Are you sure?

Dear Dr LeFanu

I concur with you in the matter of misconception of child abuse and
the penalties following the recent case. By comparison, I don’t recall reading anything in your column about “Public Health: Ethical Issues” a recent report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, launched in London on November 13. Its deliberations gave yet another soft landing to the subject, via a case study, of the fluoridation of our water supplies. Summarised, the Nuffield view is “…yes, fluoridation does conflict with our long-held right not to be medicated by compulsion, but in the absence of evidence of harm, that right doesn’t matter.” At the meeting at Westminster, I took the opportunity of asking why it is being assumed that naturally occurring ground water fluoride; and the dangerous industrial waste being used in the artificial schemes, are, (to use the report’s exact word), ‘similar’. As I began to elaborate the rationale for my question, I was rudely shouted down from the Chair, but my question, or my attempt at it, received a round of applause. Nobody else who raised a question on the other report topics was clapped. There would seem to be a latent concern about fluoride Piloting the fluoridation element, a youthful Professor Jonathan Montgomery, Lecturer in Health Law at Southampton University and Chair of the Hampshire Primary Care Trust, managed a neat duck-out on that question. I was researching fluoridation probably before he was born and there is either a lot he doesn’t know, or he does know more than he dares to say and plays the political card of nil comment. My 6pp submission to his team was obviously ignored. On Monday morning December 10, on the Radio 4 Today programme, Dr Jeff Hardy of the British Chemistry Association was discussing with John Humphrys his concern about water contaminants. In running through a list he avoided mentioning fluorosilicates; the toxic corrosives used to fluoridate the water supplies of (currently) 9 per cent of the population of the UK and Ireland. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government and, on his own insistence, independent of party policies, is currently at odds with the establishment view of badger culling. Sir David once said, (2004?) on a Radio 4 You and Yours programme, “Twenty years ago I would have supported fluoridation unreservedly, but today I’m not so sure.” May I ask, Dr LeFanu, given the massive world wide evidence against the use of fluorosilicates to treat water on the pretence that it helps children to have fewer rotten teeth, are you sure, or, like Sir David King, not so sure?

Yours sincerely

Bernard J Seward

IQ scores plummet in Fluoridated China.

Ed Balls' wife, Housing Minister Yvette Cooper, is among those MPs passionately committed to drinking water fluoridation as a dental health benefit for young children and I doubt very much that her husband would dare to disagree. However, having launched his "Children's Plan" with the aim of making Britain the best country in the world for children, with the expectation of 'world class' schooling as part of the concept, he really ought to look eastwards - to China. The Chinese authorities, having noted an indisputable and significant reduction in IQ scores among young people living in state-fluoridated regions, have stopped all their fluoride water treatment schemes stone dead. Compromising Chinese children's intelligence in exchange for a few less rotten teeth is not an option in the competitive global knowledge economy. Neither should it be for the UK despite our government's ambitions to the contrary.
Bernard Seward
Safe Water Campaign

Food and flavour preferences

To: Daily Telegraph
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007

It occurs to me that scientist Julie Mennell of the Monell Chemical Senses Centre in Philadelphia may just have heard of the research carried out by Dr Phyllis Mullenix in Massachusetts and published in 1995. Finding a flavour transmission factor between mothers to be and their unborn children is not so far removed from the effects of the ingestion of artificially fluoridated drinking water. It had been assumed by Dr Mullenix that fluoride would not cross the blood/brain barrier but she discovered, much to her surprise, that it did so; and that it predicted disturbed behaviour, a low IQ and ADHD, both irreversible in the born infant. The Mullenix research should have sounded a warning across the United States and elsewhere, but far from being acclaimed for her discovery, she was virtually sacked from her senior post at the Forsyth Institute for Clinical Studies because nothing was allowed to conflict with the long-held unsubstantiated proposition that fluoride, administered in the cause of better dental health among children, was safe, proven and effective. Bernard J Seward
Member : Safe Water Campaign : National Pure Water Association

Fluoridation - "It delivers results every time"

Dear Editor,

I wholeheartedly agree with Julian English {Editorial Comment 15.11.2007] that fluoridation of water supplies delivers results every time! Quoting evidence from the York Review {the definitive treatise for Government bodies} fluoridation delivers 48% dental fluorosis, 12.5% of serious aesthetic concern, which would require cosmetic dentistry to remedy, (probably at considerable cost to the sufferers family}. The York Review suggested an overall benefit to the incidence of dental caries of 15% but admitted that the evidence was unreliable and that higher quality studies should be undertaken. There is also emerging evidence in the U.S. that in fluoridated areas there is an increased incidence of osteosarcoma {bone cancer} in teenage boys which has a 50% mortality in the first five years. The “delivery” might also include brittle bones, thyroid damage et alia!! Mr. English makes a comparison with flu’ jabs, mass inoculation and smoking bans but omits to notice that thinking people have a free choice in those matters!! I would also like to refer Mr. English to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics “Public Health- ethical issues”, published 13.11.07 ISBN 978-1-904384-17-5, in which the benefits and harms of fluoridation are considered in a very balanced way. The study publishes a graph which shows the decrease in dental caries in 14 European countries between 1965 and 2003 for 12 year olds. Each country shows a marked decrease. The only countries with fluoride are Spain 3%, Portugal 1%, U.K.9%, Ireland 74%. In the U.K. between 1973 and 2003 there has been a decrease in decayed, missing or filled teeth from 5 to 1 in this age group. The study advises that given the general improvement in children`s teeth the possible harm caused by fluoridation, the low quality of research and the alternative methods available for delivering fluoride to those who want it, at best a “precautionary approach” should be taken on any further fluoridation of our water supplies. I would therefore like to suggest that the “anti- fluoridation “lobby, far from being “silenced” is alive and well and being supported in its aims by the academics of today.

Yours Sincerely,Rob Mehta

UK Arthritis Drug Concern.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has ordered Prexige, available in the UK since December 2005, to be withdrawn from the market...amid concerns that it may cause liver damage.

________________________________________________________________________

This seems to represent a very responsible attitude on the part of the MHRA. It has not waited for a definite Yes or No while risking peoples' health; the likelihood of it causing a serious health condition has been enough for the agency to exercise its function to have the drug banned completely. So what does it have to say about silicofluoride which some regional health councils have mandated as a blanket addition to their water supplies? This, without consultation; without signed consent and without regard to world-wide condemnation of the practice! It says that 'fluoride', being unlicensed, is not a medicine, therefore it is of no concern to the agency.We may ask why the agency has not seen fit to grant it a licence when is is being used overtly for a medicinal purpose - the reduction of tooth decay in minors. Possibly for fear of litigation? The 'fluoride' currently administered to 9 per cent of the population of Britain and Ireland is an untested industrial waste of which the EEC Directive on Dangerous Substances once stated: Do not let this material enter the environment; dispose of it only under controlled conditions. Containing, as it does, measurable traces of lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, silicon and two radioactive elements, it really should have no place in anything even remotely connected with public health, at whatever concentration. The graph of a 25 year Swedish survey conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, plotting the general decline in tooth decay throughout European countries, shows upward/reverse trends only in those countries where fluoridation has been promoted and adopted, suggesting that fluoride actually causes dental decay instead of preventing it as is claimed. In so far as arthritis is implicated, the cause and effect of fluoride on that condition was established in 1993 by Dr Robert Carton, a risk assessment manager for the US Environmnental Protection Agency. Carton had conducted research based on the medical records of several hundred thousand post-65 white women, some of whom had been exposed to fluoride in the water. Those that had been so exposed suffered from arthritis - all of them; but those living in unfluoridated communities and states, were free of that condition. Our Government's attitude to that research; and more like it from other countries including Australia, New Zealand, China India and Japan, has been to ignore it. The MHRA is obviously content to follow that policy along with the Health & Safety Executive, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the British Dental Association, the BMA and successive health ministers of both main political parties, The history of fluoridation has been characterised internationally by droves of distinguished 'experts' and learned bodies side-stepping their public responsibility to tell the truth.

