.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, October 31, 2009

USA - TAMPA — Flo Turner's teeth are falling out.

TAMPA — Flo Turner's teeth are falling out.
One by one, she collects the rotten remnants in an old orange prescription bottle.
The 48-year-old has 17 teeth left, including a few slivers. They have all painfully yellowed and browned, on their way to turning into little black rocks.

She has called 62 dentists in eight counties for help. Turner, who has been disabled for 22 years and also receives Medicaid, hasn't found relief through the state either.


Tampa Florida is fluoridated. NYSCOF

'Unacceptable' teeth health gap

'Unacceptable' teeth health gap
Children should have regular dental check ups
There is an "unacceptable and growing chasm" between good and poor dental health in the UK, dentists warn.
Greater focus is needed on prevention, especially in children living in deprived areas, a report from the British Dental Association (BDA), says.
Older people and those with disabilities are also particularly at risk from poor oral health and need more attention, it found.
The Department of Health said oral health is improving.
The BDA called for a more integrated approach from health and social care to tackle rising inequalities in dental problems.

"We agree with the British Dental Association that it is vital to do everything possible to reduce oral health inequalities
Dr Barry Cockcroft, England's chief dental officer"

Among children, the effect of deprivation on teeth is particularly marked, they said.
In the poorest areas, 60% of five year-olds and 70% of eight year-olds have obvious signs of decay in their milk teeth. This compares with 40% of five year-olds and 55% of eight year-olds in more affluent areas.
Variation
The report also highlights a seven-fold difference in dental health between the best and worst health trusts in England.
Alcohol and tobacco are also key factors in oral health inequalities, the BDA added, and dentists should be more involved in counselling patients, helping them to quit.
And it also called for targeted fluoridation to reduce the risk of tooth decay.
Professor Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser to the BDA, said: "There has been a significant improvement in the nation's overall oral health over the last 30 years, but despite that we still see a huge disparity that is all-too-often related to social deprivation.
"It is completely unacceptable that in Britain, in 2009, such a wide gap should exist.
"Much good work to address this problem has begun, and this report commends a number of schemes such as Brushing for Life and Sure Start that are starting to make a difference.
"However, a great deal of work remains to be done and it is vital dentists are supported in doing it."
Chief Dental Officer for England, Dr Barry Cockcroft, said: "We agree with the British Dental Association that it is vital to do everything possible to reduce oral health inequalities.
"Our children have among the lowest rates of tooth decay anywhere in the world.
"We have already published the world's first evidence based guide to prevention, and it has been sent to every single dentist in practice in England."

FAN Bulletin 1096: Southampton bombshells

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORKhttp://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1096: Southampton bombshells
October 30, 2009
Two delicious bombshells exploded and ripped the fluoridation proposal to smithereens in Southampton, UK.First, came the announcement yesterday that tooth decay (despite the claims of the Strategic Health Authority to the contrary in their propaganda-riddled campaign) was no worse in Southampton than the rest of the country and was actually better than some fluoridated communities (see story 1 below). Second, came the statement today from one of the leading councilors of Southampton (the only community to register support for the proposal (the city of Southampton) that if they had known this the council would never have voted for the proposal (see story 2 below).As one local MP said, "their justification for fluoridation has just gone down the plug hole."We have printed out both reports below, but we would remind you that we keep track of news items on fluoridation battles around the world in our "Latest News" section (http://www2.fluoridealert.org/) and we urge those who have the time to keep track of these reports. This is a worldwide battle. Lots of little Davids are taking on the huge Goliath of government forced fluoridation programs. When we get a win anywhere we all need to celebrate.Having lifted your spirits, please take a tranquilizer, and read the horrendously arrogant editorial Fluoridation decision not before time from Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. With media watchdogs like this we will all go to hell without a whimper. Paul Connett
1) 'Fluoridation case is blown out of water by dental data'By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo, October 29, 2009BLOWN out of the water.That is what campaigners fighting plans to add fluoride to Hampshire water supplies say new dental health figures have done to health bosses' justification for the scheme.A survey of five-year-olds across England has found Southampton children suffer barely any more tooth decay than the national average.The research found the number of five-year-olds in the city who have had problems with their teeth has fallen dramatically, as has the average number of diseased teeth.With Southampton's poor record on youngsters' dental health given as one of the main reasons it is necessary to fluoridate the water supplies of nearly 200,000 residents, opponents now say there is no reason to go ahead with the scheme.But health chiefs last night said changes in the way the statistics were collected mean they cannot be accurately compared with previous surveys.And bosses at South Central Strategic Health Authority vowed to carry on with work to introduce fluoridation in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, possibly before the end of next year.The survey shows 31 per cent of all city five-year-olds have experienced tooth decay, which is a 26 per cent drop on the figures from 2005/6, and only slightly worse than the England average of 30.9 per cent. The average number of teeth every youngster in Southampton has decayed, missing or filled on average has also been cut by 35 per cent to 1.13, while across the country the figure is 1.11.Both figures show there is less tooth decay than recorded at any time this decade, and are better than the results from Birmingham, which has been fluoridated since the 1960s.Hampshire Against Fluoridation member Dr Stephen Peckham, a reader in health policy at the Department of Public Health and Policy, said: "It blows a hole in what they have consistently said that Southampton has some of the worst teeth in the country - that's patently not true, and probably never was."It will completely change the economic analysis and I think the whole thing is so shaky that the noble thing to do would probably be to accept they were wrong in the first place."Southampton is about average for England, and you would expect it to have higher rates of decay because of deprivation, so the city's actually doing quite well."(The PCT) has been telling us they've been doing all these things, and maybe they're working after all, so they should be congratulated."It would save the SHA and the public purse a lot of money and allow us to focus on targeting children most in need and think about ways the service could be improved."City health bosses last night said an important change in the way children were surveyed mean the statistics cannot be fairly compared with previous results.Southampton's public health director, Dr Andrew Mortimore, said the newly-introduced need for parental permission, rather than. assumed consent, meant a third of youngsters invited into the survey were not examined, and they were likely to be those with the worst dental health,"The Centre for Public Health, which published these figures, has publicly stated when releasing these latest results that the positive consent now required for the survey means that 'bias resulting from non-response cannot be ruled out' and that 'direct comparisons with previous surveys should not be made'," he said.Dr Mortimore added Southampton's figures are still above national averages and can be improved."Alongside good dental access in the city, NHS Southampton City will continue its extensive oral health promotion programmes and continues to fully support water fluoridation as a safe and effective method of reducing tooth decay and dental inequalities," he said.But Southampton and Romsey MP Sandra Gidley, who has campaigned against fluoridation, urged the SHA to reverse its decision in light of the findings."The people of Southampton would welcome such a move and it would do a lot to restore faith in the board," she said."After all, their justification for fluoridation has just gone down the plug hole."What next?AFTER health bosses gave the plans the green light in February, South Central Strategic Health Authority has been working to make fluoridation a reality, while campaigners have been doing their best to stop it.The authority has been in talks with Southern Water about how the scheme would work practically, and how much it would cost.
Original estimates suggested it would take around £470,000, with that bill being picked up by the Department of Health, but SHA bosses admitted that figure could ultimately "double or triple".Once the infrastructure is in place, NHS Southampton City will then pay the estimated £60,500 yearly running costs out of its annual £9.5m dental health budget.The SHA had hoped to see the first fluoride added to the water sometime during 2010, but a judicial review into the decision making process could scupper that.Southampton resident Geraldine Milner has lodged a legal challenge on two bases, which the SHA has set aside £400,000 to fight.Her arguments the SHA should have taken more account of public opinion have been accepted and will be the subject of a judicial review hearing, probably next year.But the High Court judge refused to accept her claim the SHA failed to properly look at all the evidence submitted during the consultation.That decision has itself been challenged, and an appeal will be heard at London's Royal Courts of Justice before Christmas.There have also been calls, backed by the Daily Echo, for residents to be given a referendum on the issue because the majority voice was ignored on the issue.Health chiefs push ahead with fluorideHEALTH bosses last night remained adamant that fluoridation is necessary for Hampshire. A spokeswoman for South Central Strategic Health Authority insisted it is still committed to the scheme, despite the improved dental health figures in Southampton."We are pleased that children in the South Central region have, on average, better dental health than many other places in England. However, the regional data does hide significant pockets of poor dental health in some of the big towns and cities in our region."She said tooth decay was entirely preventable and they were committed to giving children the best chance with a range of programmes to combat the disease.
__________________________________________________________________________________
2) Southampton City Council's vote on fluoride 'would be different' By Jon Reeve, This is Hampshire, October 30, 2009A TOP Southampton councillor has today said the city council would never have backed fluoridation if it had known children's dental health had improved.Deputy leader Cllr Royston Smith said new survey results, which show the city's five-year-olds suffer the same amount of tooth decay as those across England, have dramatically weakened the case for fluoridation.The survey found tooth decay among Southampton children at a ten-year low, as reported in yesterday's Daily Echo.The city council's backing for the plan - affecting nearly 200,000 residents - in last year's public consultation was seen as key to those in favour of the scheme.Every other local authority - Hampshire, Eastleigh, New Forest and Test Valley councils - opposed the proposals.Cllr Smith said: "The council was probably the most important consultee, and whatever we said or did was going to be taken very seriously."Every councillor had a free vote in November, and they backed fluoridation 26 to 18.The report for the meeting claimed the city's dental health was deteriorating and worse than regional and national averages.Cllr Smith said the latest figures showing Southampton has lower levels of tooth decay than fluoridated Birmingham, are another nail in the coffin for the case for adding fluoride to the water."The main thrust was the poor state of dental health in Southampton, and that's now shown not to be the case," he said.
"That, combined with the overwhelming public opposition and will of the people should be enough for the SHA to rethink their plans and abandon them."South Central Strategic Health Authority has said it remains committed to fluoridation. (our emphasis, PC)

