i hope South Central Strategic Health Authority read this but heard that its going to be in the river test area where they going to add this unwated chemical to the water ie:- redbridge millbrook coxford aldermoor s/warren totton ect ect ect we all get our water from the same pumping station

The government will add Fluoride even if the people of Southampton don’t want them to; they do what they want when they want regardless of the people’s opinions. I myself will be drinking bottled water as soon as they start adding Fluoride to our tap water. It wouldn’t surprise me if they had added it to our water supplies already with out even consulting us!!!! The government no exactly what damage Fluoride can course to the human body, they also no that it is scientifically proven that it doesn’t help teeth and they are using this as an excuse to get the general public to intake Fluoride into their body’s……

Hi guys, whats the big fuss? At least you guys can drink your tap water!!!!!!!!! We have bottled water and that probably has more "chemicals" in it.

Any Flouride is harmless, its in Milk.

Freddy Flouride wrote:
Hi guys, whats the big fuss? At least you guys can drink your tap water!!!!!!!!! We have bottled water and that probably has more "chemicals" in it. Any Flouride is harmless, its in Milk.

What ever you gimp, do some research, I think you’ll find that it’s not harmless at all….

SAINT BEAN wrote:

Freddy Flouride wrote: Hi guys, whats the big fuss? At least you guys can drink your tap water!!!!!!!!! We have bottled water and that probably has more "chemicals" in it. Any Flouride is harmless, its in Milk.

What ever you gimp, do some research, I think you’ll find that it’s not harmless at all….

So why is it allowed in Toothpaste, milk, cream eggs, cheese, frosties and ketchup?

I think you are the gimp, you have been ingesting it for many years and years, you drink on average 8 pints of water a day and the majority of you English, 1-4 pints, you will not get cancer from that.

Moron.

in natural small dose will not do any hurm but they are talking about adding more
bean its not just goverment its agencys too,goverment gives those agencys the power to do has they wish but often it breaks laws that cant be changed ie:- the enviroment agency say they have the power to search and conficate,with out a uniform police officer present when they do not it breaks the magna cater laws one of the laws that are in place to protect peoples rights and can not be change or altered,to give them is right breaks another law ( its is treason to the crown and commoners for any body to have a private army apart from the crown )to give any body the right to search and confidcate mounts to giving them a private army

"Fluoride could be added to water regardless of..."


Is the Echo now playing Blankety Blank?

Fluoride is NOT harmless. The National Kidney Foundation has just withdrawn its endorsement of water fluoridation. Here is my latest article.
http://www.rense.com
/general82/newfuel.h
tm

As clean water campaigners have been saying for a very long time, the so-called consultation is a sham. Fluoride even in low concentrations causes dental and skeletal fluorosis. Theres a correlation between dental fluorosis and lowered IQ. the government and the PCT wants you to be as dumb as they are. If they. Temporary Treatment for dental fluorosis is expensive and not available on the NHS. Make sure you deduct the cost of bottled water or expensive reverse osmosis water filters from your water bill before you pay them. the water companies wont mind as the government has promised to indemnify them against costs and this will come out of our taxes just like all the other costs for this illegal action.

Two hours on, and still no sign of the last word in the headline. Is it stuck on Millbrokk Road East? Has the bloke on the motorbike nicked it?

The tension's killing me.

Iain wrote:
Two hours on, and still no sign of the last word in the headline. Is it stuck on Millbrokk Road East? Has the bloke on the motorbike nicked it? The tension's killing me.

Its regardless of what public say. There ya go mate better?

Welcome to 1984 :o(

"Some people are against it on strong moral grounds that they don't agree with the state imposing something on them," said Cllr White.

Obviously Cllr White wasnt a member of the Tory Party between 1979 and 1997.

I wish the Echo would talk to the SHA rather than just printing its rather ambiguous guidelines. That way any ambiguity can be cleared up without the need to worry the large number of people who appear to be opposed.

Water Expert: fluoride, like other trace chemicals found in tap water such as arsenic, builds up in your body over time, and it's this gradual build-up that causes the problems. Adding more fluoride will accelerate the onset of diseases like skeletal fluorosis. Fair enough, not everyone will fall victim to this, but why should we all take the risk for what is essentially a bunch of neglectful idiots who refuse to take care of themselves?