Bernard J Seward

Latest meeting: Nuffield, Dentistry, Stall and more

Thursday saw us meet in Stroud - only seven of us but in some ways more productive - great coffee as usual - and lots talked about including...




Nuffield Council: launch of report in London

Hopefully there will be other blog entries on this soon as Bernard Seward, one of our members, was able to go to London for the launch as both the Safe Water Campaign and individual members submitted reports to the enquiry.



However the results of that enquiry are deeply disappointing as they seem to ignore even the York Reviews calls for caution - more on that soon. The photo left shows our listing in the bodies who submitted reports.




Letter to Health Authority

Our final draft of a very detailed letter is now complete and was approved by members - we are awaiting it to be typed and hopefully it will appear on this blog soon - it has been researched in great detail and refers to recognised reports - and completely discredits any argument in favour of water fluoridation.

Stall on Saturday

We planned bits and pieces re a stall - and infact had the stall today in Stroud to encourage more signatures and members - it was very cold and not as many as we hoped stopped to talk - but still a great opportunity to remind people we are still here and the issue has not gone away. It was also a chance to release our updated local leaflet re water fluoridation with this blog address on it - plus some beer mats still available (see previous blogs for info on that).


Dentistry magazine

The November edition has an extraodinary editorial comment which was sent to the group by a dentist who opposes water fluoridation. In it, the piece argues that "the anti-fluoridation lobby has been silenced. It must have conceded that consumer water fluoridation is entirely beneficial to the health of the public."

Julian English, the editor, wants to see health authorities penalised if they don't fluoridate - he also wants to see a political party adopt water fluoridation in their manifesto - in fact the Green party already have - the only party to have a policy although it is against water fluoridation - not what Mr English perhaps wants to see. Anyhow the group are planning a response to that so hopefully that will also appear here.

Bombshell: Did Kidney Foundation leave millions at risk by failing to warn about Fluorides and Fluoridated Drinking Water?

Ellijay, GA, October 9, 2007

The National Kidney Foundation’s alleged failure to warn kidney patients that they are particularly susceptible to harm from ingested fluoride from drinking water and other sources is the subject of a precedent-setting letter to the Foundation from a legal firm. Coming at a time of increased public suspicions over the operations of large national nonprofit organizations, the letter is sure to draw the attention of many of the 20 million American adults that the Foundation says have chronic kidney disease. The letter lists both the Foundation itself and its officers and directors individually as being potentially liable for not telling kidney patients important, state-of-the-art fluoride information. For decades, water agencies have added fluorides to drinking water supplies as a means to help prevent cavities. But recently, major cities such as Juneau, Alaska and Quebec have voted to halt fluoridation amid increased public concern and growing evidence of fluoride’s serious unwanted side effects on kidneys, bones, teeth, and perhaps even other organs such as the thyroid. Kentucky attorney Robert Reeves’ letter to the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) cites an authoritative report from the National Research Council issued last year that admits that, “Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.” The NRC report also identifies kidney patients as a “susceptible subpopulation” that is particularly vulnerable to harm from fluorides. Reeves asks the Foundation, “Why has NKF not publicly and effectively notified its constituent kidney patients and care givers of the National Research Council’s statement…?” He also questions why NKF has not openly disseminated news of the link between kidney impairment and possible skeletal fluorosis from fluoride depositing in bones, and about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new efforts to measure amounts of fluoride ingested by Americans from foods and beverages. “We believe the kidney patient community and also jurors will find deep pause in consideration of these questions,” he writes. Reeves’ letter may be viewed at: www.fluoridealert.org/NKF_letter01.pdf


A search of the National Kidney Foundation’s website for the word “fluoridation” did not return any results, and a search for “fluoride” showed only five results, none notifying families of the NRC’s findings. Daniel Stockin, a public health professional with The Lillie Center, Inc., a firm working to educate Americans about harm from fluorides, questions why there are redundant filtration systems for water used in kidney dialysis machines, to remove fluoride and other harmful substances, but kidney patients are allowed to drink fluoridated water. “It makes no sense. How many people with renal disease who did not need dialysis and were hoping to avoid it, were kicked over into needing a lifetime of dialysis by fluoride ingestion?” He points out that dialysis center patients have died or become fluoride-poisoned due to accidental overfeed of fluoride at a water plant or failure of filters on dialysis machines. “Overfeeds of fluoride happen a lot more often than most people know, but fortunately poisonings at dialysis centers are very rare, and dialysis centers provide an extremely valuable service,” he says. “But kidney patients’ lives and quality of life are at stake on and off dialysis machines, and even before their condition worsens to the point of needing dialysis. What could justify not telling kidney patients they are particularly susceptible to harm from fluoride intake? Is it fear of lawsuits? I would hope not.” “The letter to the National Kidney Foundation is only the tip of the iceberg,” Stockin says. “The kidney and diabetes lawsuits are about to begin. Employers, water agencies, food and beverage sellers and manufacturers, you name it -- I would suggest they immediately halt use or sale of fluoridated water or products containing it.” Attorney Reeves’ letter supports this tip-of-the-iceberg assessment. Insurers, employers, contractors, unions, and outdoor workers will also want to be made aware of the issue. Reeves notes that workers in hot jobs who drink water or other beverages to replace lost fluids may find that their pre-existing kidney conditions become exacerbated by continued ingestion of fluoridated beverages when working. Legal actions also threaten to engulf the Centers for Disease Control, a key federal agency facing increased questioning over its continued promotion of fluoridation. Reeves’ letter points out that CDC’s ethics committees received a detailed ethics complaint over CDC’s promotion of water fluoridation in August, the news of which piqued his interest. Now, kidney patients are beginning to contact him. He has offered NKF an opportunity to officially change its current, outdated position on water fluoridation, but won’t wait much longer. “People on dialysis, or who have chronic kidney disease, who have transplanted kidneys, or who have kidney stones have trusted the National Kidney Foundation,” he says. “Why hasn’t NKF told them about fluoride?”





Press Release from The Lillie Center Inc.

Letter to the Times.........

Folic acid added to our flour is on the same wavelength as Fluorosilicate (fluoride) added to our water. Since MPs have had 'choice' on their lips so often when debating health issues, one wonders what is in it for them that they so lightly sweep it aside. What's in it for us? I can't speak for folic acid, but fluoride will depress our immune systems and our children's IQ; and that's just for starters. Ministers concerned about under achievement in schools and those wrestling with increasing demands on our health service, should ponder this.
Bernard J Seward
Bristol

An insidious threat to us all?

When, many years ago, I attended a public meeting of the old Bristol Community Health Council, I asked a question during a discussion on fluoridation. The BCHC had pledged its support for fluoridation to Avon Area Health Authority and I asked why. I also asked whether the American experience, practice and evidence had been taken into account in reaching that decision. Their response was a deafening hush; they hadn't the slightest idea as to what I was talking about. This is just one small piece of the relevant evidence which has transpired over several decades of global fluoridation policy, to have been stifled from public scrutiny. Fluoridation : A health bonus for children, or an insidious threat to us all? Its about time we had an answer - an honest one with no spin attached.

