Thursday, 26 June 2008

Silicofluoride + Aluminium pans = Senile Dementia?

As I switched on this morning's BBC Radio 4 TODAY programme, (19th June 2008) I caught up with an interview with a Professor Weller of Southampton University. Weller was commenting upon a recent report concerning the anticipated costs of treating and caring for the increasing number of patients with Alzheimers Disease. At one point he referred to the relatively low level of research into the reasons why people develop the disease and other forms of dementia. In this, he was probably referring to such research as has been carried out in the UK. However, though perhaps unfashionable to even mention it, experimental work done in the USA could possibly throw light on this extremely distressing condition; distressing for both patients and their carers. Post mortems carried out on deceased patients, especially the elderly, have revealed high levels of aluminium in their brains. We know that aluminium sulphate is routinely added to our drinking water to clarify it; and that aluminium cooking pans and utensils are in widespread use, but that should not transmute the elemental metal because, on its own, aluminium is not readily absorbed by the body. However, when sodium fluoride is present in the water, it combines with any aluminium to form aluminium fluoride which is, by contrast, readily absorbed. Population studies in the US have shown a higher incidence of Alzheimer's Disease among people who lived in artificially fluoridated areas while an experiment conducted by Dr Robert Isaacson of the State University of New York, appeared to suggest the reason. Isaacson added aluminium fluoride to rats' food, finding that the rats lost thir sense of smell while developing short term memory problems and other characteristics of the dementia condition. Isaacson's study was featured in an article published in the Wall Street Journal in October 1992 but had been partly anticipated by a set of experiments on our own shores in 1987 when scientists at Newcastle upon Tyne showed that water fluoridated 'optimally' at 1 ppm when used in cooking with aluminium cookware, concentrated the aluminium up to 600 ppm. This was confirmed in 1987 by the Physics Dept, University of Ruhana, Sri Lanka and also at Antigo, Wisconsin where in 1990, measurements taken by a Dr I Jansen and published concurrently in the Journal of Academic Resource in Biochemistry, revealed an aluminium concentration of 833 ppm and a doubling of the sodium fluoride content. The World Health Organisation's maxima for aluminium in water is 200 microgrames per litre, but Jansen's Wisconsin experiment found it to be seventy five times over that limit.Jansen wrote, "To chance exchanging a hole in a tooth, which can be repaired at a nominal fee, for dementia in later years, for which there is no remedy at any price, hardly seems to be a good bargain. Jansen's comparisons were made where the artificially added agent was sodium fluoride, ostensibly to support the unproven claim of improved decay resistence to juveniles' teeth. Today's fluoridating agent, a complex silicofluoride, many times more toxic as well as being corrosive and slightly radioactive, can only exaggerate the effect. Then there is the non-stick coating used to line the surfaces of Teflon or Tefal cooking pans which, made from PTFE (poly-tetra-fluoro-ethane) are also a significant source of fluoride. If research into the causes of dementia and Alzheimer's Disease is to be taken seriously, it must take these factors into account, irrespective of business, professional and other economic considerations which may be undeclared vested interests to the contrary. The claim that fluorine compounds added to our drinking water, in the name of best practice in dental health, are free from risk, is a monstrous error of judgment by our health professionals The time is long overdue when prejudice needs to be set aside in acknowledgment of the truth in the pursuit of good general health. Members of the public in both good and poor health; and those charged with the care of the sick at all levels, need that assurance; and they need it now.
B J Seward

Personal Freedoms and Fluoride

To: Southampton Express and Echo:
I wish we had David Davis and his concern for loss of fundamental freedoms speaking for me and my colleagues in the Avon, Glos and Wilts Safe Water Campaign. PM Margaret Thatcher (BSc Chemistry) wasn't too concerned about them in pushing through a Water Bill in 1985. Despite a 399 Commons abstentions vote, she 'conferred' fluoridation on the population of the emerald isle. Was she really that worried about Irish children's teeth? If not, what else did she have in mind?
Bernard J Seward

Monday, 23 June 2008

Two articles on fluoride

Fluoride in the water - just grin and bear it
John Graham, an Executive Member for the National Pure Water Association, writes in The Ecologist, an excellent article on fluoride entitled "Riding the fluoride tiger":

This pic above comes from another new article re fluoride from SchNEWS:

Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Southampton Fluoride plan gets Green Light?

CONTROVERSIAL plans to add fluoride to Southampton's tap water have today taken a major step forward. Health chiefs have agreed to launch a public consultation gauging opinion of the city's residents on proposals that would see 67 per cent of them receiving fluoridated water. Southampton has one of the poorest records for dental health among children of anywhere in the country and the city's Primary Care Trust (PCT) sees fluoridation as a solution. The legitimate records actually prove this claim to be an outright lie. Southampton has one of the country's best dental health records for children. So has Bristol which is why we may have to watch our backs.