I think we need to know the identities of the people who will be deciding whether the toxin is or is not added to OUR drinking water. They shouldn't be allowed to remain anonymous. There's too little accountability in this country. So, who are they (names, please)?

Fluoride may be okay for our teeth, but do these so-called know-it-all's realise that it's harmful to other vital organs?

Bob444 wrote:
I think we need to know the identities of the people who will be deciding whether the toxin is or is not added to OUR drinking water. They shouldn't be allowed to remain anonymous. There's too little accountability in this country. So, who are they (names, please)?

According to the NHS South Central website:
http://www.southcent
ral.nhs.uk/page.php?
area_id=1

South Central Strategic Health Authority is one of ten Strategic Health Authorities across the country. Dr Geoffrey Harris is the Chairman and Jim Easton is the Chief Executive. Any more names?

The last 20 plus years of research show no measurable decrease in cavities from ingestion as the benefit if it exists is topical. This makes the entire discussion moot if science is the guide. It is not as policy and PR is the method of promotion. The York review 2000 clearly showed the quality of all studies poor or worse as flawed. Even the authorities only claimed a benefit for the two lowest classes. We have many studies that show the poorest damaged worst, Blacks have shown double damage from the first study,what a dirty secret to keep quiet. The last review Pizzo 2007 showed 51% with dental fluorosis by adding fluoride. The York showed 48% with and 15% without and 12.5% with cosmetic damage needing repair. Cosmetic repair in the US is making dentist rock star rich but the poor blacks have double the really ugly moderate and severe. This is one sick joke. Then the chronic effects of fluoride and the lead it leaches from the brass and coper and solder is the second kick in the head. Dental effects are just the tip of the iceberg saiod the 507 page NRC review. Maybe we should listen to the 19 EPA professional unions that asked for immediate moratorium and congressional investigations? A goal of ZERO just like lead and arsenic.Read the science yourself fluoridealert.org waterloowatch.com. Leave the many know nothing dentists and health department types out of the loop as they have proved worse then useless too often. See Burt 2007 for the real answer---good nutrition as sugars and junk food is the real cause of this problem with few dental visits and poor parenting too often. Jim Schultz

The National Kidney foundation withdrew it fluoride endorsement last year only after threat of lawsuit. The new policy says chronic kidney patients need to monitor and reduce fluoride intake. Most do not know they have the disease and another 20 million are at high risk. Who informs them as the NKF did no press release of policy. The AWWA --American Water Works now have a notice of intent to sue and order to not destroy data on fluoride risk. All of the officers of the 60,000 member group now must consider safety in a new light of science. They will be sued along with the Nkf. Attitudes will change. We protect cities and public agencies from liability for damage they cause. Very few of the many fluoride promoters I have talked to ever read the science -They follow policy with us the collateral damage. It is impossible for them to all be as stupid as they seem. Indiana tested dental professional and only 17% understood the new science of how fluoride works. Then 14% in Illinois. They are not rational on this belief system. It is tooth fairy type science.. Jim Schultz

Do you, the public, really believe these generous bodies suggesting this plan, want to spend the funds at their disposal adding a chemical into the water that they could tell you to buy at any shop in the city and do the work yourself. If they are so caring, why don't they suggest adding Vitamins into the water supply, upping people's vitamin intake. Vitamins are supposed to be ingested and the benefits would be felt much more than this toxic chemical they are suggesting is going to save a few fillings.

Don't take you eye off the ball people, something we are not privvy to is afoot. Fight this now and fight it hard. Don't let them put Rat Poisen into the water. 66% of the US has flouride in their water, 98% of Europe has rejected the proposal - dental hygiene is the same standard in both areas.

Does that also mean that they will only accept "Yes" votes if the people have given the scientific proof why they want fluoride in the water? I think not.

I see this as a conspiracy against the people of Southampton as health bosses know that the reading age across the city is extremely low. These people may know that they don't want a toxic chemical in their water but may not be able to put it in writing.