Safe Water Campaign supports Burma

Bloggers around the world today are only making one entry on their blogs in support of a Free Burma - this Safe Water Campaign blog is pleased to be counted among them. Please act now:

Sign petition:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/u.php
Email EU President and Gordon Brown:
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/crackdown.php
Join march: protests are expected right across the world at 12-noon local time. They have already been scheduled in key locations including: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, India, Ireland, France, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, the UK and the US. In London, the day of action will start at 11am with monks leading a march from Tate Britain over Westminster Bridge where they will drop petals into the Thames. They will then stop and tie their headbands onto Downing Street gates before proceeding to a rally at Trafalgar Square at 12.45 ish. Around the world campaigners will wear red headbands in solidarity with the monks under arrest and tie these onto government buildings, religious shrines or key landmarks to signify the thousands of lives currently hanging in the balance.
For a map of the route, please visit:
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/ / http://www.amnesty.org.uk/
Boycott/write to the 'Dirty List' of companies who do business with Burma:
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list.html

The stuff they want to add

http://www.pelchem.com/fluorosilicic_acid.html

This link is for the stuff the Department of Health wants to add to our water supply on the pretence that it will be beneficial in preventing kid's tooth decay. Have a look at this company website - read the Safety data - and see what you think. Ask yourself, "Is this a good idea?"

Bristol Water safe for moment

Here's a reply from Bristol Water yesterday - although it will be the Health Authority making the decision it is reassuring to read this:

Bristol Water's position on fluoridation is unchanged: We do not add fluoride to our supplies, nor do we want to do so. We would have to abide by the law if we were instructed to fluoridate by the local health authorities. However, I am unaware of any such approach being made or planned.

If we became aware of any such move, we would ensure that the Consumer Council for Water was kept informed. As regards the possibility of a fluoridating agent from the Midlands entering our water supply via the water we abstract at Purton, I am told that this is very unlikely, given the huge dilution effect involved.

Fluoride toothpics!

I was sent these two toothpics from someone who was wanting to warn about fluoride use in some toothpics. One toothpic is Sensodyne medicated flavour and the other is a Tesco freshmint flavour with fluoride.

In Belgium the Health Minister has banned fluoride in water, toothpaste, mouthwashes, gels, tablets, chewing gum and indeed even toothpics!

American Dental Association warns on fluoride

The American Dental Association, which has for many years been one of fluoride's biggest advocates, alerted its members late last year that parents of infants younger than a year old "should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride" when mixing baby formula. Read more here.

Dental Survey - response to the promotion of fluoride

This is the response below that one anti-fluoridation campaigner got to the recent Dental Survey (see blog for 21st May) when they noted that the survey appeared to be promoting fluoride, albeit in an oblique way by suggesting brushing teeth with fluoride toothpaste.....

Thank you for your email and interest in the survey.

Brushing twice-a-day with fluoride toothpaste is generally accepted by all dental professionals as the most important part of any good oral healthcare routine. It is particularly important for children because it strengthens the enamel as it forms, making the teeth more resistant to decay.

Like most UK and world health organisations the Foundation fully supports the introduction of fluoride to the water supply as a proven method of reducing tooth decay – something that affects half of five year olds here in Britain.

Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in all water. Some areas are lucky enough to have a natural water supply of one part fluoride per million – the optimum level. These areas have lower rates of tooth decay. However, some areas are not so lucky and the Foundation supports the view that adding fluoride to areas with a low fluoride count in their water supply would give everyone an equal chance of avoiding tooth decay – no matter where they live.

There is no evidence to suggest that water fluoridation is linked to any general health conditions, despite a large number of reputable scientific studies (seeNHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York University in 2000 and the Medical Research Council in 2002). Furthermore fluoride has been added to the drinking water in Birmingham since 1964 and the only noticeable effect has been a reduction in tooth decay.

The only other argument against adding water fluoridation is – as you yourself state - that it could be perceived as a form of ‘mass medication’ and, therefore, an infringement of civil liberty.

However, the fact that all water is treated for bacteria before it reaches our taps makes this something of a non-argument. The addition of chemicals to our water supply to prevent illness is seen as common sense – and that is exactly what water fluoridation is.

While we agree wholeheartedly with your view that children should be encouraged to eat a healthy diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables and avoiding sugary snacks, the reality is that, in many cases, this simply does not happen.

Adding fluoride to the water supply has been scientifically proven to reduce tooth decay and would even provide significant protection for children and adults who do not, or cannot afford to, maintain a good oral healthcare routine themselves.

It would be single most important and successful measure to improve UK oral health that this country could take and, therefore, the Foundation fully supports it.

British Dental Health Foundation

This provoked a response from another member which I also enclose below (apols but this is the draft version - I can't get his final version to copy here at the moment):

I can’t let this message pass without comment. I am not a member of the dental profession. My background is in industrial technology and education but I have researched the subject of fluoride and fluoridation insofar as it has been promoted as a dental health benefit for the past fifty years.

I propose to comment in your paragraphed order.

Brushing twice a day – I find no fault in this, but I would like to see the habit extended to three or more times a day; before, as well as after, meals. I would like to see every child who carries a mobile phone to carry also a toothbrush. Every child of school age should have a toothbrush in his or her pencil case. Designer toothbrushes would help motivate sales and personal pride in frequent use. Brushing without water and toothpaste is also beneficial, so too is the discreet use of toothpicks.

Like most UK and world health organisations… - Do be careful here. The UK Department of Health certainly does support the fluoridation of water supplies but the World Health Organisation approves fluoridation only on condition that a preliminary survey of fluorides from all sources has been carried out in the area or community for which the scheme is proposed. This is in recognition of fluorine compounds being a hazard to general health. The WHO in fact sponsored a Swedish study over a 25 year period across the countries of Europe (including the UK) which plotted a general decline in tooth decay except where fluoridation schemes had been introduced. To claim that fluoridation is a proven method of reducing tooth decay calls for more questions to be asked. To date there have been few convincing answers from those who purport to hold sway in public health interests.

Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in all water - Sorry, but fluoride is not a mineral; it is the natural element Fluorine (a toxic gas) in compound with one or a number of other elements. In some (but by no means all) groundwater sources, it is in compound with Calcium. Very few natural sources contain Calcium fluoride at a concentration as high as one part per million. This may be verified easily by looking at the labels on retailed spring water. Fluoride, where it appears, is usually listed as <0.2mg.> Wrong again, unless you take as gospel the outcome of the York Review conducted at the NHS Centre for reviews and Disseminations mentioned further along in your text. Yes, we know Birmingham has been fluoridated since 1964, but while tooth decay may have been temporarily reduced among the target groups of children, that city holds the national record for hip fractures. It is important not to overlook the link between these two health conditions. Fluoride robs the human bone matrix of Calcium; I don’t need to spell out the consequences. The antagonistic relationship between fluoride and iodine is the precursor to numerous cases of Hypothyroidism. This has been documented worldwide, the most notable source being the PFPC (Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children). The reason for this information not being available to the team conducting the York Review was due to the Government (or the DoH) suppressing all negative research which would have cast doubt upon the long-standing proposition that fluoridation was effective at preventing tooth decay.

Claimed to be systematic and scientific, the York Review should answer Yes to the first proposition, but No to the second. Its open-ended web site attracted massive ridicule from internationally respected experts including Nobel Prizewinners.

The only other argument … I doubt that this would be the only one, but since you have raised it, mass-medication is not a civil liberty; it is an individual liberty. Medication is a one to one relationship between a patient and a medical specialist. My diagnosis, treatment and medication for me; and yours for you, started, monitored, regulated and eventually (we hope) stopped. There can be no argument about this and the European Convention on Human Rights confirms the position. Common sense is irrelevant.

Yes, water is treated to kill bacteria; we all accept that under the terms of the original Water Act to ensure the supply of ‘a clean and potable product’.We have not had a tradition of adding chemicals to (allegedly) prevent illness until fluoridation was promoted by the USA post-war as a means of disposing of non-biodegradable nuclear processing chemical which could not be land-filled or dumped at sea. The ‘magic bullet for children’s teeth’ concept was a federal exercise in scape-goating.