Friday, October 30, 2009

UK - Southampton - Daily Echo

SOUTHAMPTON: Fluoride row
'Old tooth rot data decider in city vote'
By Jon Reeve
jon. reeve ©dailyecho.co. uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
A TOP Southampton councillor has today said the city council would never have backed fluoridation if it had known children's dental health had improved.


Headlines only as editor asked me to respect their copyright

UK - Daily Echo - Ediitor's comment

• FLUORIDE-supporting health bosses reacting to the latest national dental care figures that show Southampton on a par with the national average fall back on the fact the way the statistics were gathered has changed to say we shouldn't make much of the perceived local improvement.
Fair enough. But the new figures do level the field and show Southampton's child dental care is better even than Birmingham where they've had fluoride in water for decades.
Give it up lads. Either give the city a referendum or go away. Few want it, few need it, and fewer than ever believe you. .

UK - Lymington Times

Fluoridation
SIR, — I welcome the interest shown by Peter Sopowski (letters October 24th) in suggesting a way forward to settle the fluoride controversy.
I want the strategic health authority to withdraw plans to mass medicate the population by adding the fluoride to our tap water. I also agree and have made the point several times that taxpayers' money could much better be spent working with children and parents, making sure that they attend to dental health.
The children's centres are doing a great job in this respect but would dearly love extra resources to do an even better job. It would be so much better to provide front-line services to prevent tooth decay than to squander our money on trying to impose something that the public don't want and most of us don't even
need.
I'm sorry to remind Mr Sopowski, that the answer lies in the hands of our Labour government. They have given the powers to the strategic health authority to impose their wishes on us all. Perhaps he too could press upon the likes of John Denham MP to step in. If he, as a cabinet member can't do it — who
can?
Coun. David Harrison
Leader,
New Forest .District Liberal
Democrats,
Rushington Avenue,
Totton.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 09-15-09 (Part 6 of 11)

Australia - Fluoridation decision not before time

Fluoridation decision not before time
28/10/2009 11:11:00
DATE has finally been set for Ballarat to have its water fluoridated - and not before time. After a lengthy public consultation process and ample opportunity for the proponents and opponents to have their say, fluoride at a rate of one part per million will combine with our water from November 16.
The move will bring significant benefits to future generations of children in Ballarat, where we currently have a substandard record of dental health which can be directly attributed to a lack of fluoride in the water.
The history of this debate in Ballarat goes back decades. It has come and gone as an issue, mainly because successive governments were frightened off by the tactics of those who opposed the idea.
The vocal anti-fluoride movement was able to plant enough doubt in the minds of the public that the government of the day feared a backlash if it acted.
But over the years, the science has improved and many of the claims of those opposed to fluoride have been scuttled.
If we look past the scaremongering, it is clear that the science overwhelmingly supports its introduction in the interest of public health.
Our waiting lists for public dental procedures are far too long and this is in part because we have not given our teeth the best possible protection available.
For too long, we have been living with an injustice where our metropolitan counterparts have had access to a public health service that Ballarat residents have not.
At long last we will be equal, as far as our teeth go.
Even so, the anti-fluoride lobby will not be silenced. And it shouldn't necessarily be. Considered discussion from both sides is still useful.
Scaremongering, falsehoods and dodgy scientific studies, however, should not be part of that discussion.
This is not an untried, untested social experiment. Ballarat is not being asked to be guinea pigs for the rest of the nation.
In other parts of the country, residents have been drinking fluoridated water for generations without consequence.
On that basis, we know that Ballarat will be better off for having fluoride in its water.

Comments
Those promoting fluoridation simply refuse to read the current research showing it is ineffective and dangerous to health. Go to (www.fluoridealert.org) and read several scientific articles. Read the letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback ( DDS, PhD Biochemistry) --- Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto entitled "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water" He was the principal research advisor to the Canadian Dental Asociation for over 10 years in promoting fluoridation. His letter is an apology to other dentists and the public. Over 140 Research studies listed, including: Increased risk of bone cancer -- 13 studies Lead, arsenic, radium contaminants causing toxic water -- 10 studies Link with fluoride and other cancer -- 12 Fluoride causes birth defects -- 5 Etc. Also see the petition signed by over 2600 professionals opposing fluoridation.
Posted by jwillie6, 29/10/2009 1:45:25 AM

The National Research Council’s 507-page report on Fluoride in water: The results are as follows: “1 Moderate dental fluorosis is an adverse health effect occurring at fluoride levels of 0.7–1.2 mg/L, the levels of water fluoridation. “2 The Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) for bone fractures is at least as low as 1.5 mg/L and may be lower than this figure. “3 Stage II and Stage III skeletal fluorosis may be occurring at levels less than 2 mg/L. “4 Stage I skeletal fluorosis, arthritis clinically manifested as pain and stiffness in joints, is an adverse health effect which may be occurring with a daily fluoride intake of 1.42 mg/day, which exceeds the amount the average person obtains in their diet in non-fluoridated areas. The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) should be zero. “5 Decreased thyroid function is an adverse health effect, particularly to individuals with inadequate dietary iodine. These individuals could be affected with a a daily fluoride dose of 0.7 mg/day
Posted by steve7676, 29/10/2009 4:25:48 AM

This editorial is a crock. It only serves to support corporate control of people's lives. Fluoridation is a false prophet. In the US, the state of Kentucky has the highest rate of fluoridated communities within its borders. According to state records, Kentucky also has the highest number of people with dentures. When will policymakers stop the pandering that fluoridation is a net plus? Citizens are being used a filters for corporate polluters. Research the origin of the fluoride; it comes directly from the waste bins to your water supply. Outrageous behavior.
Posted by greenguy, 29/10/2009 11:48:41 AM

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

UK - Southampton - Press release - Liberal Democrat

FLUORIDATION JUSTIFICATION GOES DOWN THE PLUG HOLE - GIDLEY
12.00.00am GMT Wed 28th Oct 2009

Commenting today on the publication of new figures which reveal that the number of five year olds in Southampton with dental decay has fallen by over 25% since 2005, Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Minister and City MP, Sandra Gidley, said:

"The high decay rate for five year olds in 2003 and 2005 was the key reason that the Health Authority introduced water fluoridation.

