synical but i have a sneeky feeling that our Council will pass the buck back to the SHA and call for a referndum. And as already reported in the Echo last week there is a possibility that this will happen. However the SHA have already stated that they will not change their stance irrespective of the referendum outcome. So which one of them is going to waste my money on having one. In addition its possible that the protestors wont accept the outcome if its against them and the SHA wont recognise any decision.........and as usual the council will sit on the fence as they do with any decision outside of bins and parking..........

Its very simple people:
Vote Conservative at the next General Election.
Only be voting Conservative can we remove our Labour MP's (John Denham and Alan Whitehead) whom have supported fluoride and the SHA from the beginning.

Only a new Conservative government nationally can stop the SHA from adding this poison to our water supply.

http://www.hampshire
againstfluoridation.
org/

Proponents of fluoridation lose about 80% of elections. People have wised up everywhere.
Fluoridation of drinking water is one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated against the public in the history of mankind. Fluoride is actually an industrial waste product from the manufacture of fertilizer and aluminum, and is second to mercury as the most toxic substance known. Most of Europe has rejected fluoridation and is 98% fluoride free. and they have a better tooth decay rate than any fluoridated country.
There is also no scientific evidence to support the idea that drinking fluoridated water has any effect on cavity reduction — NONE! This may sound crazy, so please don't take my word for it; do some of your own research. The best source for information on the hazards and ineffectiveness of fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.o
rg).

james47 wrote:
Its very simple people:
Vote Conservative at the next General Election.
Only be voting Conservative can we remove our Labour MP's (John Denham and Alan Whitehead) whom have supported fluoride and the SHA from the beginning.

Only a new Conservative government nationally can stop the SHA from adding this poison to our water supply.

http://www.hampshire

againstfluoridation.

org/

james you got to be mad to vote tory cons, to many of us remember the last time they was in office, on the itchen the best person to vote for would be tim cutter of the TUSC , but on the test and southampton north you got to go for the lesser of the evils libs or lab.
oh by the way moulton and smith both voted for the fluoration of our water in the first place, then change there minds and now are sitting on the fence to

southy wrote:

james47 wrote:
Its very simple people:
Vote Conservative at the next General Election.
Only be voting Conservative can we remove our Labour MP's (John Denham and Alan Whitehead) whom have supported fluoride and the SHA from the beginning.

Only a new Conservative government nationally can stop the SHA from adding this poison to our water supply.

http://www.hampshire


againstfluoridation.


org/

james you got to be mad to vote tory cons, to many of us remember the last time they was in office, on the itchen the best person to vote for would be tim cutter of the TUSC , but on the test and southampton north you got to go for the lesser of the evils libs or lab.
oh by the way moulton and smith both voted for the fluoration of our water in the first place, then change there minds and now are sitting on the fence to

Southy:- he posts under a couple of different names. Thats the only thing that changes

james47 wrote:
Its very simple people: Vote Conservative at the next General Election. Only be voting Conservative can we remove our Labour MP's (John Denham and Alan Whitehead) whom have supported fluoride and the SHA from the beginning. Only a new Conservative government nationally can stop the SHA from adding this poison to our water supply. http://www.hampshire againstfluoridation. org/

Since when has the Conservative party committed to not introducing fluoride? I see no mention of their support on the website you linked to, only that of the Green Party. Why do you have to use every story to try and convince people to vote Conservative regardless of the facts?
By the way, is it just me who gets really annoyed when contributors use the word "people" to address others? I find it so patronizing.....

Isn't there fluoride in toothpaste or do the anti-fluoridation lobby just floss?? I'm not convinced by either side but, whether or not fluoride is the solution, we do have a serious tooth decay problem among young children in Hampshire. No amount of promotion to teach parents to get their kids to brush their teeth seems to work so what other solutions would one propose?

The CDC in 1999 in a MMWR statement did admit primary benefit is topical not ingested as fluoridation theory was based on. The recent science based data shows no measurable benefit from ingested fluorides. Discolored porous brittle easily stainable is now endemic in fluoridated cities. The York Review 2000 showed a total lack of high quality studies over 60 years of claims. No proof of benefit much less safety from such shoddy poorly designed so called studies. What was not in doubt was fluoridated cities had 48% with damaged enamel but the non fluoridated ones 15%. Also 12.5% of the damage was so bad as to need cosmetic repairs which by the way would cost more the even the fake claims of reduced cavities would save. Professor Shelton the Chair of the study had to set the record straight as false claims have been made by the health services that the data never supported.
The Fluoridation Society for years claimed 60 countries fluoridated but refused to say who as the real number was 30 but only a handful at over 50%.
11 EPA science unions in 2005 asked congress to halt fluoridation but the fraud was discovered in 1985 by the headquarters union. No response yet but in 2008 19 EPa professional unions asked for a halt. How **** many whistle blowers does it take. By the way The Big NRC 3 year review voted 12-0 in 2006 that the current max is not protective and need reduction. The EPA unions did the toxic review as the law requires and ZERO is the proper goal just like arsenic and lead as cumulative toxins. The NRC showed over a dozen diseases many would be at risk for at current levels as real world intakes were never considered or susceptable populations like babies ,kidney patients, heart patients, or those low on calcium ,magnesium,vit c or protein intake. These were all known in the 1993 US Tox profile report except they skipped the babies which are the biggest risk. Thyroid when iodine low is maybe the worst risk at lowest level of .7mg day.