The encouragement of children to eat a healthy balanced diet doesn’t produce the desired result largely because the media resources and the health and education services have not been financed and briefed to target the problem. That will not happen where the true motive for fluoridation – the disposal of a waste product – is being shrouded in secrecy and camouflaged as a health issue. Have you noticed that the subject is never featured in live media discussions? Uncommitted writers who scratch the surface receive little official feedback, positive or negative.

Adding fluoride to the water supply has been scientifically proven to reduce tooth decay. I’m sorry, but it hasn’t. If that had been the case, why was a huge measure of the science deliberately excluded from consideration by the York Review team? By ‘huge’ I mean tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies from world-wide sources. The reason was that too much of the truth relating to serious health conditions like cancer, hypothyroidism, arthritis, renal failure not to mention the socially repulsive dental fluorosis portending the skeletal fluorosis acknowledged in a Commons answer by Baroness Hayman to a question posed by Lord Baldwin, would have seriously embarrassed those scores of professionals who had pinned their reputations to it. The window of opportunity for compensation claims against the Government is another ‘sticky wicket’ which would be best avoided at all costs.

It would be the single most important and successful measure… It would be probably the most important because it would be (and is) illegal. The fact that fluorosilicic acid is being administered indiscriminately to 6 million British citizens, with a recent call for a further 12 million to be added to the tally, changes nothing. It contravenes European law to which our outgoing leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, a man with legal training, has committed us. Under the European Biomedicines Convention, the patient is always referred to in the singular.

There can be no question of mass medication even if the appalling nature of the fluoridating agent precludes it from qualifying as a medicament.

I was amazed, recently, to hear a leading figure in the dental profession declare on Radio 4 that sugar and sugary foods were the cause of children’s tooth decay. Not a word was said about fluoride as a prophylactic.

A proposition published many years ago in one of the newsletters of the National Pure Water Association suggested that while Aspirin, taken daily, was said to be good for the prevention of heart disease and would be likely to reduce the incidence of minor illnesses and absence from work, the reason why it had not been considered for mass distribution via our water supplies was that Aspirin is not a dangerous industrial waste product looking for a profitable use. Silicofluoride, of course, is precisely that; with no opt-out under individual diagnosis of fluorine sensitivity; or for kidney dialysis patients, diabetics and others needing to drink excessive quantities of water, allegedly for the treatment of a condition (tooth decay) which is neither contagious, nor life-threatening and can be quickly brought under control.

I sincerely hope, that by throwing a more balanced light upon your perception of the fluoride debate, I have adjusted your thinking on the subject.

Yours, with the best of intentions,

Bernard J Seward

Ps If you would like a copy of my submission to the Bio-ethics Committee of the Nuffield Foundation, I will be pleased to e-mail a copy to you.

Manchester Bid to put fluoride in water

The news today is that Manchester are looking at four schemes for adding fluoride to tap water across Greater Manchester.

Health bosses have asked United Utilities to price up four options. The costs of the different projects are being kept a closely guarded secret until September when they will be given to health trusts around the region, who will have to decide if any of the options are cost effective.
If primary care trust bosses decide any of the options are viable, NHS North West will hold a public consultation - expected to last four months - into the plans.

The four options are to add fluoride to: The entire north west water supply (84 water plants); water supplied to Greater Manchester (26 plants); Greater Manchester, Liverpool and Blackburn water (42 plants); the 14 largest plants in the region, which supply most of Greater Manchester except for some of Rochdale.

Against the evidence some councils and health trusts in Greater Manchester have publicly supported the idea of fluoridating the water supply since 2005. Salford Council's Community, Health and Social Care Scrutiny panel met to hear presentations on the issue. More meetings are now expected across the region. Guy Harkin, director of North West Fluoridation Evaluation group, said: "In 2005 the chief dental officer wrote to all PCTs requiring them to consider fluoridation and there are lots of health trusts now looking at the costs involved. The first step is to decide if fluoridation is cost effective."

Anti-fluoride campaigner Paul Cline said: "I am not against the health authority providing fluoride toothpaste or sprays to children with poor dental health but they cannot justify mass medication of all children, their parents, grandparents and neighbours."

Centre for Political Song lists our song!

The Centre for Political Song at the Glasgow Caledonian University exists to promote and foster an awareness of all forms of political song. I sent our song in yesterdays blog off for consideration and have heard this morning that it will be listed on their website. Here is their email:

Many thanks for the e-mail, and for sending in the song, which we will certainly include on the website. If you have any other songs from your campaign, either now or in the future, please send them in. We at the Centre for Political Song are particularly interested in gathering in material from local campaigns such as yours. It seems that whenever an action group is formed people start to write songs to rally, sustain, promote, educate, and otherwise benefit their campaign; often these rather ephemeral songs are lost once the campaign is over. Please note that we are very short staffed at the moment, so it may be a couple of weeks before we can get the song up on the site.

A song opposing fluoridation

At last I have hear the words and music of the song that was played at our recent AGM. Apols but text still seems to be running into itself with no gaps - will try to rectify soon.


BROWN SPOTTED TEETH (A song opposing fluoridation)

All your life, you’ve often thought your drinking water’s clear;
You’ll down a glass, or maybe two, with now’t to risk or fear,
But poison in our water taps will mean that, all too soon,
Our teeth go brown with pits and flecks like craters on the moon.

CHORUS

Brown spotted teeth, brown spotted teeth! Say goodbye to self respect with brown spotted teeth! repeat chorus

The dentists they will tell you all to brush with fluoride paste,
But fluoride in the water taps is crude untreated waste.
You sure must be aware that now our fuels are free from lead,
But fluorides in your cans of drink will give you lead instead.

CHORUS

If you should choose to down a pint of beer, the brew sublime,
To tamper with its water, well, it sure would be a crime,
But that is what our Govn’ment wants to do to everyone.
You’ll have no voice to make a choice. Your health’s a loaded gun.

CHORUS

Get happy on the dancing floor. Your partner’s looking pleased.
With fluoridated spotty teeth you smile, but don’t say cheese.
The dental quack he’ll say to you, “Veneering will disguise
Those pits and flecks and browny stains. No sweat; you’ll be surprised.”
But when you come to pay your bill, you’ll wonder what he did.
To give you back your self respect he’ll take five hundred quid.

CHORUS

West Midlands is the region claimed for lowest tooth decay.
The kids enjoy their fluoride drinks. They have them every day;
But unbeknown to mums and dads, their health is on the slip,
For in their life expectancy they’ll likely break a hip.

CHORUS

Fluoride will affect us all, our horses, dogs and cats.
In years gone by in USA ‘twas used for killing rats!
Don’t be fooled by NHS its argument is thin:
Avoiding fluoride through your mouth you’ll get it through the skin

CHORUS

Don’t misunderstand this lads: While you enjoy your beers,
Your health is going all to pot, so thank you Hazel Blears.
She spoke up in the House of Comm’s debating off the cuff
“You don’t want fluoride water folks? Then drink the bottled stuff!”

CHORUS

Keep our water safe lads, lets keep our water safe,
Don’t play games with public health let’s keep our water safe.
Keep our water safe lads, lets keep our water safe,
Stand up for your human rights lets keep our water safe.

Words—Bernard Seward
Music—Rob Mehta
Performed by- Rob and Jehanne Mehta (see photo)

Email top Boris Johnson

To: Daily Telegraph in response to article by Boris Johnson

Dear Boris,

POLONIUM 210

'The most poisonous substance in the world' - Is it? I'm not sure how it stands in relation to Plutonium but it can't be far away.