"But these figures suggest that rates of dental decay in Southampton are decreasing in line with other parts of the country - and rates are now lower than they were at the start of the decade.

"I urge the South Central Health Authority to reverse their decision in the light of these figures. The people of Southampton would welcome such a move and it would do a lot to restore faith in the board. After all, their justification for fluoridation has just gone down the plug hole."

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 09-15-09 (Part 5 of 11)

UK - I know I'm right about Fluoridation

I know I'm right about Fluoridation
27 October 2009
Duck Hill
Pecket Well
Hebden Bridge

DAVID Sunderland appears so eager to discredit me that he reveals the same ignorance and hostility as Barbara Sutcliffe.
When I claim that pathology laboratories in Britain will not check urine and other biological specimens for fluoride levels in cases of illness and infant mortality I speak from my own experience and that of Dr Peter Mansfield, of Louth, and my own doctor who, in the late 1970s, made such a request of the General Hospital, Halifax.

In answer to his question as to how one can know if fluoride is the cause of illness, I have found particularly in infants and children that intelligent and correct postulation, followed by investigation of diet, water, prescription drugs and air pollution to be followed by correct diagnosis and evasion of the offending toxic agents invariably results in recovery within a matter of eight days to three weeks.

I could refer to specific cases in Calderdale and Bradford but experience has taught me that the Courier will not publish reference to specific cases. Also I find it distressing when the Press will not put me into contact with the parents even though they are distraught and wanting to know the cause of their child's illness or death.

Dennis Edmondson
Comments

1 Peter Avinou,27/10/2009 11:15:36
Dennis, do not not take any heed?
They read so far and gain what they then belief backs them up, then open fire!
Reasoned argument is not the scene of bigots and the easily led.
Leave them to it, the truth will out and we shall have the inward pleasure that being right gives.

jwillie6,27/10/2009 13:25:27
A doctor or a dentist cannot force anyone to take a drug against their will, yet BIG BROTHER uses the water system to force everyone in a community to take fluoride. The amount injected into the water can be controlled, but the dose people consume cannot, because some drink one glass and some drink ten glasses. That is why half of all children have enamel damage (fluorosis). For childern, 23 research studies from four countries show a reduction of IQ and several studies show a fivefold increase in bone cancer by the time they are 20. The elderly suffer broken hips from brittle bones and other cancers.
Go to (www.fluoridealert.org) to get the facts. Don't remain uniformed.
You will see a petition there signed by over 2600 professionals calling on governments to stop fluoridation of our water systems.
Report Unsuitable3 Rob Reynolds,27/10/2009 16:47:33
And the anti-fluoride campaigner gets stronger and stronger. It's now time to focus our attention on the food industry, particularly the sugar lobby.

These people have consistently halted attempts to reduce sugar in our food and have refused any forms of self regulation. Sugar is a cheap bulking agent. It's addictive, it increases obesity and rots teeth.

Channel 4 did an excellent piece on their activities. It seems that EU legislation has been so watered down that even a donut can be made to be nutritious in its labelling.

If children become addicted to these sugary products their health will suffer. But have dentists demanded action against the sugar lobby? No. Has our Govt. had the guts to force through legislation? No. Yet they slam us for excessive drinking and smoking.

Perhaps we should ask our local MP why she is being sponsored by NESTLE?

UK - Southampton - Free council vote on fluoridation

Free council vote on fluoridation
THE letter from Mr J H Pain (October 24) oh fluoridation was very misleading.
The 'Conservative' city council did not vote in favour.
The city council held a 'free' vote, no 'whipping', and some of the members from all parties voted in favour and some of the members from all parties voted against. If Mr Pain
insists on politicising a non-political issue may I remind him that the city council was merely a consultee and that the decision was made by the unelected Strategic Health Authority under the Labour Government.
COUNCILLOR ALEC SAMUELS, leader of Southampton City Council.

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1095: Response to Scott Tomar
October 27, 2009
Most people in the fluoridating world have probably never heard of Dr. Scott Tomar, however he is quoted nearly every day -not by name but via his work -somewhere in the world.
Scott Tomar was the co-author of articles which underpins two CDC claims:
1) Fluoridation is "one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century" (ref 1)

2) For every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 is saved on dental health care. (ref 2)

A citizen sent us a copy of Tomar's response to the following five questions submitted to him by Mr. Cunninghm, PE, a water engineer in Gainesville, Florida, on September 23, 2009.

1. Please cite or list studies and research that demonstrate fluoride is safe and in particular safe in drinking water.

2. Please summarize the benefits of ingesting fluoridated water. Please describe how ingesting fluoridated water impacts teeth.

3. Please cite studies and research that indicate fluoridation of water supply is effective.

4. Is there an individual toxicological study that has been performed on Hydrofluosilicic Acid?

5. Provide any other insight or expertise that would be helpful in addressing this topic.

Scott Tomar's answers and my response to his answers can be accessed at http://fluoridealert.org/connett.tomar.oct.2009.pdf

Today, I sent my response to Mr. Cunningham with a copy to Scott Tomar and to the County Commissioners who serve Gainesville, Florida. Hopefully, it might encourage the commissioners to pause just a little before they sanction the continuation of fluoridation in Gainesville.

I also hope that it will encourage Dr. Tomar to respond to my comments. If he does it might help to raise the level of the debate on this contentious issue. Meanwhile, I will print out Tomar's response to question 5 and my reaction to it.

Tomar's response to:
5. Provide any other insight or expertise that would be helpful in addressing this topic.

The allegations that have been made concerning community water fluoridation at the recent meeting of the Regional Utilities Committee and in the video that was sent to members of Gainesville City Council are nothing new. They, and many others, have been made for years. The spokespersons on that video are well known opponents of fluoridation. The 2,000 or so scientists and professionals who signed the petition opposing water fluoridation represent an exceedingly small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care professionals who continue to enthusiastically support community water fluoridation. The best available evidence supports the effectiveness of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries, and does not support the claimed adverse health effects.

Paul Connett's response:
5. On professional opposition to fluoridation.

a) The DVD. This can be viewed at www.FluorideAlert.org

Tomar dismisses the DVD "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" (produced by the Fluoride Action Network): "The spokespersons on that video are well known opponents of fluoridation."

This is a pretty meaningless criticism. The issue (at least in science, as opposed to politics) is not who is saying something but a) what they say and b) what evidence they bring to bear to support their position.

This DVD deserves to be taken far more seriously than Tomar does. The 15 featured scientists include three members of the National Research Council review panel (NRC, 2006). It also includes two scientists who worked at the US EPA. It also includes a infant and fetal pathologist who has carefully reviewed the 23 studies indicating an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children. It also includes a Nobel Prize winner who led the successful fight to stop fluoridation in Sweden (Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize winner for medicine, 2000).