Today its call for a £178,000 public debate on plans to add the mineral to mains supplies was backed by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA), which oversees healthcare in the region. Mineral? What mineral? Silicofluoride is a compound and a very dangerous one containing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides which should have no place whatever in anything connected with public health.

Despite opposition from campaigners who claim fluoridation has negative side effects including brittle bones, brain damage skeletal fluorosis and bone cancer, the SCSHA board unanimously agreed to launch the public consultation. In that case, who will independently write the protocol for a balanced case - the plusses and minuses - when the corporate minds say there are no minuses?

"We want to find out the level of public support and want to gauge opinion once people have the chance to understand what it's all about," said Professor John Newton, regional director of public health. We've had plenty of chance, Professor Newton, thanks to the internet. You can't continue to hide behind pseudo-science and business-orientated prejudice to con the public into accepting something likely to really spoil its general health and quality of life.

The consultation is likely to start in August. Right in the middle of the holiday season when lots of us will be seeking the sun in far off places. That is strategically clever. We all come back to a done deal. Is that the way it's going to be?

The results will be independently assessed and will go before the health authorities board for a final decision in January next year. We'd all like to know who or what ranks as independent in this long-running scam, once described by three distinguished scientists as the greatest scientific fraud perpetrated upon the public in the whole of the 20th century.

Jon Reeve

From The Website of The Southern Echo

Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Public Consultation a Sham..........

South East Green MEP Labels Public Consultation On Southampton Water Fluoridation A ‘Sham’.
Dr Caroline Lucas MEP has slammed the public consultation process on water fluoridation in Southampton today, after a local campaigner was refused permission to speak at a public meeting. The public consultation meeting, to be held by South Central Strategic Health Authority in Newbury tomorrow, is meant to provide an open space for local residents and campaigners to voice their concerns on plans by the Primary Care Trust and the SHA to add fluoride to water in the area. But South West Hants Green Party campaigner John Spottiswoode has been told by officials that he will not be able to outline the dangers of fluoridation, and thus the meeting panel looks set to include only those who support the scheme.
South East MEP Dr Lucas said: “By refusing a platform for a concerned activist at tomorrow’s meeting in Newbury, Southampton health chiefs have exposed their consultation process as an undemocratic sham. Before making this crucial decision on water fluoridation, they have a public duty to listen to evidence from both sides of the debate.
“New research was presented to the Petitions Committee in the European Parliament this week which showed an epidemic of dental fluorosis affecting children in the Republic of Ireland in areas where a policy of fluoridation has been implemented. “This alarming research from the Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment is now being investigated by both the Parliament and the European Commission.
“Fluoride, or fluorosilicic acid, is an untested hazardous waste, and to add it to drinking water to supposedly prevent tooth decay is disproportionate and cannot be justified. This scheme would amount to a mass medication of the population in Southampton, and could seriously infringe the EU’s Drinking Water Directive, the Waste Directive and the Medicines Directive. “Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, particularly when the bad effects of dental fluorosis are taken into account. Furthermore, many studies have indicated links between water fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems.
Dr Lucas concluded: “Health officials in Southampton must take into account all of the concerns which have been expressed on this issue, instead of committing to this unpopular strategy.”