"One drop the size of a full stop; enough to poison a legion" Your own words, Boris; and worth committing to memory, since I guess that puts it into general perspective for most of us, especially the 9 per cent of the UK population who are getting it daily through their water supply.

Polonium 210, discovered by Mme Curie in her research on Radium, has a safe threshold value
of 5.3 trillionth parts of a gram. In figures that is (stand back!) 0.0000000000053
In other words, it's lethal in any kind of quantity perceivable to the layman and yet, as a variable component of the fluorosilicic acid used to treat the tap water of the folks in Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, the Welsh border counties and parts of the North East, it is approved for use by the Department of Health (or do I mean 'Stealth'?).

At a recent conference of the taxpayer-funded British Fluoridation Society, Professor Michael Lennon called for a further 20 per cent of the population to be fluoridated - without consultation, a one-to-one signed agreement, human rights or regard for the illegality of such a measure. That would bring the total up to 18 million English citizens (Scotland has disowned it), fluoridated through their water supplies because (it is claimed) a relatively tiny minority of children have bad teeth.

It really is about time that you and the Daily Telegraph took the lid off this dreadful scam which has been blowing hot and cold for the last fifty years.

The presence of Polonium is bad enough, but if the radiation does't get at you, the heavy metals will. It took a few £billion to get rid of Lead in petrol; so how do we justify putting it back into circulation via the water supplies? And Mercury! And Cadmium! And Chromium! And Silicon!

When, last October, I challenged NICE to comment on Fluoridation, its reply was to the effect that since 'fluoride' is not a medicine, being uncertificated for both public consumption and as a medicinal product, it was outwith its area of responsibility.

So I suppose that gets NICE off the hook for anything to do with the nation-wide supply of an untreated industrial waste chemical containing carcinogenic and neurotoxicant substances, high level corrosives and radionuclides having infinitesimal safety thresholds? That, folks, in case you didn't know, is "Fluoride - the magic bullet for children's teeth."

We acquired it in the 40s, courtesy of the US Defense Department which had immeasurable quantities of Gaseous Hydrogen Fluoride stockpiled in the wake of the Manhattan Project. If the technology hasn't changed, the Iranians will be accumulating it similarly with their Uranium enrichment.

It is non-biodegradable and probably the ultimate pollutant. 60 per cent of it in our water is retained by the renal function. It corrodes glass. It destroys 66 of the 83 enzymes we all need to function correctly, so the effect on the immune system does not need much elaboration - bad news for the recovery of surgical cases, AIDS patients, especially in fluoridated South Africa; and very young fluorine-hypersensitive infants whose premature deaths are attributed to other causes. Insofar as teeth are concerned, it causes more problems long term than it is claimed to prevent, dental and skeletal fluorosis being at the forefront.

I have tried previously to communicate with you on this subject and I will probably do so again, but please don't dismiss me as a 'nutter'. There are enough of those among the self-interested cross-party members in the Palace of Westminster and in the DoH. The web site of the National Pure Water Association is a good source of researched scientific reference and I would especially commend to your attention the following: http://safewatercampaign.blogspot.com

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Respectfully, Bernard J Seward

Take part in National Dental survey

The British Dental Health Foundation (BDHF) survey is underway and we need everyone to send them a very clear message about water fluoridation.
http://www.nationalsmileweek.org/national_dental_survey/public_survey.html

Amongst other questions the survey asks is if your water supply is fluoridated and if you would like it to be. Let us send a message to the BDHF that we do not want fluoridated water. Name and email address are the only obligatory questions and you will receive a confirmatory email.

Your questions about water fluoridation answered here.

Another letter for the Telegraph

Sir,
If its an EU No to mercury in barometers but an EU Yes to mercury in light bulbs,
where does the EU stand on mercury in our (artificially) fluoridated drinking water?

Bernard J Seward
Bristol

Fluoride in Teflon

See The Ecologist website for an excellent article on the dangers of Teflon. Pat Thomas writes:

"In accordance with the precautionary principle, Teflon should be withdrawn completely from household use until DuPont can produce incontrovertible evidence that this artificial chemical compound is safe to use. If such data is not forthcoming it's easy to predict a future in which legal action could bring Teflon's manufacturer to its knees."

AGM: How I discovered Fluoridation

Saturday saw our AGM in the British School and apart from an excellent discussion resulting from questions we had two fascinating speakers: Rissa Mohabir, a local homeopath talking about the effects of fluoride and Bernard Seward, a long term campaigner against water fluoridation.

Photo: Rissa left and Bernard below

The meeting kicked off with some live music and a protest song about water fluoridation - I'll add a post re that and the words in next few days. Rissa then gave a fascinating talk about how homeopathy has considered water fluoridation which was followed by Bernards talk which is enclosed below. Sadly this blog is rejecting paragraphs and running all the text together - this makes it difficult to read - any thoughts on how to stp this would be welcomed!

How I discovered Fluoridation
Bernard J Seward 2007

The Esher News and Advertiser, the weekly newspaper in Surrey at whose print works I served my trade apprenticeship, carried a well subscribed letters page.

A regular contributor was a retired RAF officer, Mr P Clavell Blount who seemed to be conducting a one-man campaign of resistance to us all having something called fluoride in our drinking water.

The ‘fluoride’ at that time was Sodium Fluoride and, according to Clavell Blount, was the poisonous by-product of the aluminium smelting process. His argument against fluoridation stemmed first and foremost from his indignation of having a medicament forced upon him and his family by Government edict although, at that time (the late 1950s), fluoridation had not reached our local waterworks.

It was, nonetheless under discussion at the former Ministry of Health and the Secretary of State for Health at that time was Mr Richard Crossman of then ruling Labour Party.

Clavell Blount didn’t have the topic to himself; it was replied to by various local residents, one of whom was Sir Gerald Dodson QC who occupied a prestigious legal position as Master of the Rolls. Dodson famously wrote, “I have no objection to having my water fluoridated, but my preference is to take it with a measure of Scotch.”

That pompous statement irritated me and I thought to reply to it myself. I approached the chief sub editor who simply said “Write whatever you like; if there’s space we’ll consider printing it” And he did. He published everything I wrote from then onwards, not necessarily to do with fluoridation, but with many other aspects of the local culture.

I think I should point out that my dad was no slouch with the typewritten communication to various individuals, journals and newspapers, so I guess I was following in his footsteps. Writing school essays had been my particular strength;

I won’t bore you with my scholastic weaknesses.

It was obvious that pro-fluoride debate at local government level was proceeding on the strength of the ‘received wisdom’ perpetrated by the USA, that fluoride was a naturally occurring mineral. Where it was deficient in concentration, the benefit to children in respect of the resistance of their developing teeth to decay, justified its adjustment to no more than one part per million of water. As far as I was concerned, whatever the concentration, it set a dangerous precedent.

These days we hear a lot about ‘choice’ in connection with the health service. That was the word I used in my reply to the eminent legal brain of Sir Gerald Dodson.

I wrote:
Sir Gerald has the privilege of choosing of whether he takes whisky with his water or not. I demand the choice of consuming fluoride, or not. I do not choose to use fluoride toothpaste. With fluoride in the tap water, I am denied that choice. The proposals are immoral and unethical.

Shortly after that I wrote another letter to my paper with a copy to a larger circulation county newspaper, The Surrey Comet.

Sir, I would have you know I’m getting sick to death with all this clap trap about whether or not we should have fluoride in our tap water. The arguments, for and against, serve only to cloud the main issue, namely profit. Anyone with investments in the aluminium industry will tell you the same. If we allow these minority pressure groups and individuals to influence the case, we could all stand to lose and then where would we be? No, let us have our water fluoridated, and without further delay; and if the children are going to benefit from it as well, then jolly good luck to them. I signed it Filthy Capitalist

After this appeared in print, I had a phone call from Mr Clavell Blount, thanking me for my contribution. He said he wished he had written it himself.