Moreover, Tomar's cavalier dismissal is not even accurate. For example, Sir Ian Chalmers is not a "well-known" opponent of fluoridation. He is better known in the UK for his championing of the systematic reviews that Tomar refers to several times. The thing that surprised Chalmers when he looked at this issue is that there has never been a grade A study demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation, let alone the kind of randomized clinical trial for fluoride, that is required by the FDA for other medicinal practices or drugs. In fact, Chalmers joined Professors Cheng and Sheldon writing an article for the British Medical Journal on these concerns (Cheng et al, 2006). This article uses a graph very similar to Figure 2 above.

b) The Professionals' statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. This can be accessed at www.FluorideAlert.org

Tomar also dismisses the significance of the 2,000 or so scientists and professionals who signed the petition opposing water fluoridation as representing: "an exceedingly small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care professionals who continue to enthusiastically support community water fluoridation."

I agree with Tomar's view of the numbers here but with the following caveats.

I would question how much of that "enthusiastic support for fluoridation" he refers to is based upon a thorough and first hand knowledge of the primary literature rather than simply following the advice of professional bodies like the ADA or the policies sent down to them from the CDC.

This is what the ADA said to its members in a White paper published in 1979 (ADA, 1979):

"Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non-participation is overt neglect of professional responsibility."

According to Hileman (1988) the view that "non-participation (in promoting fluoridation) is overt neglect of professional responsibility" was still the position of the ADA in 1988.

Thus I would also raise the question whether the number of doctors and dentists signing our statement would not be much larger if there were not so many intimidating pressures put on them "to toe the line" on this practice from their peers, professional associations and government bodies. Here is an example of a horribly intimidating statement from a dentist who works for the Florida Health Department:

"Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of practice." (Easley, 1999)

Thus 2600 professionals calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide may not seem like a lot right now, but we believe that the number is going to grow and grow as many more doctors, dentists and independent scientists, actually read the literature with an open mind, instead of simply parroting second-hand statements from bodies like the ADA and the CDC.

I would add that another 3 professionals signed the statement today, bringing the current total to 2662. But we need many more. Please do what you can to get professionals you know to add their names to the statement. The DVD discussed above could be very helpful in persuading them to do so.

Paul Connett

References:

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. MMWR 48(41): 933-940 October 22.
Authors: Scott Tomar and Susan Griffin - see citation 27, on page 27 of Tomar's Curriculam Vitae

2. Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. 2001. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Public Health Dent 61(2):78-86. [ Abstract ]

UK - Daily Echo - In my view

There is a solution...
IN my view and that of many in the Labour party in New Forest East is that the fluoride debate has gone on for long enough and a solution must be found that is acceptable to the majority.
Firstly I want to congratulate Julian Lewis MP, Cllr David Harrison and others involved, on their efforts to seek a review of the Strategic Health Authority decision.
The SHA has ploughed ahead, paying little regard to the overwhelming lack of support for fluoride to be added to the water supply, which is unnecessary mass medication, leaving many people very concerned. The SHA has clearly not won the argument and the support of the people it is supposed to care for, on this matter.
I would like to propose a solution which is cost effective and would suit all parties, including the SHA, which does not require the imposition of fluoride on people in Totton and Southampton against the will of the majority.
Why will the SHA not work with Hampshire and Southampton councils in education and children's services, to provide education on dental care, as already happens at children's centres and Sure Starts, and rapidly expand the programme to every setting where children (and parents) attend?
The most obvious step is to provide dental care and monitoring in our nurseries and schools. There is no need for a nurse in every school, but a programme of regular visits where education, monitoring and distribution of dental care products can occur.
A programme of dental care education visits and monitoring would be welcomed by teachers and most parents. In secondary schools there are health visitors educating pupils on contraception, smoking, drugs and other health matters,, alongside mass immunisation programmes 'such as BCG inoculations and more recently inoculation against cervical cancer. Why cannot the SHA spend its resources on enough dental health professionals to educate our children (and some parents) from the earliest years.
The above approach would be less expensive and a more sustainable way for the future, than pouring money down the drain, for fluoridation equipment, equipment maintenance and monitoring, fluoride supplies and of course legal advice to try to force this plan through.
There is always the danger of the overdosing of the water supply, which would be a disaster for all, whereas if pupils and parents, just will not learn from dental education, freely provided, then all they will individually suffer is bad teeth, instead of everybody being fluoridated from cradle to grave.
Dental health education is the responsibility of the SHA and parents. Any parent not wishing to have fluoride for their children's teeth, need only avoid giving fluoridated tap water for drinking and fluoridated toothpaste to their children.
Surely, active targeted education on dental care allows the children to make a choice about looking after their teeth, and in time their own children's teeth, even if a few parents could not care less.
Many congratulations to all who have scrutinised and questioned the SHA's unpopular proposal and I hope you can support the education alternative proposed.
We do not need expensive legal hearings, using NHS funds. What Is needed is an agreed way forward for our children's dental health.
Come on SHA consider the alternative proposal as set out above.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 09-15-09 (Part 4 of 11)

USA - Water system receives award

Water system receives award
October 25, 2009
The Glendale Utility District was recognized by the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors, American Dental Association, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its commitment to providing customers with optimally fluoridated water.
Glendale Utility District administrators were presented with a Community Initiative Award.
In all, 20 community water systems across the state were honored.
More than 170 million people, or 67 percent of the United States population served by public water supplies, currently drink water with optimal fluoride levels for preventing decay. In Mississippi, 54.6 percent of the state's residents have access to optimally fluoridated water.

jwillie6 wrote:

Hundreds of awards are presented as a public relations ploy and to cover the facts that fluoridation is ineffective and dangerous to health.
Go to (www.fluoridealert.org) and read several scientific articles.
Read the letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback ( DDS, PhD Biochemistry) --- Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto entitled "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water"
He was the principal research advisor to the Canadian Dental Asociation for over 10 years in promoting fluoridation. His letter is an apology to other dentists and the public.
Over 140 Research studies listed, including:
Increased risk of bone cancer -- 13 studies
Lead, arsenic, radium contaminants causing toxic water -- 10 studies
Link with fluoride and other cancer -- 12
Fluoride causes birth defects -- 5
Etc.
Also see the petition signed by over 2600 professionals opposing fluoridation.


10/25/2009 10:16:10 AM Hundreds of awards are presented as a public relations ploy and to cover the facts that fluoridation is ineffective and dangerous to health.
Go to (www.fluoridealert.org) and read several scientific articles.
Read the letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback ( DDS, PhD Biochemistry) --- Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto entitled "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water"
He was the principal research advisor to the Canadian Dental Asociation for over 10 years in promoting fluoridation. His letter is an apology to other dentists and the public.
Over 140 Research studies listed, including:
Increased risk of bone cancer -- 13 studies
Lead, arsenic, radium contaminants causing toxic water -- 10 studies
Link with fluoride and other cancer -- 12
Fluoride causes birth defects -- 5
Etc.
Also see the petition signed by over 2600 professionals opposing fluoridation.
jwillie6
Recommend(1)New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse

steve1976 wrote:

The ADA,CDC and The Academy of General Dentistry basically warned that fluoridated water should not be mixed into concentrated formula intended for babies under one year to avoid moderate dental fluorosis.
The Academy of General Dentistry has cautioned parents to
avoid fluoridated water when making infant foods.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has advised that fluoride
not be given to infants 6 months and younger.
The Environmental Working Group found that babies are overexposed
to fluoride in most cities. The respected medical journal The Lancet described fluoride as an “emerging neurotoxic substance”
due to evidence linking fluoride to lower IQs in children, and
brain damage in animals. The NRC reported that fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter” which may interfere with
the normal activity of the thyroid and pineal glands .
A Harvard study found a significant link between
fluoridated water and bone cancer in boys. Quotes, sources at fluoridealert.org/health/infants/


10/25/2009 9:41:44 AM The ADA,CDC and The Academy of General Dentistry basically warned that fluoridated water should not be mixed into concentrated formula intended for babies under one year to avoid moderate dental fluorosis.
The Academy of General Dentistry has cautioned parents to
avoid fluoridated water when making infant foods.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has advised that fluoride
not be given to infants 6 months and younger.
The Environmental Working Group found that babies are overexposed
to fluoride in most cities. The respected medical journal The Lancet described fluoride as an “emerging neurotoxic substance”
due to evidence linking fluoride to lower IQs in children, and
brain damage in animals. The NRC reported that fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter” which may interfere with
the normal activity of the thyroid and pineal glands .
A Harvard study found a significant link between
fluoridated water and bone cancer in boys. Quotes, sources at fluoridealert.org/health/infants/
steve1976
Recommend(1)New Post Reply to this Post Report Abuse

nyscof wrote:

Over 2,500 professionals urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks.