Water Expert wrote:

SAINT BEAN wrote:

Freddy Flouride wrote: Hi guys, whats the big fuss? At least you guys can drink your tap water!!!!!!!!! We have bottled water and that probably has more "chemicals" in it. Any Flouride is harmless, its in Milk.

What ever you gimp, do some research, I think you’ll find that it’s not harmless at all….

So why is it allowed in Toothpaste, milk, cream eggs, cheese, frosties and ketchup? I think you are the gimp, you have been ingesting it for many years and years, you drink on average 8 pints of water a day and the majority of you English, 1-4 pints, you will not get cancer from that. Moron.

I think you’re the "moron" you so called "water expert"! Nearly all of the comments that have been written on here are true facts about Fluoride i.e. “Kidney damage”. It’s good to know that most people have an open mind on this situation. Ask your self why are the government and its agencies pushing this upon the public????????????

It is the begining1984……….crap film but you get the point…

Even if flouride in the water supply DID work and WASN'T harmful, how will it help these kids? As I understand it they don't drink water - they drink Coke etc. which is why their teeth are in such a state.

Perhaps our caring government should put a hefty tax on fizzy drinks and use it to fund more NHS dentists...

I DO NOT wish to have flouride added to my drinking water as myself and my family have healthy teeth. My daughter is 8 years old hss perfect teeth, as do the rest of the household. Why do I need flouride in my drinking water? It seems to me that some parents need educating on oral hygiene rather than dosing children up on sweets and fizzy drinks at a young age.If flouride is that safe to drink then the NHS can provide it to those in need in tablet form. Why should the rest of us who oppose force feeding of mass medication have to be included? People need to know the facts related with the health risks involved with flouride intake. Remember when people were told that the thalidomide drug was safe? People need to make up their own minds on wether they want to have a daily intake of flouride. This is a breach of our human rights. I repeat, I DO NOT wish to have flouride added to my drinking water.

If they go ahead, I for one will be taking them, Southampton PCT, to court, as will many many others who I have spoken to. I will be campaigning for people to cancel their direct debits to the water company and to always wait for the final demand before paying. I will also be putting in a formal complaint about every doctor involved to the General Medical Council, for gross contravention of medical ethics.
If the thinks this will all end in Jan 2009 and we will shut up and go away, they are in for a very nasty shock!!!
WE ARE NOT HUMAN CATTLE TO BE EXPERIMENTED ON.

PEOPLE - IF YOU HAVE FACEBOOK - JOIN THIS GROUP - THERE'S LINKS TO ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU NEED TO QUOTE WITH YOUR COMPLAINTS
http://www.facebook.
com/group.php?gid=17
154813086
If you don't have an account, look at
www.fluoridealert.or
g

Here's all the evidence you need people - post them a copy of this!!http://www.flu
oridealert.org/50-re
asons.pdf

What will be next? Estrogena and Progestin to tackle the high rate of teenage pregnancies? Steriods to combat the increased rates of Asthma? Or maybe some seasonal 'specials', such as Viagra popped into the water supply for Valentines day?
They are crossing an ethical line that is angering a LOT of people, which is why they are delibrately trying to elimate ethics from the process. Ethics is the cornerstone of medical practice and they're trampling on it. SHAME ON THEM
This won't help those who 'can't be bothered' to change their behaviour one iota, It'll just make them even more lazy and content to let nanny state, (and the tax payer), shoulder all their responsibilties for them.

Adding Fluoride could result in a Total Ban on all our Exports of Wines and Spirits to other counties.

...a Total Ban on all our Exports of Wines and Spirits to other counties ?

Really? I wonder... All the Guinness drunk throughout Europe is brewed in Dublin, and it is fluoridated! They brew it using Dublin tap water. And they don't filter out the fluoride.

JoeT wrote:
...a Total Ban on all our Exports of Wines and Spirits to other counties ?

Really? I wonder... All the Guinness drunk throughout Europe is brewed in Dublin, and it is fluoridated! They brew it using Dublin tap water. And they don't filter out the fluoride.

Cheers Joet

I won't be drinking Guiness anymore.