He also took the opportunity of introducing me to the National Pure Water Association which I decided to join. Its succession of news bulletins convinced me that I had been on the right track from the start and that its supporting cast was somewhat greater than minority groups and individuals. People in positions of power in Parliament and elsewhere were rightfully concerned about the travesty, not only of the moral and ethical aspects, but the scientific ones as well.

I took this on board and when I came down to Bristol in 1967 to take up a technical college teaching appointment, I found the topic under review by the Bristol Community Health Council which, after a simple vote, had recommended fluoridation to the Avon Area Health Authority. I went to a BCHC meeting at Stockwood to ask specifically why they had reached that conclusion.

The lady chairman replied “We were thinking of the children” What else could she have said? So I asked whether the American fluoridation experience had been considered and taken into account in the discussion. She hadn’t a clue as to what I was talking about.

Then a voice from the back of the hall declared, There is nothing to be concerned about; fluoride is perfectly safe and will help to reduce children’s tooth decay.

I later identified this chap as Tom Dowell, a dentist who has now achieved a position as Chair of the Bristol Primary Care Trust. In more recent years, I received a letter from him stating there are no plans to fluoridate Bristol as “the natural fluoride levels are adequate and children in the region have generally good dental health.”

But, of course, there is a political undercurrent which, in the words of the former Chief Dental Officer, Professor Raman Bedi, suggests that pressure will be applied to ”…persuade the people to accept it ” This is not the customary form of words for a man purporting to lay the ground for an impartial public consultation. The morals and ethics of the case are still being violated. We must be on our guard against cunning plans.

This brings us up to date.

Launch of our new Beer Mat

The Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire, which is based in Stroud, will launch a beer mat campaign in the Angel Cafe in Stroud at 2.00pm on Thursday 19th April to raise awareness about the threat to our water supplies from possible fluoridation by health authorities.

Philip Booth, Secretary of the group said: "The Government wants our water supplies fluoridated to prevent tooth decay in children. Yet its own review admits it is not proven safe and calls for more research. Research shows fluoride is harmful. We believe we should each have a choice about whether we are medicated or not. There are safer ways to tackle tooth decay than fluoridation."

New campaign

Philip Booth said: "We have produced several hundred beer mats that we will be asking pubs and cafes in the area to use to highlight our campaign."

The beer mat has information about the campaign and reads: "FLUORIDE in the WATER MEANS FLUORIDE in your BEER".

The group have also organised a talk for 10.45 a.m Saturday 28th April at the British School, Painswick Inn , Gloucester Street, Stroud entitled "Is our drinking water still at risk?" It includes Rissa Mohabir, a local homeopath talking about the effects of fluoride and Bernard Seward, a long term campaigner against water fluoridation. More info from Philip Booth on 01453 755451 or R.Mehta 47, Bisley Old Road, Stroud, GL5 1LY.

Support from Top Green

Dr. Derek Wall, author and lecturer in economics and the Male Principal Speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales came to Stroud on Wednesday 11th April. His visit included a press conference at Star Anise cafe in Stroud, a public talk in the Old Town Hall plus visits to local green initiatives including meeting Dale Vince at Ecotricity, the nationally recognised Green Shop in Bisley, Stroud's co-housing project and a blacksmith in the Whiteway Colony.

Derek also met a representative of the Safe Water Campaign and offered his support to the campaign to prevent fluoridation of water supplies. His partner is a publican in Kent so he was particularly interested in the new beer mats that the Safe Water Campaign plan to launch on Thursday this week. More on that here soon!

Children's tooth decay caused by suger

Letter sent to the Telegraph:

It's official then, is it? Children's tooth decay really is caused by suger intake?

I am frankly amazed at the statement by Derek Watson of the Dental Practitioners Association who claims that cutting out sugar from our diet would end tooth decay.

Whatever happened to the 50-year old hypothesis which, by adding a toxic compound called "fluoride" to our water supplies, the same objective could be achieved without too much concern for sugar consumption? Not much concern for human rights, either!

At a January 2007 conference organised by the Fluoride Information Centre, a Professor Michael Lennon, representing the taxpayer-funded British Fluoridation Society, said he wished to see the number of UK citizens drinking fluoridated tap water increased from 10 to 30 per cent.

This would then total 18 million people receiving no-choice medication; in exchange for what?

An 18 month deferment of inevitable tooth decay and a whole portfolio of negative health conditions, too numerous to list in a short letter, but commercially attractive to drug producers pretending to offer remedies. I dare say the sugar refiners would be pleased as well.

Bernard J Seward

Free water with a campaign leaflet!!

Last weekend Safe Water Campaign members hired a stall in Stroud Farmers Market to distribute fluoride free spring water and advertise our talk coming up in Stroud - see here for details. The Stroud News and Journal covered the story and I have spoken with them on the phone - they are planning a more in depth look at the subject in coming weeks. Meanwhile the stall prooved very popular - many trying the free water and ending up taking away a campaign leaflet! Philip Booth, Secretary, Safe Water Campaign.

A comment on scientists and fluoridation

The news that US scientists have been offered money to produce contrarian evidence to mitigate concern about global warming brings to mind a precedent (see Philip's blog item for 9th Feb 2007).

During World War 2, the team of defence scientists working on the Manhattan Project – the race to make the atomic bomb ahead of Germany – co-opted a dentist who was paid to fabricate a convincing case for the public consumption of gaseous Hydrogen fluoride, the spent chemical used for Uranium enrichment.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of this chemical, supplied originally by the DuPont de Nemours Corporation, was standing in holding tanks. It was so toxic and corrosive it could not be released into the environment and dumping it at sea was not an option, but adding it, a drop at a time, to everybody’s water supply, apparently was. Thus was born the practice of ‘fluoridation’.

The dentist? He was given the task of working up the theory (still unvalidated even today), that the presence of natural insoluble Calcium fluoride in groundwater somehow conferred a degree of resistance to tooth decay among children. The notion went like this: If Calcium fluoride was beneficial, why not Hydrogen fluoride? Ignoring the very grave and significant differences between the two materials, a thesis was concocted which ‘proved’ the theory. The US Environmental Protection Agency was leaned on to support it and a multi-million dollar programme was launched to promote ‘Fluoride – the Magic Bullet for Kids’ Teeth’ in all anglophile countries having a nuclear capability. This, of course, included us in the UK.

The flawed science supporting fluoridation was passed around in professional and academic circles and many students would have taken it on board as part of their studies, consolidating the thesis as a kind of ‘gospel’, immune from negative criticism.

Deeper thinking people, including uncorrupted scientists who opposed the idea, were overruled by the US Defense Department which insisted that fluoridation was necessary in the interests of national security. Even the 1500 white coats working for the EPA who jointly signed a lengthy and scientifically reasoned statement condemning fluoridation policy, were blasted by the American Dental Association which attempted to rubbish the integrities of all of them.

Today, those ADA members who took part in professional character assassinations have been replaced with a successive generation of younger and more enlightened personnel. A recent communiqué tells us that the ADA has issued a stern warning to the global trader Wal-Mart to stop selling fluoridated ‘baby-water’, promoted for making up formula feeds, on account of its threat to infant health. It should come as no surprise to learn that a substance, powerful enough in concentrated form to corrode glass would, diluted even at 1 or 2 mg per litre, also attack tooth enamel and displace bone calcium over a period of time short enough to guarantee dental fluorosis before teen age; and full scale skeletal fluorosis well before middle age.

So, will it take a new generation of scientists to lead the way to combat global warming where our present leaders, mired in economic theory, cannot ditch the spin to act fast enough; and have we enough time left to wait until they do?

