Wednesday, 13 February 2008
The online version of SNJ carried this today - hopefully also in next weeks paper...
Greens oppose flouridation
By SNJ reporter
GREEN Party members in Stroud have condemned government plans to cut tooth decay by adding fluoride to water supplies. Members claim adding the chemical without residents' permission is immoral and dangerous.
Cllr Philip Booth, Green Party spokesman and secretary of the Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire, said: "This is an issue of medical ethics. Fluoridating water is essentially medicating people without their permission.
"The European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine distinctly states that individuals have the right not to be medicated without their consent."
He said the main causes of poor dental health were poor diet and inadequate dental hygiene.
"While we continue to feed refined sugar to our children in schools, efforts to reduce tooth decay will be in vain."
He said the positive health effects of flouridation were unfounded and most European countries had cut levels of tooth decay without it.
"While topical fluoride on teeth does help prevent tooth decay, there is simply no good evidence that systemic fluoride does," he said.
"Fluoride is a known poison if ingested over a long period of time, even in small daily doses."
Its consumption has been linked to medical conditions, including severe skeletal problems, discolouration of teeth, bone cancer and nerve problems.
The Green Party wants dental health education for adults and children, a warning on all sources of fluoride intended for human consumption and a ban on the fluoridation of drinking water.
Sunday, 10 February 2008
Thursday, 7 February 2008
In the Daily Telegraph 05/02/2008 there was this article below and yesterday a follow up article, also below, exposing some truth about water fluoridation - see also the previous blog entry on this site holding a comment from a Safe Water Campaign member to the Telegraph.
Alan Johnson: 'Supply fluoride to every family'By Lewis Carter
Every family should have fluoride added to their tap water supplies to stop tooth decay in children, Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, will tell health authorities on Tuesday.
Mr Johnson will urge them to increase the number of people who have the mineral pumped into their homes from six million to 53 million, to cover all of England and Wales.
Mr Johnson says the substance will provide a "dental health boost" to children who do not brush their teeth regularly.
Mr Johnson said: "Adding fluoride is an effective and relatively easy way to help address health inequalities - giving children from poorer backgrounds a dental health boost that can last a lifetime, reducing tooth decay and thereby cutting down on the amount of dental work they need in the future."
The Department of Health (DoH) says children living in areas such as Birmingham, where fluoride has been added to the water for over 40 years, have half the rate of tooth decay compared to those living in areas without, such as Manchester.
The DoH also says a review by the University of York in 2000 found water fluoridation increased the overall number of children without tooth decay by 15 per cent.
But Dr Peter Mansfield, a member of the NHS-funded review's advisory panel, warned against a nationwide implementation of fluoride in tap water.
"The problem is that there is a lot of research on this subject, but none of it is conclusive - certainly not conclusive enough evidence for fluoride to be pumped into every household," he said.
"Studies have linked it to numerous health problems."
He added it was likely families were already getting significant levels of fluoride through using toothpaste and drinking tea.
Fluoride is already added to water supplies in areas of north-east England and the West Midlands. It also occurs naturally in some areas of the country, such as East Anglia.
Three British water companies currently add fluoride to water to supplies: Severn Trent, Northumbrian and Anglian.
Arguments about adding fluoride to tap water have rumbled on for decades. Campaigners argue that the substance it too unsafe to be manually added to water supplies.
A spokesman for National Pure Water Association warned that Johnson's plans were unsafe and amounted to "medication without consent".
The DoH will ask Strategic Health Authorities to consult with local communities before pressing ahead with the plans.
It says the latest evaluation of research in Britain identified no ill effects from fluoride.
Mr Johnson's plans, which will not be enforced in Scotland, are endorsed by the British Dental Association.
• Fluorine is an element that occurs naturally in all water. Scientists say the compound fluoride helps protect teeth against decay.
• Fluoridation is the process of raising the concentration of fluoride within the water supply to the optimum level for improving dental health.
• Only one in 10 of Britain's population is covered by the so-called optimum level.
• An estimated 300 million people in 39 countries drink artificially fluoridated water.
Alan Johnson 'misleading' over fluoride benefits
Two points in your report on the fluoridation proposals need straightening out. The actual findings of the team conducting the York Review were given thus:
1. Fluoride could not be said to be safe
2. Fluoridation would be unlikely to address dental health inequalities
3. Dental fluorosis was not merely a cosmetic issue
4. More good quality research was needed
Since the Health Minister at the time, Frank Dobson had initiated the review as a once-and-for all study, these findings did not suit his preconceptions and the public announcement, given only once, very rapidly on a BBC Radio 4 early morning news bulletin, said precisely the opposite; a classic government spin job.
The second point concerns the claim of fluoride safety at a concentration of 1 part per million.This is cold water as it leaves the tap. Warming it raises the fluoride level. Unlike chlorine residues which evaporate, fluoride will concentrate to the tune of 100 per cent upon boiling a kettle and something approaching 800 per cent for as long as it takes to cook vegetables. Taking a hot bath becomes a health hazard by dermal absorption and young children are especially vulnerable. When I challenged the Drinking Water Inspectorate to justify its responsibilities under these conditions, its reply stated that the product supplied conforms to the regulations. Whatever use the consumer makes of the product is beyond the control of the DWI. How many of our parliamentary representatives are aware of this cop out?Bernard J Seward(Unfluoridated) Bristol
This was the title of a Government-commissioned study in 1999 to be conducted by an independent panel of health experts; but as it was convened under the banner of the National Health Service, it certainly wasn’t our idea of an independent enquiry.