Guiness should not be medicating us without our individual informed consent?

The Isle of Man has rejected fluridation - https://www.gov.im/d
hss/viewnews.gov?pag
e=lib/news/dhss/dhss
listenstopub.xml
and
http://www.iomtoday.
co.im/news/Fluoridat
ion-plans-dropped.41
82772.jp

At last, a health authority that understands the meaning of NO.

If Southern Water discount the views of 65% of those who voted in the Great Flouride Debate, will they also discount the water bills so that we may purchase bottled water at no extra expense to ourselves. My family don't need extra flouride so we do not want it forced on us.

Marion, if they do fluoridate I intend to charge all my bottled water fees to them. I also intend to charge my reverse-osmosis filter costs (around 250quid) to them too, as that's the only way of ridding this toxin from your water, and they're forcing me to buy one. On top of that my osteopath bills caused by lugging bottles of water home will also be headed their way.

They can't have it both ways - fluoridate our water and expect to be charged, or leave it alone and keep their money safe.

Suggest you do the same.

The following post is available as a highly condensed landscape A4 duplex capable single sheet document for Word specifically formatted to be used as a flyer for home delivery. If you want it contact griffithspeter0@goog

lemail.com

sorry about the small print!

GIVE YOUR KIDS THE GIFT OF BONE CANCER, BRAIN DAMAGE AND STERILITY

The proposals to fluoridate public water with toxic compounds of hexaflourasilic acid are a direct breech of European regulations forbidding the mass medication of human populations. It is also an offence under section 23 of the offences against the person Act of 1861. The Water Supply (Fluoridation Indemnities) (England) Regulations 2005 (Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 920) were a specific attempt by the government to provide the water supply industry with "blanket" immunity against civil and criminal liability arising out of these criminal acts. Poisoning by Fluoride, a known and deadly toxin, has no place in the public health system and its introduction has more to do with eugenics and population control than dental care. Alan Johnson is more than aware of this. Unfortunately unelected and unaccountable "health quangos" will be seeking to call the shots on this issue and most of them will be riven with the corrupt members of Common Purpose. An organisation more sinister than the Real IRA.

Fluoridation of public water supplies should not be allowed! And here’s why: WHY EPA’S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION*

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial — reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.‡

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was all right for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief‡‡ in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.1

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride – as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan’s group found that several key chemicals in the brain – those that form the membrane of brain cells – were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others4 reported on the brain- and kidney-damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix’s finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China5,6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston.8

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue.9 The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made the finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.11a,b,c,d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey,12 Washington and Iowa13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997.14 Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.15a,b,c,

d,e Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.16 The latest publication17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important.18 Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English-speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180-degree turn on fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health.19,20,21 However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste.22 Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media,23 that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America’s children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry
.1 Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61. On-line at URL http//:www.rvi.net/~

fluoride/naep.htm. 2 Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995). 3 Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).4 Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998). 5 Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996). 6 Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7 Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994). 8 Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956). 9 Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW. 10 Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11a Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984). 11b Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984). 11c Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11d An increase in the number of Down’s syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985). 12 A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992). 13 Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991). 14 New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997). 15a Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990). 15b Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992). 15c The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992). 15d Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly . Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995). 15e Water fluoridation and hip fracture . Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991). 16 Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990). 17 Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18 Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 29-44 (1997). 19 A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999). 20 Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999). 21 Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999). 22 Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991). 23 Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998. 24 Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983. OTHER CITATIONS a Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994). bAmeliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988). cMilk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986). dMaternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988). eEffects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985). fFluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987). gFluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979). hAn unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981). iThe effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988). jModulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988). kThe crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984). lIntracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986). mFluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937). nToxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997). oAllergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993). *For Correspondence: Bill Hirzy, NTEU Headquarters, Box 76082 Washington, DC 20013. TO RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT AS AN EMAIL TXT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO 07510258880
‡For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", by investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson ,

on-line at http://www.ia4u.net/

~sherrell/bomb.htm.
‡‡http://www.rvi.net

/~fluoride/amicus.ht

m
*PLEASE PHOTOCOPY THIS DOCUMENT FOR YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS-GET THE TRUTH OUT*