Bernard J Seward,
Avon, Glos & Wilts Safe Water Campaign,
Bristol

Letter to Sunday Telegraph motoring

J M of Warrington cites the reduction of lead in the atmosphere as a health bonus. Indeed it is, but our autocratic nanny government is pressing for a further 12 million citizens to have their tap water treated with junk fluoride. If it goes through, they will each get back the lead excluded from their petrol along with traces of mercury, silicon, cadmium, arsenic and a whole raft of other dangerous chemicals our politicians would rather we didn't know about.

Bernard J Seward
Bristol

Why Basel stopped fluoridation

Last week we had our usual monthly meeting - getting ready for our AGM and launch of our new beer mats - in the process of getting paperwork together I came across this again from the 'North West Councils against fluoridation' written in May 2003 - it is another useful reminder about why we should not be going down the route of water fluoridation:

"Except for one small area in Spain Europe is now fluoride free, the last fluoridated city Basel in Switzerland stopped fluoridation last month after 41 years giving 4 precise reasons:

1. The preventative effect of the fluoridation of drinking water could not be proved by any study. When specialists do not succeed in producing definite proof in 40 years, the issue has to be abandoned.

2. Inspite of the fluoridation of drinking water caries has been on the increase with children.

3. The danger of fluorosis is played down, nobody talks about fluorosis of the bones. The fluoridation of drinking water is particularly problematic in the case of young children and babies.

4. Less than 1% of the fluoride in drinking water is actually used for "prevention of caries", more than 99% of the fluoridated water is used for washing, cleaning, industrial production etc and thus only pollutes the environment, a very undesirable imbalance.

I think this says it all!"

Talk: Is our drinking water still at risk?

The Safe Water campaign for Gloucestershire invites all to attend a presentation featuring Rissa Mohabir, a local homeopath talking about the effects of fluoride and Bernard Seward, a long term campaigner against water fluoridation.

Details: 10.45 a.m Saturday 28th April at the British School, Painswick Inn , Gloucester Street, Stroud.

More info from Philip Booth on 01453 755451 or R.Mehta 47, Bisley Old Road, Stroud, GL5 1LY.

David Drew asks question on impact of fluoride on infants

Photo: Very mild to severe dental fluorisis

Yesterdays Written Answers from Hansard: David Drew MP (Stroud, Labour): To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department is undertaking into the impact of fluoride intake upon infants.

Rosie Winterton Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Health Services), Department of Health):

"Research evidence shows, that apart from the benefits to oral health, the only effect of adding fluoride to drinking water to a level of one part per million is on the incidence of dental fluorosis. Since this effect occurs when the permanent dentition is developing in infancy, it has been suggested that babies fed on infant formula, which has been made up with fluoridated water, may be at risk. The most common manifestation of dental fluorosis is a white flecking of the teeth. However, the affected teeth still enjoy the same protection from decay that fluoridation offers. The evidence to date shows that only a very small minority of people are concerned by the cosmetic effects of dental fluorosis, but we are considering the commissioning of further research in this area."

It seems to me a letter or several to Ms Winterton is in order. See here for more info re dental fluorosis and here for more re infant formulas.

Sheffield to fluoridate?

John Green, director of Dental Public Health at Sheffield Primary Care Trust, the author of a new report into children's dental health and dental services in Sheffield said: "There has been no change in dental health in the last 10 years. Improvements we have seen in the 80s and 90s have stopped. This is a big problem as we are not getting any further and the inequalities are as great as ever."

This is just not the whole story - this statement has much misinformation that a glance at other entries to this blog will clarify. Thankfully Sheffield Council has so far rejected requests from health chiefs to add the chemical to tap water, but campaigners will need to continue to work hard to stop the health authority recommending fluoride. Mr Green, has now presented his findings to a meeting of Sheffield Council's Children and Young Person Scrutiny and Policy Board. We await with interest and concern the next moves. Rotherham Council is also currently considering whether to approve fluoridation for its water supply.

More letters to get fluoridation talked about

A collection of letters from our prolific letter writer Bernard Seward in Bristol:

1. To: BBC Today Programme
Subject: Mercury - health hazard or health benefit.

Linda McCavan, who is concerned about the escape of mercury from barometers, would do well to ask the Department of Health for a chemical analysis of Hexafluorosilicic acid which is the complex compound being used to treat the water supplies of 9 per cent of the British population. There she will find included, not only mercury, but lead and cadmium as well. While she was right to mention the neurotoxicant effects of the heavy metal; carcinogenics are also represented in this extremely dangerous mix, said to be beneficial to the dental welfare of young children. The long term health hazards, proven beyond doubt by international research, have been suppressed and sidelined by successive health ministers anxious, or under direction, not to rock the boat of the received wisdom of 'fluoridation' upon which so many health professionals have pinned their reputations.

Bernard J Seward


2. To: BBC Today Programme
Subject: Alzheimers Disease

During the Radio 4 Today item on the question of treatment for Alzheimer's Disease, one of the experts spoke of the condition as 'genetic'. If that is taken to mean 'inherited', it needs to be pointed out that there is an environmentally-related possible cause of this distressing disease which should be addressed without prejudice. I state this because it has been largely concealed from public consideration for the last half century by successive governments dedicated to perpetuating a scientific fraud.

I quote, with some minor editing cuts, from GROVES B. Fluoride - Drinking Ourselves to Death Newleaf 2001

IT HAS BEEN KNOWN for many years that fluoride (a fluorine compound) inhibits Acetylcholinesterase which is involved in transmitting signals along nerves. Clinical and physiological studies from Russia, published in 1974, demonstrated that patients with occupational fluorosis exhibited disturbed nervous activity and brain dysfunction.

China, like India, has high levels of endemic fluorosis. Not surprisingly, a great deal of research into other possible effects of fluorides has been conducted in these two countries. The first suggestions that fluorides could affect the brain were published in 1982. Since then there have been many studies of the role of fluorides in brain development and corresponding effects on intelligence.

For many years, researchers have noticed that elderly people suffering from Alzheimers Disease have high levels of Aluminium in their brains. From what source? Aluminium is used in the manufacture of cooking pans and aluminium compounds are frequently added to the water supplies as clarifying agents, but since aluminium on its own is not readily absorbed by the body, there must be another reason. There is.
Fluoride, whether from natural sources, the artificially added Sodium fluoride or the more common (and dangerous) Hexafluorosilicic acid, combines with the aluminium to form aluminium fluoride which is easily absorbed.

After population studies showed a higher incidence of Alzheimer's Disease among people who lived in artificially fluoridated areas, Dr Rob Isaacson of the State University of New York added aluminium fluoride to rats' food. He found that the rats lost their sense of smell, developed short term memory problems and other characteristics of Alzheimer's Disease.

Isaacson made comparative studies of the effects of Sodium fluoride and Aluminium fluoride to determine if fluoride's effect on aluminium cookware, or its effect when combined with aluminium sulphate, added to some water as a flocculent, had an impact on the developemt of Alzheimer's Disease. The result was positive.
The aluminium fluoride was more toxic to the brain than Sodium fluoride. This finding has great significance as Alzheimer's disease was unknown until people started using aluminium cookware.

Experiments performed in 1987 at the Medical Research Endocrinology Department, Newcastle upon Tyne; and the Physics Department of the University of Ruhana, Sri Lanka, showed that water fluoridated at the 'optimal' level of 1.0 ppm, when used in cooking with aluminium cookware, concentrated the aluminium up to 600 ppm. A similar test carried out in Antigo, Wisconsin USA revealed an aluminium concentration increase of 833 times, with a doubling of the fluoride content.

The PTFE coatings, now used extensively for non-stick cooking pans, are also a well-known source of liberated fluoride.