11 EPA employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a fluoridation moratorium.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment opposes fluoridation.

The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.”

Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

Ireland - Aching for a better public dental service

..............Most Irish children brush their teeth only once a day, although it has been shown to be much more effective if you brush twice a day, says Parnell. “When you add that to their high consumption of sweets, you have got a recipe for disaster.”

Diet is much more important than tooth brushing, stresses Casey. “If you have a high sugary diet and brush your teeth three or four times a day, you will still get tooth decay. Whereas if you don’t have any sugar in your diet and don’t brush your teeth, you probably won’t have tooth decay.”

He tries to impress on parents that it is not the amount of sugar that a patient eats, it is the frequency. “If you eat a bar of Dairy Milk it takes five minutes, and it takes five or 10 minutes to wash that saliva out of your mouth. You have sugar in your mouth for 15 minutes, no big deal.

“If you eat a packet of Polo mints or Fruit Pastilles that dissolve in your mouth, it takes five or 10 minutes to dissolve one in your mouth, and five or 10 minutes for the saliva to wash it away........................

Canada - Fluoride fate to be determined at next civic election

Fluoride fate to be determined at next civic election
Monday, October 26, 2009
Fort St. John City Council has decided fluoride will remain the city's drinking water, at least for now.
In July, Council voted to take the water out of the water supply, after concerned resident Dorothy Folk presented a petition to remove the chemical.
At Monday's City Council meeting, Councilor Dan Davies asked that council reconsider its position. He says his research has found the chemical has more positives than negatives.
Councilor Larry Evans and Councilor Trevor Bolin say they are sticking to their positions. They both agree fluoride should be removed.
But, Councilor Christensen suggested that the decision should be left up to the citizens of Fort St. John. Council passed a motion on Monday that will put the decision into referendum in the next civic election.
Davies says in the meantime, residents should become informed on the issue. He recommends using online search tools to become acquainted with both sides of the debate.
Evans says he utilized online sites to find information on adverse affects of fluoride in the water supply.
Council has heard both position of the issue, ranging from concerned citizens to Northern Health officials.
So, fluoride will continue to be in the water supply until the next civic election, slated for 2011. City Manager Dianne Hunter says the cost of holding the referendum will be minimal, somewhere in the range of three to five thousand dollars.

Submitted by jwillie6 on Mon, 2009/10/26 - 22:03.
When elections are held, fluoridation promoters lose about 80% of the time. It is a hoax on the public and people have wised up. They have learned to follow the money!
Those promoting fluoridation simply refuse to read the current research showing it is ineffective and dangerous to health. Go to (www.fluoridealert.org) and read several scientific articles.
Read the letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback ( DDS, PhD Biochemistry) --- Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto entitled "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water"
He was the principal research advisor to the Canadian Dental Asociation for over 10 years in promoting fluoridation. His letter is an apology to other dentists and the public.
Over 140 Research studies listed, including:
Increased risk of bone cancer -- 13 studies
Lead, arsenic, radium contaminants causing toxic water -- 10 studies
Link with fluoride and other cancer -- 12
Fluoride causes birth defects -- 5
Fluoride affects the immune systems -- 12
Fluoride is neurotoxic (brain, nerves, lowering IQ) -- 11
Etc.
Also see the petition signed by over 2600 professionals opposing fluoridation.

Monday, October 26, 2009

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 09-15-09 (Part 3 of 11)

Uk - Daily Echo - Decline of our democracy

Decline of our democracy
By Chris Barker
THE decline of democracy needs to be stopped.
Have you noticed how the UK is slipping into becoming an ever more authoritarian state instead of the democracy that our forefathers fought and died to protect? ,
Even today our young men and women are in far off places fighting to protect democracy. However, here at home, more and more decisions are being made, by both elected and unelected officials, who are abusing that position by doing what they want, irrespective of the views of local people.
So-called "consultations" turn out to be nothing more than sham exercises to fool the people into I thinking that their views carry some weight. However, the outcome has usually been decided long before the "consultation" takes place, thus proving the "consultation" to be nothing more than a cosmetic exercise. Southampton recently had a "consultation" about fluoridation. Over 72 per cent of the respondents said they did not want fluoride added to their water supply.
In defiance of the result, the unelected area health authority members decided to add fluoride anyway, against the wishes of the majority. These same people are now preparing to waste vast sums of our (taxpayers) money on defending that decision in court. What a shame that money does not come directly out of their wages, they might think twice about wasting it then.
We can only hope the court decides that it is against the public interest to allow this undemocratic decision to stand.
These people have said that this 72 per cent was unrepresentative of the total population of the area. Using that same argument you could say that no MP has really been elected, because you could argue the same about the results of a genera! election, where the number of people who actually vote is always less than 100 per cent of the population.
In our area both Itchen and Test MPs (both of whom support fluoridation) were actually elected by less than 30 per cent of the total population eligible to vote, and they were both happy to accept this result as being valid.
There is a petition on the number 10 Downing Street website at peti-tions.number10.gov.uk/Democracy Hants which is aimed at making the majority result of public consultations the overriding factor in any subsequent decision. It is aimed at taking the power to overrule the people away from elected and unelected officials.
Please read the petition and sign up to it if you wish to stop the decline in our democracy and send a message to all those in positions of power that they are there to serve us, the people, and our interests, not themselves or their own ambitions. i
This is not about fluoride or any other single issue. I have merely used the fluoride "consultation" as one example of the blatant disregard these officials now have for your democratic rights.
The petition is about basic democracy in this country, not only being done but being seen to be done.

UK - Daily Echo - Fluoridated water's food for thought

Fluoridated water's food for thought.....
I WAS interested to read the letter from Steve Whitfield (Echo October 17) about the European Court judgement that fluoridated water is a functional food , which means that anything made with fluoridated water cannot be legally exported to EU countries.
Having booked to go on a cruise from Newcastle, ( a fluoridated area) to Amsterdam, recently, and having heard that fluoridated water was in fact illegal in the Netherlands, I contacted Northumbrian Water before boarding the ship. I was assured that the water piped on to the cruise ship would not be fluoridated. This has of course made me wonder what would happen to our cruise ship business in Southampton should our city be fluoridated.
The other point of interest here is that a certain EU country is almost wholely fluoridated. That country is Ireland. Recently, the Irish Republic reduced the amount of fluoride they add to the water because of problems with fluorosis. But the really relevant point about the Irish case is that a recent study by a senior dental surgeon in the HSE has shown that tooth decay among Ireland's children is worse than their UK counterparts. (The UK is only 10 per cent fluoridated).
Which makes the government's stupid claims about children in fluoridated areas having better teeth than those in unfluoridated areas - they usually pick Newcastle and Manchester for their most unscientific comparisons - look even more stupid.
SUE ROBSON, Southampton.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Teresa's Informative on Fluoride




I wonder who gave her the script? Reminds me of the reciting of Mao's little red book

MANDATORY fortification of bread with folic acid

25 October 2009
MANDATORY fortification of bread with folic acid would reduce the number of children born with spina bifida – but is mass medication safe or ethical, asks Dani Garavelli
MELANIE Chambers had endured a 15-hour labour and an emergency caesarian and was just celebrating the successful delivery of a baby girl when the consultant came in bearing bad news. Her beautiful new daughter Ella had spina bifida and hydrocephalus (excess fluid on the brain). She was paralysed from the waist down, and would need shunts fitted to her head before she could lift it..................

