Fluoride In The Water

[jimbms]

I think you are all missing the point. If you want flouride then let the govt provide you with a device that can flouridate your water for those of us who don't want it give us the choice not to have it. The govt was quick enough to ban toxic smoke from public places but yet want to force a potential toxic chemical if the dosing equipment goes wrong upon us. By that argument then pubs should be able to allow 1 smoker at a time in them as it is limiting the dose to the level we may get in the street.

[Mission]

Longtale TV's take on things Ushtey - clicky

 

Even Vader has something to say on the subject.

[pontiuspilot]

a message to SOW, given all the fuss you have caused over the otherwise uncotentious issue of improving dental health with your over stating the dental flourosis point, and the fact that you have complicated and politicised the issue, is it not about time that you came clean and told the world who you are?

or are you going to continue to hide behind your anonymity.

otherwise the conspiracy label that you have been sticking on the govermnent may be more appropriatly placed on you.

[saveourwater]

a message to SOW, given all the fuss you have caused over the otherwise uncotentious issue of improving dental health with your over stating the dental flourosis point, and the fact that you have complicated and politicised the issue, is it not about time that you came clean and told the world who you are?

or are you going to continue to hide behind your anonymity.

otherwise the conspiracy label that you have been sticking on the govermnent may be more appropriatly placed on you.

 

Kevin Glynn, not a secret at all I have given my name in another thread as well when asked.

 

I also put my name to the press releases that I draft and when I go on radio or when I write to the newspaper. We are also always named at the public meetings.

 

We did not politicise this issue, it is political. Quintin Gill MHK attended the first public meeting on the matter and was so impressed with our speaker he then contacted us – not the other way around.

[_pele_]

I think you are all missing the point. If you want flouride then let the govt provide you with a device that can flouridate your water for those of us who don't want it give us the choice not to have it. The govt was quick enough to ban toxic smoke from public places but yet want to force a potential toxic chemical if the dosing equipment goes wrong upon us. By that argument then pubs should be able to allow 1 smoker at a time in them as it is limiting the dose to the level we may get in the street.

Well said and I think that people should have fresh clean water and not polluted for someone else's egotistical beliefs.

 

"Why I’m suing Canada over public water fluoridation"

http://fluoride.kamloops.com/

 

I heard some strange gossip recently and I must say, it sounds a little far fetched, but the person is usually well informed one way or another.

So the question that was initially put to me; What has the A bomb and fluoridation got to do with each other? (You work it out and don't ask me for help either, as I'm keeping out of this one)

[ballaughbiker]

By that argument then pubs should be able to allow 1 smoker at a time in them as it is limiting the dose to the level we may get in the street.

Eh? Are you for real ? Is this a wind up? Are you a troll?

If you are serious, tobacco smoke is hardly a reasonable comparison. 1) Smoke contains over 120 toxins, non of which are therapeutic. 2)Smoke does not occur naturally 3) Smoke is harmful at any concentration, fluoride is harmless at 0.75 ppm. 4)Name someone killed by fluoridated water. I can name four people in my immediate family killed by smoke. etc etc etc

 

 

And as for "why I'm suing Canada", I gave up after the first sentence which contained the phrase "Public water fluoridation is the addition of 1milligram of the element fluorine to every liter of water". Yeah right here's a scientist (not) at work. Adding the element fluorine? Bollox. Impossible and untrue! They will have to do better than that to sue anyone..........

 

Why don't you stick to the 'freedom to choose argument' without trying to bolster it with ridiculous comparisons or non-science? I think the right to choose is the only valid argument in this long running debate

[WTF]

By that argument then pubs should be able to allow 1 smoker at a time in them as it is limiting the dose to the level we may get in the street.

Eh? Are you for real ? Is this a wind up? Are you a troll?

If you are serious, tobacco smoke is hardly a reasonable comparison. 1) Smoke contains over 120 toxins, non of which are therapeutic. 2)Smoke does not occur naturally 3) Smoke is harmful at any concentration, fluoride is harmless at 0.75 ppm. 4)Name someone killed by fluoridated water. I can name four people in my immediate family killed by smoke. etc etc etc

 

smoke does occur naturally, forest fires and volcanoes etc. and i'm sure the odd child that drowns in a bathtub unattended in an area with flouridated water would quallify as killed by said water. and when people refer to died from smoking, it is not usually smoke that kills you,( like suffocated in a burning house ) it is more likely lung cancer. i've never read about lung cancer cells giving off smoke!! but i would summise that when incinerated as hospital waste or at the crem, it does but not fatally to anyone thereabouts.