Yours sincerely

Bernard J Seward


3. To: Daily Telegraph
Subject: Its Fluoride (pollution) time again.


If Gordon Brown wants to make Britain the best educated nation in the world, he should talk to the Chinese. China is priding itself on turning out 20 thousand or more graduates year on year and is leaving no stone unturned in its pursuit of that goal.

One of those stones is the removal of an impediment to IQ among children aged 8 to 13. Research by Chinese scientists in 1995 found a correlation between high levels of naturally occuring fluorides in the ground water and incidents of serious brain dysfunction.

Less than two years on, in the US, a comprehensive report entitled 'Toxic-induced Blood Vessel Inclusions caused by Chronic Administration of Aluminium and Sodium fluorides and their Implications for Dementia'
by a scientist named J A Varner, with colleagues, discovered that tap water fluoridated at one part per million could cause neurotoxicity where aluminium (used to clarify water) was present at only half that concentration.

In 1994, Richard Masters and Aaron Coplan, scientist and water engineer respectively, in a study of 280 thousand children in Massachussetts found high lead levels in the blood of those living in fluoridated communities. Lead, of course, is a heavy metal we'd rather do without because heavy metals compromise normal brain development and neurotransmitter function, leading to long term deficits in learning and social behaviour.

Ironically - for the fluoridation proponents - a major survey of 120 thousand children in fluoridated New York State found that those with high lead levels also had more tooth decay than children living in neighbouring unfluoridated communities. This was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association and commented at some length by the New York State Coalition on Fluoridation. The NYSCOF web site makes compulsive viewing. Even the listed report headings spell out big trouble for fluoride consumers.

So with the benefit of their own research and that of other countries, now freely available and accessible on the international networks, the Chinese authorities are playing safe and have banned fluoridation, cancelling existing schemes and abandoning plans for similar interventions, all in the interests of the pursuit of academic excellence among their young people.

Another of the West's competitors in the knowledge economy, India, has legislated to remove all fluorides from water before it reaches the suppliers. In short, a fluoridated water supply is inconsistent with academic achievement among its consumers. The condition of their teeth is an irrelevance.

So, wake up Gordon Brown! Don't glibly accept all that stale US-inherited Dental Association hype. If waste elimination features in your new manifesto, make a start by witholding further treasury funding for any more ill-considered or fraudulently manipulated health schemes. If British education is really worth fighting for, and it is; it should be easy enough to set aside the collection of disparate professional views in your targeted objective.

Bernard J Seward


4. To: bbc@focusmagazine.com
Subject: Letters - Re Household Chemicals

We may not buy it by the bottle but one dangerous chemical which enters the homes of nine per cent of the population of Britain and Ireland under water fluoridation schemes, is Hexafluorosilicic acid. A toxic bioaccumulator with 60 per cent kidney retention, H2SiF6 attacks tooth enamel, destroys over half the enzymes we all need to function properly and weakens the immune system. The internationally-validated evidence against it is overwhelming. Mainland Europe has recognised the potential health hazards and abandoned fluoridation but the UK Government not only stubbornly supports it, but refuses point-blank to debate it, while muzzling the media against even mentioning it in open discussion.
Bernard J Seward

Fluoridated Birmingham is a record holder for dental and skeletal fluorosis

It does not appear to be widely known in the West Midlands that one of the variable components of the additive euphemistically termed 'fluoride', used to treat the population through it's water supply, is Polonium 210.This is the radioactive mineral which was used to poison Alexander Litvienko.The chemical analysis of 'fluoride' is usually given as H2SiF6, but sometimes H2SiF4 because of the uncertain balance of minerals within the compound. Generically, Hexafluorosilicic acid is not only radioactive, but highly soluble when taken both orally and dermally, corrosive enough in its concentrated state to corrode glass and thereby a threat to the enamel of the teeth of its target population; and an inhibitor of Calcium in bone development. Small wonder that Birmingham holds the countrywide record for hip fractures and is a contender for similar in terms of dental and skeletal fluorosis. The neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity of the compound, due to its silicon and heavy metal content, are additional 'bonuses' for public health.Thanks to what appears to be a low-profile 'public' consultation, the practice of fluoridation could be extended well beyond the current 9 per cent of the UK population, ultimately to the detriment of its consumers; certainly to a reduced life expectancy. We all have the right not to be medicated or medically treated by compulsion, irrespective of claims of benefit and safety. It is anathema to the principles of democracy.Is there nobody in your neck of the woods sufficiently concerned (or informed) to challenge this long-standing political scam?

Bernard J Seward. Avon, Glos and Wilts Safe Water Campaign

Flawed Science

The news that US scientists have been offered money to produce contrarian evidence to mitigate concern about global warming brings to mind a precedent.
During World War 2, the team of defence scientists working on the Manhattan Project - the race to make the atomic bomb ahead of Germany - co-opted a dentist who was paid to fabricate a convincing case for the public consumption of gaseous Hydrogen fluoride, the spent chemical used for Uranium enrichment. Hundreds of thousands of tons of this chemical, supplied originally by the DuPont de Nemours Corporation, was standing in holding tanks.
It was so toxic and corrosive it could not be released into the environment and dumping it at sea was not an option, but adding it, a drop at a time, to everybody's water supply, apparently was. Thus was born the practice of 'fluoridation'.
The dentist? He was given the task of working up the theory (still unvalidated even today), that the presence of natural insoluble Calcium fluoride in groundwater somehow conferred a degree of resistance to tooth decay among children. The notion went like this: If Calcium fluoride was beneficial, why not Hydrogen fluoride?
Ignoring the very grave and significant differences between the two materials, a thesis was concocted which 'proved' the theory. The US Environmental Protection Agency was leaned on to support it and a multi-million dollar programme was launched to promote 'Fluoride - the Magic Bullet for Kids' Teeth' in all anglophile countries having a nuclear capability. This, of course, included us in the UK and was sustained throughout the Cold War.
The flawed science supporting fluoridation was passed around in professional and academic circles and many medical students would have taken it on board as part of their studies, consolidating the thesis as a kind of 'gospel', immune from negative criticism.
Deeper thinking people, including uncorrupted scientists who opposed the idea, were overruled by the US Defense Department which insisted that fluoridation was necessary in the interests of national security. Even the 1500 white coats working for the EPA who jointly signed a lengthy and scientifically reasoned statement condemning fluoridation policy, were blasted by the American Dental Association which attempted to rubbish the integrities of all of them.
Today, those ADA members who took part in professional character assassinations have been replaced with a successive generation of younger and more enlightened personnel.
A recent communiqué tells us that the ADA has issued a stern warning to the global trader Wal-Mart to stop selling fluoridated 'baby-water', promoted for making up formula feeds, on account of its threat to infant health. It should come as no surprise to learn that a substance, powerful enough in concentrated form to corrode glass would, diluted even at 1 or 2 mg per litre, also attack tooth enamel and displace bone calcium over a period of time short enough to guarantee dental fluorosis before teen age; and full scale skeletal fluorosis well before middle age.
So, will it take a new generation of scientists to lead the way to combat global warming where our present leaders, mired in economic theory, cannot ditch the spin to act fast enough; and have we enough time left to wait until they do?
Bernard J Seward, Member : Avon, Glos & Wilts Safe Water Campaign, National Pure Water Association, Socialist Environment & Resources Association.

Growing mustard with Fluoridated water............

We have tried one initial experiment in growing mustard seeds using Stroud water, Kidderminster water (fluoridated) and local spring water. We attempted to keep all other conditions the same .
The results were as follows:-
The root system of the mustard grown with the fluoridated water was the least developed after about ten days. The mustard seeds watered with spring water grew the fastest (tallest) followed by the fluoridated water and lastly the Stroud tap water.

Please get in touch with us if you would like to try further experimentation with fluoridated water.