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 09-15-09 (Part 2 of 11)

Saturday, October 24, 2009

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 09-15-09 (Part 1 of 11)

UK - Daily Echo - letter

Against political beliefs?
REGARDING the letter from A WILLOTT 'Show Courage of Convictions' (Letters, October 20), whilst I agree with him that we should not be inflicted with adulteration of our water supplies, his letter would be better balanced if he included criticism of our Conservative Council who voted in favour of the proposal and gave encouragement to the project. Or is that against his political beliefs? J H PAIN, Southampton.

Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment,

Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment,
9, Upper Mount Street , Dublin 2 Ireland
Phone +353 1 642 5741 - www.voiceireland.org
PRESS RELEASE
Dublin
23rd October 2009
American dentists again warn of fluoride risks to bottle-fed babies.
Two years after first warning parents not to use fluoridated tap water to make up infant formula, the Journal of American Dental Association has again highlighted in its October 2009 edition, the resulting risks of dental fluorosis to bottle-fed babies*. Here in fluoridated Ireland dental fluorosis now affects every third child, a 700% increase since 1984.
“With some 30,000 new-borns this year being bottle-fed” said VOICE spokesman Robert Pocock “ this repeat warning exposes the negligence of the Irish Dental Association (IDA) which has issued no advice on this risk even though in March 2008, we appealed directly to them to do so. Tens of thousands of Irish parents have been failed by the IDA as well as an out-of-touch health minister who still forces this chemical into the taps of most homes in the country. Boiling the water from the tap does not reduce the fluorosis risk.”
Since the Department of Health first responded to concerns about fluoridation in 2000and set up the Fluoridation Forum, consisting of most of the same people who have uncritically promoted fluoridation for years, almost 200,000 bottle-fed babies have been victims of this official negligence. The chances are that over 50,000 of them will develop dental fluorosis, a permanent condition for which there is no cure only expensive and repeat treatment.
Only last Wednesday (21st October 2009) Dr Joe Mullen Principal Dental Surgeon of the North West Health Board, and an active member of the Fluoridation Forum told RTE Radio's Mooney Show that the risk of dental fluorosis begins up to the age of two.
The fluoride concentration(0.7ppm) in Irish tap-water is almost two hundred times more than in mothers milk yet a minority of the seventy thousand new-borns in Ireland this year are exclusively breast-fed.
“This is one of the public health service’s greatest health scandals, with parents simply being left in the dark about the fluorosis risk to babies that the government’s own research has repeatedly demonstrated “ added the VOICE spokesman.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Uk - Lymington Times

Health minister attacks fluoride 'scare stories'
75,000 residents signed petition against 'forced medication
A HEALTH minister has attacked fluoride "scare stories" as 8,000 Totton residents await the outcome of a legal battle over adding: it to their water supply.
Mike O'Brien answered a challenge by New Forest East MP Julian Lewis in the House of Commons by urging people to make judgements "based on the evidence".
Totton was included in an area of about 190,000 people around Southampton who are set to have fluoride next year under an NHS initiative. It is being fought in the courts, however, by objectors who fear its side-effects and resent "forced
medication".
Dr Lewis is on the side of the anti-fluoride campaign which collected a 15,000-name petition against the plan. He told Mr O'Brien: "The minister has nailed his colours to the mast in favour of fluoridation.
"Does he accept the principle that no community should have its water fluoridated if a majority of the members of the community do not wish its water to be fluoridated?"
The minister pointed out the dangers of medical "scare stories" and said: "We need to make judgements on fluoridation based on the evidence.
"Stories always go round that can frighten people, and we have seen in this country a whole series of scare stories about vaccinations that resulted in a significant number of people being frightened out of giving those vaccinations to their children.
"As far as vaccination was concerned, there were some stories and as a result we are paying the price."
The plan from Southampton Primary Care Trust was approved by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) in February as a way of targeting tooth decay among young children.
A Mori poll it carried out showed
38% opposed against 32% in support. Opponents fear fluoride has effects ranging from cancer to mottling of teeth, known as fluorosis — which is the only side-effect acknowledged as proven by the SHA.
As reported in the 'A&T, Conservative shadow health minister Mike Penning said public support for fluoride under a Tory government would be "vital" before it could be implemented.
However, the scheme depends on a High Court action which has secured a judicial review of the SHA's decision. A judgement is expected next year.

Fluoridation
SIR, — My personal view and that of many in the Labour Party in New Forest East is that the fluoride debate has gone on for long enough and a solution needs to be found that is acceptable to the majority. Firstly I want to congratulate Julian Lewis MP, Cln. David Harrison and others involved, on their efforts to seek a review of this decision.
The health authority has ploughed ahead, paying little regard to the overwhelming lack of support for fluoride to be added to the water supply, which is unnecessary mass medication, leaving many people very concerned. The health authority has clearly not won the argument and the support of the people it is supposed to care for, on this matter.
I would like to propose a solution which is cost effective and would suit all parties, including the health authority which does not require the imposition of fluoride on people in Totton, and Southampton, against the will of the majority.
Why will the health authority not work with Hampshire and Southampton councils in education and children's
services to provide education on dental care, as already happens at children's centres and Sure Starts, and rapidly expand the programme to every setting where parents and children attend?
The most obvious step is to provide dental care and monitoring in our nurseries and schools. There is no need for a nurse in every school, but a programme of regular visits where education, monitoring and distribution of dental care products can occur. A programme of dental care education visits and monitoring would be welcomed by teachers and most parents. In secondary schools there are health visitors educating pupils on contraception, smoking, drugs and other health matters, alongside mass immunisation programmes such as BCG inoculations and more recently inoculation against cervical cancer.
Why cannot the health authority spend its resources on enough dental health professionals to educate our children (and some parents) from the earliest years?
The above approach would be less expensive and a more sustainable way for the future, than pouring money down the drain, for fluoridation equipment, equipment maintenance and monitoring, fluoride supplies and of course legal advice to try to force this plan through.
There is always the danger of the overdosing of the water supply, which would be a disaster for all whereas if pupils and parents just will not learn from dental education freely provided, then all they .will individually suffer is bad teeth, instead of everybody being fluoridated from cradle to grave!
Dental health education is the responsibility of the health authority and parents. Any parent not wishing to have fluoride for their children's teeth, need only avoid giving fluoridated tap water for drinking and fluoridated tooth paste to their children.
Surely, active targeted education on dental care allows the children to make a choice about looking after their teeth, and in time their own children's teeth, even if a few parents could not care less.
Many congratulation to all who have scrutinised and questioned the health authority's unpopular proposal and I hope you can support the education alternative proposed.
We do not need expensive legal hearings, using NHS funds. What is needed is an agreed way forward for our children's dental health!
Peter Sopowski
Chair — New Forest East Labour Party

Australia - Labor branch opposes fluoridation

Labor branch opposes fluoridation
Ren Lanzon | 23rd October 2009
QUEENSLAND Premier Anna Bligh may be keen to fluoridate the state's water supply, but not all supporters of the Australian Labor Party are flashing toothy grins over it.
One of the Gladstone region's branches of the party (there are two) is considering submitting a motion condemning fluoridation at Sunday's ALP conference in Rockhampton.
If it does so it will be on the grounds that the fluoridation of the water supply was uneconomical because most of the fluoride will go to waste, that it may cause ill effects and that the effect on the environment had not been fully considered.
Assistant secretary of the Port Curtis Hinterland Branch of the ALP, Craig Giddins, said he was opposed to fluoridation of the water supply.
“It is forced medication which we will have to pay for in our rates,” he said.
“In Gladstone we are already paying high rates and now Gladstone Regional Council will charge us even more because of the water fluoridation.”
He said if the government was convinced fluoridation was medically helpful, then it should subsidise fluoride tablets rather than force fluoridation on the whole Queensland community whether they wanted it or not.
And he said if there were those who really believed fluoride would help their teeth and those of their children's, then they would be able to take advantage of the government's subsidised offer of free fluoride tablets.
“Only a small amount of the water will be consumed and the rest will go to waste on gardens, in gutters from run-off from washed cars, the kitchen sink, the bathtub and the washing machine.”
The branch's vice-president, Clive Coleman, confirmed that the branch at its meeting tomorrow would consider a motion condemning fluoridation of Queensland water supplies.
If it is passed as is or in an amended form, the motion will be submitted at the conference on Sunday.
The fluoridation of the water supply was a state government directive and the GAWB was under legal obligation to follow the directive.