Health Authorites failing to protect us from fluoride poisoning

South Central Strategic Health Authority are due to take a major step towards fluoridation of the drinking water supply for Southampton and much of Eastleigh and Totton at their Board meeting on Thursday 29th May. If they accept the recommendations in the Board Paper they will embark on a consultation process with the intention of putting fluoride in the drinking water. South West Hampshire Green Party and Hampshire Against Fluoridation have vigorously opposed moves towards fluoridation and have made a detailed response (see below). In this response they accuse the Health Authority of:
• Using biased and misleading statements. This includes scare mongering about dental health, whereas in fact the dental health in Southampton is one of the best of any city in the UK and in Europe based on the published statistics.
• Ignoring compelling and valid scientific research that clearly shows the major health dangers from fluoridation (increased cancers, brittle bones, increased senility, low IQ in children, high levels of miscarriages and still births).
• Refusing to listen to why other countries in Europe have banned fluoride and refusing to hear the case against fluoride at the Authority.• Using unscientific theories and assertions based on no evidence
• Being deliberately misleading by quoting selectively and inappropriately from the government’s own York Review on fluoridation
• Failing to take account of research that demonstrates that the use of dental data on five year olds to justify fluoridation is not only seriously unsound, but fails to recognise that the data in fact demonstrates that we are poisoning our children in a systemic (whole body) fashion in fluoridated areas.• Not taking their basic duty seriously to ‘first, physician, do no harm’ and not taking the precautionary approach to medicine
• Failing to show any cost benefit from fluoridation, probably because the figures nationwide show no cost benefits. Wolverhampton shows a more than doubling of dental health costs in the five years following fluoridation.
• Being unacceptably secretive over the basis for their decision, which implies that the basis is fundamentally flawed. Why does the Authority continue to refuse to divulge the details and the Technical Report even when asked for it under the Freedom of Information Act?
• Setting up plans for a heavily biased ‘consultation’ process that would involve a one sided presentation of the case. A biased consultation is not a real consultation but a PR exercise set up to get a predetermined result.
• Fails to take account of the fact that mass medication using the water supply is highly unethical expressly forbidden by the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
• Does not take account of the fact that fluoride compounds have never been tested nor approved for addition to water to cause a medicinal effect, which is required for something seeking a medicinal effect. Spokesperson John Spottiswoode said "This report confirms our worst fears. The report fails to take account of the mass of scientific evidence pointing to major health problems from a sustained intake of fluoride and fails to seek to protect the health of us all.” “It is hard to have to attack a Health Authority for what amounts to serious health failings when we all want to trust and rely on their professionalism and good will. We rely on them to use proper evidence based medicine. However the Health Authorities are refusing to release details behind the report, even when asked under the Freedom of Information legislation. What have they got to hide? Why won't they be open with the public about their true reasons for pushing fluoridation? I thought that the Freedom of Information Act was meant to stop this sort of over-secretive behaviour. What else can we not trust them about? The Strategic Health Authority is using statistics like a drunk for support, not for enlightenment, and ignoring research that does not tell them what they want to hear. This is a serious condemnation and not one we take lightly. It is something we would not say unless we felt we had to and it was fully justified by the facts. ” “This report is a disgrace to medical science and the dangerous addiction to adding toxic chemicals to our food and water must stop immediately. If the population of Southampton, Eastleigh and Totton do not object now, and in the strongest ways, then it looks like we will end up with the toxin fluoride in our drinking water."