[ballaughbiker]

ffs , what the **** that can't be a serious post

[jimbms]

The comparison was NOT the fact that smoke is more dangerous than fluoride (although I reserve the right to argue that) but the fact that they are saying fluoride in small doses is OK and by the same argument it is said if 1 person out of 500 in a large room smokes then the amount of tobacco smoke each person would inhale has a non measurable effect. But on both counts if the amount ingested goes over the safe limit then the effects can be quite serious. We have taken steps now to ensure we are protected from tobacco smoke but what steps are being taken to guarantee 100% than there can never be any occasion that the dose of fluoride in water can ever exceed same limits. Unless we can have this then we must be given the choice not to have our water contaminated by a potential lethal chemical if ingested in amounts over the stated safe dosage. Let us not also forget that this amounts to mass forced medication, this has been proven to be illegal in most European countries, to date only the great Orwellian state of the UK has been able to force this on the population without public consultation, thank god that here at least they seem to be starting to listen to the population as has been proven by the popular and wise decision of the Ramsey commissioners to declare it unwanted. If you want to live in a nanny state where the government tell you in which direction to wipe your arse, then remember.......There's always a boat in the morning.

[WTF]

ffs , what the **** that can't be a serious post

no it wasn't, what i need is an emoticon of a guy with a fishing rod reeling in.

[nipper]

 

 

[ballaughbiker]

Yeah, yeah, WTF that would be very amusing if it wasn't such a serious subject.

[WTF]

Yeah, yeah, WTF that would be very amusing if it wasn't such a serious subject.

 

 

are you planning on going in then? how can not allowing someday to break a law contravene their human rights?? it is only right that you have greater choices when not encarcerated. freedom of movement being top of the list.

it won't be long before prison is against your human rights. it is actually quite surprising what rights prisoners actually have!! and they play the system accordingly.

 

 

thanks nipper, i can't copy all of them but the big ones come out good. :-)

[ballaughbiker]

wtf - I should take more (unfluoridated) water with it

[incandescent]

FLUORIDE DECEPTION CONTINUES

 

We should be thankful that some right-minded ethical individuals have taken the trouble to defend the public interest and bring to our attention information on the subject of fluoride that we may not otherwise have been aware. There are those on this site that seek to criticize the messenger but miss the message.

 

I am from the West Midlands and have two children effected by fluorosis and the psychological effect of the condition is to cause my children to have a loss of interest and confidence in their appearance. It has also had the effect of causing them to feel there is little point in brushing their teeth. For a member of the IOM Health Authority to state that fluorosis is merely a cosmetic effect is an egregious generalisation. For the Health Authority to be a member of a commercial organisation (the British Fluoridation Society - a zealous Floridation promoter) and claim to be providing impartial advice to the public should be seen for its sophistry. In the House of Commons Baroness Hayman said in reply to Lord Baldwin's question "Is there any real threat from Fluoride?" - " We accept that dental Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity " What else would you expect from dangerous chemicals added to the water supply? How does an ingested chemical only find its way to the teeth? - see below

 

Having only recently become acquainted with the subject of fluoride it is surprising that a proposal to provide mass medication should even be considered when there are so many reliable peer reviewed studies indicating the disadvantages of fluoridation. Readers may find the '50 reasons to oppose fluoride' a worthwhile read under www.fluoridealert.org. A good starting point worthy of attention.

 

The public have been deceived on many issues such as Weapons of mass destruction, Lead in Petrol, Asbestos, Thalidomide, Tobacco, Sheep Dip, DDT etc. and Fluoride is no exception.

 

It was originally maintained that the benefit of fluoride was obtained by ingestion, getting into the tooth. It is now known that any benefit is topical not systemic. That is, fluoride is absorbed into the tooth enamel by direct surface contact. So why put it in the water? We are being ‘sold’ on the emotive issue of protecting our children’s teeth, yet few children drink water, preferring cordials and fizzy drinks. For those that wish to be persuaded by the assumption fluoride works, then use fluoride toothpaste.

 

Readers may also care to consider the following - (IOM water loss in underground leaks not known, may be more or less.)

 

You’re considering putting fluoride in 100% of the water.

The UK Department of the Environment admit to losing 40% of that in underground leaks before you even get it – so that’s 40% of all the water you’ve bothered to fluoridate gone out into the environment where it is not supposed to go by International Law !