UK - Toddlers across Wales to be taught how to clean their teeth

Toddlers across Wales to be taught how to clean their teeth
Oct 23 2009 by Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail
CHILDREN and toddlers under three in Wales will be taught how to brush their teeth.
The Welsh Assembly Government will today announce extra funding to extend its flagship oral health scheme to the youngest children.
They will also be given free toothbrushes and toothpaste to take home with them in a bid to improve Wales’ shocking oral health.
More than half of children in Wales have tooth decay, although the problem is highest in areas of deprivation, such as the former South Wales coalfield.
And dentists have said there are children in Wales who have “never seen a toothbrush”.
Health Minister Edwina Hart, who will launch the extended scheme today in Swansea, said: “The rates of tooth decay in parts of Wales are too high and need to be tackled.
“This additional funding for the Designed to Smile scheme will carry on and enhance the good work done in the pilot areas and extend it across the whole of Wales.
“There is a significant role for parents to play, but we know that for many children at greatest risk of dental decay, cleaning their teeth or having their teeth cleaned does not form part of their daily routine.
“It is clear that more direct and also more innovative methods of delivering preventive care are necessary if advances in child oral health are to be made.
“By teaching children the importance of good oral health at an early age, they will develop good habits they will carry on into adulthood.”
Children under three who attend nurseries in parts of North and South Wales – the original super pilot areas – will now be taught about tooth brushing in a bid to make it part of their regular daily routine.
They will also be given free toothbrushes and toothpaste.
The existing scheme for three to five-year-olds will also be extended to other Communities First areas in Wales and, in the super pilot areas, to six and seven- year-olds.
Assembly Government funding for Designed to Smile will rise to £3.1m this year and to more than £3.8m in 2010-11.
A joint statement by Dr Hugh Bennett, a consultant in dental public health, and Claire Thompson, acting senior health promotion specialist at the National Public Health Service for Wales, said: “Evidence shows that tooth brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste reduces the risk of this preventable disease.
“This boost to Designed to Smile is an invaluable opportunity to encourage parents and children to maintain good dental health habits.
“Steps such as healthy eating and drinking are just as import-ant as brushing teeth and visiting the dentist, and the Designed to Smile team will work with both children and parents to explain how these simple measures can reduce the unnecessary pain and suffering caused by dental decay.”
Stuart Geddes, director of the British Dental Association in Wales, said: “In principle this is great and I’m glad to see the Assembly Government is putting money into it.
“This is about good practice and also getting the tooth-brushing message into the family; hopefully it will get the message across to mums so it can be taken back.
“One episode of oral health education is not going to work unless it is taken back home.”
Mr Geddes added: “This is a help but what I’d like to see is a really comprehensive oral hygiene programme rolled out to school children until they are 16.
“While I appreciate that is beyond the costs of providing this scheme, the benefits would, in the long-term, save money for the NHS because we would get subsequent reductions in treatment.”

UK - Daily Echo - folly in folic acid story

folly in folic acid story
I HAVE watched the debate on fluoridation of water with some interest although not overly concerned of possible detrimental effects. However it seems that our Granny state is likely to legislate for all bread, and flour, to contain folic acid. Folic acid is known to be of benefit to certain groups of people but when it was introduced into bread in North America in 1998 the rate of bowel cancer abruptly increased where
before it had been slowly declining.
The scientific advisory committee on-nutrition claims that the increased cancer rate could he due to improved screening, despite the previous decline. It seems to me that another government department may be spinning statistics to its own advantage and this is one food supplement on which I will definitely be taking a concerned interest.
ALAN KEBBELL, Southampton.

UK - Daily Echo - Silence on the cola ads

Silence on the cola ads
SOUTHAMPTON City Council used to be ever so concerned about children's teeth.
Dental health was so important that a small majority of councillors supported the fluoridation of water supplies on this basis alone, putting aside concerns on the effects of fluoride elsewhere in the body.
Upon receipt of an offer by Coca-Cola to pay for the recycling bins the council should be buying themselves, concern for children's teeth seems to have gone put of the window, as the company has been allowed to advertise their sugar and chemical-packed drinks all over town.
Coca-Cola consists of water, sugar and several artificial flavourings and sweeteners. A typical can of coke contains about 45g of refined sugar, which is already more than the maximum recommended daily allowance. The sugar-free varieties still have the sweeteners, which are subject to ongoing debates on their effects.
For the past few years, campaigners in the Green Party and Hampshire Against Fluoridation have been fighting the plans of the Strategic Health Authority to add hexafluorisilic acid to local water supplies. They have argued that there are better ways to improve dental health than to force fluoridated water on a captive population, such as providing better education and public information on dental health.
The council and the Primary Care Trust (PCT) responded that it was "too difficult to change people's behaviour". By allowing Coca-Cola to advertise all over the city, they have ensured that this is true. Maybe this is their idea of joined-up thinking: promote cola, which will cause tooth decay, thereby justifying the need for fluoridation.
I find it incredible that the PCT and local dentists are silent on this issue. They were not short of time, money or energy when it came to promoting fluoride -the PCT spent a vast amount of public money on a one sided door-to-door leaflet campaign, whilst dentists claimed to be heartbroken over how many teeth they'd drilled out. Their silence on the Coca-Cola advertising leads me to doubt their sincerity, their honesty and their integrity.
We will only improve children's dental health when we reduce their intake of sugary snacks and drinks. To achieve this, we need to reduce both the advertising and availability of such products and replace them with healthy alternatives.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

UK - THE average Manchester five-year-old has five decayed or missing teeth.

Rotten state of kids' teeth
Amanda Crook
October 21, 2009
THE average Manchester five-year-old has five decayed or missing teeth.
More than half of the city's young children have suffered problems with at least one tooth by the time they start school, according to a new study.

The survey from the North West Public Health Observatory reveals Manchester and Rochdale are among the 10 areas with the worst dental health records.

The snapshot of dental health suggests less than a third of children across England suffer from dental decay.

Gill Davies, from the observatory said: "The north west has the highest average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth with the average five-year-old in the worst places like Manchester having five teeth affected - a quarter of a child of this age's teeth.

"We also know that by far the most common reason for a child to be admitted to hospital is to have a tooth extracted."

Staff collecting data for the survey examined 140,000 five-year-old children from state schools across 147 of the 152 Primary Care Trust (PCT) areas of England during the school year 2007/2008.

David Regan acting director of public health for NHS Manchester said: "We are working hard to improve dental health in schools, sure start centres and dental practices but home care is key - parents need to reduce the number of times their children have sugary drinks and food - ideally to mealtimes.

"They should supervise their child brushing their teeth twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, once at the end of the day."

