Minnie Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I'd have to draw the line at the ciggie smoking, saveourwater, as I'm very anti-smoking! And I'd have to make sure the tuna was dolphin friendly of course! Hmmmm, I feel another thread coming on here..............the rights and wrongs of smoking, and animal rights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Ha ha, dolphin friendly but tuna un-friendly eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I hope you used recycled paper for your leaflets, saveourwater??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 We did, and even printed that on them. Send me your address and I'll send you some. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I'm very impressed! Send you my address............not on your life, matey! I'l wake up in the morning to find anti-fluoride slogans dawbed all over my house and posters of children with dental fluorosis covering my windows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 ...........anti-fluoride slogans dawbed all over my house........ Some petty person, not mentioning any names (JAY!), has kindly pointed out that I spelt dawbed wrong, it should be daubed! We can't all be as perfect as you can we??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted July 12, 2004 Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 An interesting response on page 21 of this weeks examiner to savourwaters previously published article. I would be interested in savourwaters response to points raised in this published response, particularly to the two million people in the midlands already using flouridated water. Geo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 We also read the response from our Public Health Consultant, Dr Emerson with interest. We are well aware that some areas of the Midlands in England are artificially fluoridated along with some other areas of the country, this practice has been going on for decades and has only ever accounted for less than 10% of the UK's total population, because it is happening does not make it safe or effective, the same is true for the rest of the countries Dr Emerson mentioned. We shall be making a full reply to Dr Emerson's response in the press in due course (assuming we get published that is), when the press release is finalised I will post it here also. I particularly liked his comments that "individuals do not have a 'right' to fluoride-free water and should not be allowed to prevent a public health benefit from being experienced by all our children", very interesting spin indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 We are well aware that some areas of the Midlands in England are artificially fluoridated along with some other areas of the country, this practice has been going on for decades and has only ever accounted for less than 10% of the UK's total population, You failed to tell us about this 1/10th of the population in the UK already using flouridated water. In fact you intimated that it was at present not in use in any other than a few thrid world places. because it is happening does not make it safe or effective, the same is true for the rest of the countries Dr Emerson mentioned. You can also say that it 'does not make it unsafe or inefective'. We shall be making a full reply to Dr Emerson's response in the press in due course (assuming we get published that is), when the press release is finalised I will post it here also. "individuals do not have a 'right' to fluoride-free water I think you find this is the case. The Water Authority provide a potable water supply, this is a water supply that is of a standard accepted as suitable for human consumption. I cannot find any referance to any mandate actually stating that the supply of a potable water is a right of the individual. Geo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 A solution that would please everyone would be to simply give fluoride supplements to those that want them. Another point though, if we assume that the fluoridation of water is effective in combating tooth decay for one moment then what about the other effects of the sugary foods which cause tooth decay?, i.e. colourings in soft drinks have been linked to hyperactivity in youngsters. Fluoride won't solve problems such as these a healthier diet will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 A solution that would please everyone would be to simply give fluoride supplements to those that want them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fluoride tablets used to be given out to parents, who wished their children to take them, by the school dental service. I'm not aware that this is done as a matter of routine any longer. I'm pretty sure parents can still obtain them via health visitors or dentists though (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 You failed to tell us about this 1/10th of the population in the UK already using flouridated water. In fact you intimated that it was at present not in use in any other than a few thrid world places. There are many things we have not yet explained to the public, especially on these forums as the issue is so complex and vast, but yes about 10% of the English population do receive fluoridated water, mainly in the West Midlands, the other area of high fluoridation in Europe is Ireland, about 75% (the highest in the World in fact), the fact remains though that 98% of Europe is un-fluoridated and has either banned, rejected or stopped fluoridation, a few countries fluoridate their salt but this is consumer choice, you don't have to buy it, incidentally Europe's population with 98% unfluoridated water has less dental cavities than the USA's 62% fluoridated for over 50 years water! It is a human right to refuse medication or treatment, DHSS want to add fluoride to the water with the express intent of causing biological change in our bodies i.e. to treat a non lethal dental condition, caries, a condition that is easier and cheaper to treat than dental fluorosis, the condition Dr Emerson openly admits that water fluoridation causes. The EU drinking water directive maximum concentration level for fluorides is 1.5mg per litre (1.5ppm) this is not a licence to contaminate up to that level. Artificial water fluoridation is a people treatment exercise and has nothing to do with improving the potability of drinking water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted July 14, 2004 Author Share Posted July 14, 2004 You seem to have failed to understand the point I have made on two separate occasions, namely, 'the supply of potable water is not a human right'. So to repeatedly refer to human rights as a major part of your case is in my opinion wrong. Europe's population with 98% unfluoridated water has less dental cavities than the USA's 62% fluoridated for over 50 years water! I think you will find this is more a lifestyle difference, after all over 80% of the worlds population classified as obese come from the states - do you see the connection !! I wonder how bad their dental health would be if they didn't fluoridate their water ? With 10% of the UK and 75% of the Irish population receiving fluoridated water (uncoroborated figures supplied by saveourwater) you would think that if there have been any negative affects that they would be well documented by now. Have you managed to source any relevant and verifiable evidence from the above named countries with regards negative affects ?. Geo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveourwater Posted July 14, 2004 Share Posted July 14, 2004 Human rights is a major part of our campaign, here is why:- Dr Emerson wants to add fluoride in the form of untested, unregistered toxic waste by-products to the Manx drinking water with the express intent of causing biological change in the Manx population i.e. to combat dental caries, this is in effect 'medication'. It is a basic human right that an individual can refuse medication or treatment. Fluoridation = human rights contravention. Potability of water:- The maximum concentration level for fluorides is 1.5ppm, this does not constitute a right to contaminate up to that level. The water authority are charged with supplying clean, safe, water for drinking, fluorides do not contribute to the potability of water they are added solely to treat people. Caries:- I think you will find that there is little evidence that fluoride works at all, especially when it is swallowed, The York Report concluded that the evidence of caries reduction was only of the order of about 15%, and this was based on 'moderate' quality findings. Harm:- Dental fluorosis is a fact of fluoridation, Dr Emerson even confirms this, he however regards it as a cosmetic issue, unlike the York Report who stated "The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as 'just a cosmetic issue'." Levels of fluorosis to be expected with fluoridation are between 15-50% averaging at 30%. Fluorosis is the first 'visible' sign of fluoride poisoning, it is more expensive and more difficult to treat than dental caries - so where is the benefit? The fluorosilicates are not pure, they are not pharmaceutical grade chemicals made to order under laboratory conditions, such as one would purchase other high grade chemicals for medication, they come straight from the pollution scrubber chimney stacks of phosphate fertiliser factories! Dr Emerson admits this in this weeks Examiner although he clevery calls them co-products and still denies that they are toxic waste - pure spin. Phosphate rock is mined, crushed and sulphuric acid added, the gasses that are released go up a chimney and are hosed with water to capture them, they are then bottled up and sold onto water authorities, untreated, and untested. The makeup of these is approximately 19% Fluorine the rest is a toxic soup containing lead, arsenic, beryllium, vanadium, cadmium, mercury, radionuclides and of course silicon, all highly toxic and four of which are known carcinogens. The fluorine will interact with the other elements to form compounds, so imagine what compounds are being formed in this delightful mixture, hardly just harmless fluoride ions. Fluorides accumulate in the body over time, along with the complex toxic compounds they have formed above check the link for effects on the body http://www.fluoridealert.org/health.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.