The evidence, world-wide, that could have been set before the team could have included the massive number of US cancer deaths; the liver failure of dialysis patients overwhelmed by excessive doses of fluoride in their water supplies; the dramatic fall in pre-natal IQ among fluoridated Chinese children; the discovery in New Zealand that zero fluoride was more beneficial to children than the ‘optimal’ 1.0 part per million standard dosage; the failure of plants to thrive and grow under the conditions of fluoridated water irrigation; the blood poisoning of children exposed to large volumes of fluoridated water at bath times and the appalling public health and environmental risks of handling the fluorosilicate chemicals.
The interaction of fluorine and iodine in the body leading to hypothyroidism; the orthopaedic skeletal risks of long-term exposure; the crippling effect of fluoridated water upon animals, especially horses and zoological species; the concern in Russia about farmland and crop contamination; the massive rise in the fluoride-to-water concentration when heating it, when preparing beverages, and when cooking in aluminium pans; all this, and more would have come to the surface to generate a widespread public debate culminating in the total and final discrediting of fluoride as a health benefit, but identifying it instead as being tantamount to a criminal attack on an unsuspecting population by vested business interests having little to do with good public health.
Drug companies are keen on us all having fluoride. They will profit enormously from the sale of medications portrayed as relieving us of the side effects of fluoride, while never curing the conditions brought about by the fluoridated tap water in the first place.
Now read the title below and compare it with the one above
A Systematic Review of the Effects of Fluoride in Water
Is it likely that a study with this title will tell you about the health risks associated with fluoridated water? So why do you think they quietly changed it?
Frank Dobson, the New Labour health minister, aware of the long-held public suspicion about fluoride, had said he wanted a once-and-for-all review. He really wanted one which confirmed his personal belief that fluoridation for all was a confirmed benefit to the dental health of young children of whom some (only some), were prone to tooth decay. The study, conducted at an NHS centre attached to York University, more or less confirmed the minister’s presumption, but only because it had been re-titled, misquoted and misrepresented to public scrutiny. It was therefore a classic case of Government spin. Published in 2000, it skipped neatly over dozens of threats to general health recorded by researchers, doctors, dentists, water engineers and toxicologists, many of them distinguished Nobel Prizewinners from the American states, Chile, New Zealand, Japan, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Not a word of negative evidence was allowed to filter through to the York Review team apart from one acknowledged condition: Dental Fluorosis – a visually distressing corrosion of tooth enamel. Despite its implication for the rest of the human skeleton (hip fractures are endemic in fluoridated areas), fluorosis was dismissed as being merely of aesthetic concern. There was no acknowledgement of the original reason for fluoridation: a toxic waste disposal exercise courtesy of the US Defense Department 1946. The policy still prevails
and is a cross-party issue maintained in a spirit of ignorance of truth.
This information is brought to you via the National Pure Water Association firstname.lastname@example.org
the Safe Water Campaign http://safewatercampaign.blogspot.com
and the Socialist Environment and Resources Association
Sir,Toxic Chemicals for Our Water Fluoride products are banned in Belgium and have been rejected by most European countries. Our government is again pushing to fluoridate our water supplies and is disseminating false or incomplete evidence to the general public. The Department of Health claims that children in areas such as Birmingham, which has been fluoridated for 40 years, have half the rate of tooth decay compared with those living in unfluoridated areas such as Manchester. This is misleading as it does not take into account for instance the greater expenditure on dental care in the Birmingham area, not does it quote the age range of the sample of children chosen. The longer term effects of fluoridation may not be visible immediately. Furthermore not all children in any given area are prone to tooth decay. Are we ALL to be compulsorily medicated to benefit those that are, regardless of our health needs?Hexafluorosilicic acid (the chemical added) is a bi-product of the fertilizer industry and has NEVER been tested as a medicine. It is classified as a Part 2 poison. It is so corrosive that it can dissolve tarmac and if ingested neat would kill within minutes. Do we want ten times as much of this poison to be travelling our roads?It is admitted in the ‘York Review’ of 2000 (about the possible benefits of fluoridating water) that 50% of people in the fluoridated areas (10% of Britain) have dental fluorosis which ranges from a mild pitting of teeth to a psychologically damaging mottling (12%). The supposed benefit of 15% is not rigorously proven and there is much evidence of harm to the body: possible cancers in teenage boys, brittle bones, birth defects, liver failure of patients on dialysis etc. not to mention blood poisoning in children exposed to large volumes of fluoridated water at bath times, also the stunting effect on plant growth when such water is used for irrigation and crippling effects on horses and other animals. It is not possible to remove fluoride from the water except by reverse osmosis, a very expensive procedure.According to the law the public has to be consulted by the local Primary Care Trusts before any fluoridation can take place, so please register your objections with your PCT, your MP and your Strategic Health Authority as soon as possible.
Rob Mehta Chairman Campaign for Safe Water, Avon, Wilts and Gloucestershire
WHERE IT IS ADDED: Just 10 per cent of water supplies in England and Wales contain extra flouride.Three UK water companies - Severn Trent, Northumbrian and Anglian currently add fluoride to supplies.
posted by Bill at http://ukagainstfluoride.blogspot.com
Bernard J Seward Bristol