Fluoridation in Hampshire a real possibility

Sadly the news is that the South Central Strategic Health Authority have just released their report saying they want to proceed to the next step, ie public ‘consultation’, on the route to putting fluoride in our water. If this succeeds in Hampshire then it is more likely there will be a push for the rest of the country to also get fluoridated. See the SHA report at:> 046_decision_to_consult_on_proposal_for_water_flouridation_in_southampt > o> n.pdf
This SHA report fails dismally to take account of the mass of scientific evidence pointing to health problems from a sustained intake of fluoride. The Health Authorities are also refusing to release details behind the report, even when asked under the Freedom of Information legislation. We have to ask what have they got to hide? Why won't they be open with the public? The Strategic Health Authority is also ignoring research that does not tell them what they want to hear. In short the report is a disgrace to medical science. See more here re water fluoridation:
Here is a comment from Green party member: "It is genuinely shocking what the Health Authorities think they can do when pushing what is basically a strong toxin that is best suited as its original use as a rat poison. How can the authorities refuse to accept valid peer reviewed research evidence that they do not like, but accept deeply flawed research that does suit them? How often is this happening in other situations as well??? Unfortunately a wider conclusion is that the people in charge cannot be trusted with safeguarding our health and we can’t believe what they say without checking it out fully> ourselves. As I say it is shocking when you first encounter it in full lurid detail."
There are many concerns re fluoride - one of them is hypothyroidism. For those interested there is an e-petition from the National Pure> Water Association. Anyone in the UK is eligible to sign (you can also sign other petitions re promoting psychological approaches to traffic and removing Thatcher image from Welsh Assembly). Click sign a petition at:
Hampshire Against Fluoridation and SW Hants Green Party have combined to call on the South Central SHA to reject a report recommending that the Health Authorities proceed with the process to fluoridate the drinking water in much of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh and Totton. Some notes going towards their press release are below. Others in the SW may like to raise this issue. There are many grounds for rejecting the report recommendations, but in particular:
• The report states that 'Water fluoridation has not been shown to have untoward effects other than an increase in the level of fluorosis' (para 7.3). This is amazingly dismissive and an irresponsible misuse of science. Firstly it belittles the very real damage of fluorosis not only to the teeth, but to the bones and the rest of the body due to systemic fluorosis. Secondly it ignores the massive body of valid peer reviewed research showing major health problems linked to fluoride intake. These health problems include cancers, brittle bones, mental problems (increased senility and lower IQs) and thyroid poisoning, so why does the paper not address any of this at all?
• Misrepresentation of the scientific facts. The report refers to the York Review of 2000 and picks out of it unrepresentative statistics including some that the York Review themselves said are misleading (appendix 2, para 2.2). It also puts forward an unproved theory as to why fluoride might work (appendix 2 para 1.1), and uses unscientific assertions, covering this with words like 'probably' (para 2.4). It fails to state the key conclusion from the York Review that it did not find convincing evidence of benefit, even for teeth, and the York Review pointed specifically to the real damage caused by dental fluorosis. The SHA report does not make clear that the York Review found that 48% of those in fluoridated areas have evidence of fluorosis and 12.5% have significant fluorosis (i.e. needing treatment), glossing over the point (appendix 2 para 3.1) and using a misleading picture of> mild or very mild dental fluorosis to imply this is what the concern is about. They should show the pictures of concerning fluorosis (see below)
• It concentrates on the (unproven) benefits to teeth and fails to address the health effects from systemic poisoning of the body by extended exposure to fluoride. Using the caries data for five year olds is fundamentally flawed because young children in fluoridated areas are so poisoned that their teeth fail to come out until approximately a year after their peers in nonfluoridated areas. This means that the teeth are exposed for a year less and at five years old this is significant. The supposed beneficial effect as people age disappears, so old people have just as many fillings whatever their water fluoridation status.
• The report fails to take the precautionary approach, which any health authority should do as a primary function (first, physician, do no harm). I.e. where there is significant doubt that a substance is safe then a chemical should not be added to the water. In the case of fluoride there is massive concern shown in valid peer reviewed and published research. Fluoride has never been tested nor approved for addition to water to cause a medicinal effect.
• The report does not address the issue that it is against human rights and medical ethics to carry out mass medication via the water supply. This would be what we would expect of Hitler, but should never be countenanced in a society that respects human rights.
• The report does not justify the claimed cost benefits. Fluoridated areas such as the West Midlands have no reduction in dental health costs, in fact in Wolverhampton the dental costs more than doubled in the five years following fluoridation. The fact that this sort of detail is not being given to those concerned about the issue is very worrying. Before committing further money and effort to fluoridation these areas must be addressed properly. The report uses exaggeration and misleading statements in several places. this starts from the very first sentence where it states "..children in Southampton have some of the poorest dental health across the NHS South Central Region and in the country." and then uses comparator areas (in appendix 1) that are not at all comparable to Southampton. Recent research has shown that Southampton has one of the best dental health records amongst all the cities in the UK. Even the results of a public survey (appendix 5) are highly suspect because where fair and balanced questions are put to the public about water fluoridation in England there has never ever anywhere been a majority in favour of fluoridation. So what was the methodology used? What were the actual questions? The report does not say and the SHA refuses to give opponents of fluoridation details behind their bland assertions in the report. Saying that the health and social care professional they spoke to 'support fluoridation without exception' is similarly imprecise. Who did they speak to? How many? Have these health professionals actually read the latest research showing the dangers of fluoridation? Can we expect health professionals to step out of line when the Health profession has such a record for suppressing dissent, in some cases threatening those not supporting the official line with being struck off? Finally the formal consultation proposed (section 6) is heavily biased in favour of the pro-fluoridation camp, as has been the situation throughout the process. There is talk about a consultation document, presentations, briefing materials, advertisements and posters. Who will write these? Presumably the very same people who support fluoridation in the Health Authority already, meaning that there is no meaningful presentation of opposing views. Biased consultation is not proper consultation at all.
Rp-sw-discuss mailing list>

Nice cold, Ice cold health risk for school children?

Its all very well for the Academy of Medical Sciences to call for the monitoring of school pupils taking brain-boosting drugs such as Ritalin, but is it prepared to apply that demand consistently? Will it, for example, be making a pronouncement about monitoring children taking fluoridated school milk? According to the World Health Organisation, an analysis of children's urine should be considered mandatory for safety reasons when school milk fluoridation schemes are introduced because the total intake of fluorides from all sources needs to be assessed.
Such an analysis and its procedural methodology raises ethical issues. Staff delegation; the collation and transmission of the results to each child's GP and the entitlement, or otherwise, of parents to be informed, all pose significant burdens of responsibilty upon what should be a centres of learning and not unfunded pseudo health clinics.
However, If the effect of one drug requires a monitoring programme, so should they all where health effects are claimed, especially as the documented evidence against fluoride indicates a lowering of intelligence and attention deficits in the young.

Bernard J Seward Bristol

Monday, 2 June 2008

Chlorine in tap water 'nearly doubles the risk of birth defects'

The Daily Mail carried a report that:

"...a research team led by Professor Jouni Jaakkola of the University of Birmingham analysed the birth registry details of nearly 400,000 babies born in Taiwan between 2001 and 2003. Levels of chlorine found in water there are similar to those found in the UK. Scientists compared the number of birth defects recorded by doctors to the level of THMs in the drinking water in different areas. The proportions of certain specific defects were much higher in areas where levels of THMs were above 20 micrograms per litre.The brain condition anencephalus, usually found in 0.01 per cent of births, rose to 0.17 per cent in high-THM areas...."

This report is worrying and not a surprise to many of us who have campaigned on water - it should prompt further research - although I'm not sure it will - at least chlorine is added for a reason - to make water safer - fluoride is added to medicate.