Of the 60% that’s left, industry uses around 90% of the water supply – I’m including farming. So that’s 90% of the 60% of all the water you bothered to fluoridate gone.

Out of the 10% that makes it to your house, you drink less than 1%. You water the lawn, wash the dishes and clothes and flush the toilet but you’re not drinking it.

Out of the population, how many children have the really bad teeth we’re trying to cure? About 3% of the population! So you have 3% of the population drinking 3% of 1% of 10% of 60% of all the water you’ve bothered to fluoridate. Does this sound like a logical way to deliver a drug to a small target audience who don’t even drink the water?

Would you want me to take someone else’s drug for the rest of my life for a condition I don’t even have – because a small group of children don’t brush their teeth, eat too many sweets, and drink fizzy drinks all the time! Well if they are drinking fizzy drinks full time, then there is no point in putting it in for them, they don’t even drink the water supply!

 

Get informed – learn the true history of fluoride – read The Fluoride Deception written after 10 years of research by award winning journalist Chris Bryson.

 

The technical bit

 

There are many deceptive efforts at persuading us that fluoride is good for us on the basis that it occurs naturally in water and whilst this is to a varying degree true, this is Calcium Fluoride. However that is not what is added to the water supplies under the general term fluoride. Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation are unlicensed medicinal and lacking any test of reliability, and toxicity constitute a medical experiment.

Fluoridation has been rejected or banned in most of Europe and European Human Rights legislation makes it illegal. Fluoridation is now accomplished mainly by the use of Hydrofluorsilicates obtained from the effluent scrubbers of the Phosphate Fertiliser industry which represents a highly toxic hazardous waste.

The legal definition of a medicinal product in the European Union (Codified Pharmaceutical Directive 2004/27/EC, Article 1.2) is any substance or combination of substances "presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings" or "which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action." Furthermore, in 1983 a judge ruled that fluoridated water fell within the Medicines Act 1968, "Section 130 defines ‘medicinal product' and I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents falls within that definition."16

If fluoride is a medicine, evidence on its effects should be subject to the standards of proof expected of drugs, including evidence from randomised trials. If used as a mass preventive measure in well people, the evidence of net benefit should be greater than that needed for drugs to treat illness.17 An important distinction also exists between removing unnatural exposures (such as environmental tobacco smoke) and adding unnatural exposures (such as drugs or preservatives.)

 

Ethics and informed consent

 

Consent must be based on an understanding by the subject of the nature and potential consequences of fluoridation and its alternatives. The subject must have been informed by health care professionals about all relevant facts, including the risks, which must include a full assessment of the risks related to the individual characteristics of each patient, such as age or the existence of other disease. Clearly, in the case of fluoridation of the public water supply no such actions have been taken or are planned, so no informed consent is possible. Nor has the state the power to take upon itself the right to make such a decision on behalf of the individual.

 

More facts on fluoride

 

14 Nobel Prize winners in chemistry and medicine have opposed the fluoridation of our drinking water.

• As a poison, fluoride is in the same class as the deadly arsenic and cyanide.

• Fluoride is used in rat poison.

• Sweden’s Nobel Institute recommended against fluoridation and the practice has been banned.

• The Netherlands banned fluoridation in 1976.

• On the advice of the Pasteur Institute, France chose not to fluoridate its water.

• Germany outlawed the process because the 1ppm (part per million) was dangerously “close to the dose at which long term damage to the human body is to be expected”.

• The American Medical Association has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects.

• The American Medical Association is not prepared to state that “no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation.”

• World Health Organization (WHO) – “Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure before introducing any additional fluoride.”

• US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) – Fluoride is an “unapproved drug" - "no research done on fluoride safety."

• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - call fluoride "a drinking water contaminant."

• Finland banned fluoridation altogether when a study in the 1980s revealed that osteoporosis sufferers had extremely high levels of fluoride in their bones.

• State of Nevada law calls Sodium Fluoride a pesticide.

• State of California law regulates fluorides, classifying them as "hazardous waste."

• California Board of Dental Examiners – “Dentists cannot provide a medical opinion regarding the safety of ingested fluoride.”

• In the 1970s, Dr. Albert Schatz, the scientist who invented the antibiotic Streptomycin, found that water fluoridation in Latin America was linked to higher rates of infant mortality and deaths resulting from congenital malformation. His findings convinced the Chilean government to abandon fluoridation for good.

 

 

Without Philosophy based on evidence and reason you are inevitably led to unwarranted conclusions, false generalisations, and undefined contradictions.