Manchester health visitors also give out packs of toothbrushes and fluoride toothpaste to parents of young children to get them into the habit of caring for their children's teeth. There are supervised tooth brushing schemes in sure start centres and some nurseries.

And 10,000 children across the city have milk with added fluoride every day at primary school.

Comments

Most recent user comments 3 of 3
The dentist industry is a complete mess ever since they where given the option of being on the nhs or private. they should never have done that in the first place. just to save a few pounds off the nhs. yet another example of how this country is becoming more like a 3rd world one!
Jay B, oldham
21/10/2009 at 15:24
just look at the parents giving their babies sugary drinks to keep the offsprings quiet.and look at the same going on when parents pick their kids up from school they give their kids these high energy sugary drinks with those nipple type tops that concentrate the drinks directly to the front teeth. parents dont listen? Sugary drinks are bad for children...but they still buy gallons when i see them comming out of asda and other stores.
Local lad, outsidethebox
21/10/2009 at 12:40

This is not just evident in Children,

The only way anyone can get to the dentist without having to pay is to be a benefit scrounging employment dodger.

As a person who has been in fulltime employment since I was 16, some 15 years ago I have always paid my taxes, contributed to society in a positive way yet can I get to see a dentist on the NHS?? No can I hell, even after paying for the privelidge.

I have never needed to go into hospital at all since as far back as I can remember yet would benefit seeing the dentist at least once a year so in effect I and most taxpayers are paying for NHS medical care whilst at the same time being denied dental care unless we want to pay for it.

Its like having car insurance on a car you don't own anymore.

No wonder this country stinks - its this country thats rotten along with the teeth.

Australia - Extra to protect children's teeth

Extra to protect children's
Ren Lanzon
WHEN Kate French turns on the tap at their kindy after the end of this month, there will be something extra in the water - fluoride.
The Gladstone Area Water Board had told Gladstone Regional Council it expected that fluoridation of treated water in Gladstone and Calliope would begin on October 31.
Water customers in the Yarwun Industrial Estate and residents at Mt Larcom, however, will receive treated water about November 11.
Kate's mum, Melissa, yesterday said she welcomed the fluoridation of the water supply.
“All the major centres of Australia have access to fluoridated water, and it's about time it happened here,” she said.
“It's just a little bit extra to protect my children's teeth.”
Fluoridation of the water supply has been a contentious issue in Australia.
But whether you like it or not, there was little choice in the matter as fluoridation is a Queensland Government directive and GAWB has a legal obligation to follow the directive.
Only treated water will be fluoridated as the raw water supply will not be affected.
Gladstone dentist Ron Petherick also welcomed the fluoridation of the water supply.
“It can only improve dental health of the community,” he said.
GAWB CEO Jim Grayson said fluoridation cost for the areas supplied through the Gladstone Water Treatment Plant (Gladstone, Boyne Tannum and Calliope) and the Yarwun Treatment Plant was $1.4 million.
He said areas outside of these, such as Miriam Vale and Agnes Water/1770, were not included and, when fluoridation takes place, would be the responsibility of the council.
Council water manager Phil Boshoff said GAWB would charge it customers, of which the council is one, 95 cents a kilolitre for the fluoridated water.

He said that the council would have to recover the cost of the fluoridation through its water charges to ratepayers.

Kate's mum thinks it's OK so it must be.

USA - All Infant Formula Contains Fluoride at Tooth-Discoloring Levels

Studies: All Infant Formula Contains Fluoride at Tooth-Discoloring Levels
Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:18am EDT
NEW YORK, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
All infant formulas, whether ready-to-feed, concentrated or organic, contain fluoride at levels which can discolor developing teeth, reports the October 2009 Journal of the American
Dental Association (JADA)(1).
Fluoride, added to some bottled and public water supplies ostensibly to
prevent cavities, is also in many foods and beverages, including infant
formula. Excessive fluoride discolors and/or weakens permanent teeth (moderate
fluorosis).
Researchers measured fluoride content of 49 infant formulas. See:
http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/infantformulafluoride.htm
The research team concludes, "Most infants from birth to age 12 months who
consume predominantly powdered and liquid concentrate formula are likely to
exceed the upper tolerable limit [of fluoride] if the formula is reconstituted
with optimally fluoridated water (0.7 - 1.2 ppm)."
Surprisingly, the study reveals that all 6-month-olds and younger will also
exceed the lower "adequate intake" (0.01 mg/day) from all formulas
(concentrated or not) risking moderate dental fluorosis from formula,
alone.(2)
Breast milk contains about 250 times less fluoride than "optimally"
fluoridated water and isn't linked to fluorosis.
"Babies don't need fluoride, and fluoride ingestion doesn't reduce tooth
decay," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed
to Fluoridation, Inc. "So why are U.S. babies still exposed to unnecessary
fluoride chemicals via the water and food supplies, and why aren't parents
informed of the consequences?" asks Beeber.
Up to 48% of school children have fluorosed teeth - 4% severe, reports the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)(3).
Both the CDC and the American Dental Association's web sites advise parents to
avoid mixing fluoridated water into concentrated infant formula, but they have
never effectively broadcast this information to parents or the media(4,5).
A review of human studies by different researchers published in JADA (July
2009) concluded, "Our systematic review indicated that the consumption of
infant formula [concentrated and ready-to-feed] is, on average, associated
with an increased risk of developing at least some detectable level of enamel
fluorosis."(6)
"Parents, protect your children since dental and government agencies won't.
Petition local and state legislators to stop adding unnecessary and harmful
fluoride chemicals into public water supplies and, thereby, into our food
supply," says Beeber. "Further, demand that the fluoride content of all food
products be required on labels."
USDA: Fluoride-content of common foods:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=6312
References: http://tinyurl.com/AllFormulaContainsFluoride
Contact: Paul Beeber, Esq, 516-433-8882, nyscof@aol.com
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.FluorideAction.Net

UK- Stroud public gears up to oppose fluoridation

Stroud public gears up to oppose fluoridation
1:00pm Wednesday 21st October 2009
Stroud public gears up to oppose fluoridation A straw poll of local opinion, taken on the streets of Stroud in advance of the AGM of the Stroud and District Safe Water Campaign earlier this month (October) found 90 totally opposed to the threatened introduction of mass medication caused by the addition of fluoride to the total water supply in Gloucestershire… and just one in favour.

Chairman Rob Mehta reported that the threat (buried in the water bill and now enshrined in law) was getting geographically closer to the county. Recently. the National Health Service South West, the relevant official body for Bristol, had been charged by the government with conducting a 'feasibility study' about adding the relevant chemical (fluorosilic acid) to the city's water supply.

He pointed out that with the resulting establishment of Bristolians Against Fluoridation and a fledgling organisation in Bath - also under imminent threat of this mass medication - there is now a network of opposition voluntary groups in the south and west of England.

The speaker at the AGM, Stephen Peckham of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, which included Southampton, reported on their success in showing that in every measure of consultation (a statutory process for the health authority) there over 70 per cent of residents voted ‘No'. Stephen, a Health Service researcher now at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, recalled how shocked the group was when, despite this clear showing of public opposition, the Strategic Health Authority announced it was going ahead anyway.

He also stressed how, despite government claims, up to date research had demolished their case that fluoridation reduced tooth decay in young children. (Scientists have found it simply delays - not reduces - it and in a significant percentage it causes the tooth disfigurement called 'fluorosis' which needs repeated and expensive treatment.) The Hampshire group have complained to the Ombudsman, he explained, on the grounds that the SHA cannot be said to have mounted a legally defined consultation (as guaranteed in the act.) They have also supported a local resident who succeeded in getting legal aid and won a judicial review which ruled there had been a lack of consultation by the SHA. That resident is also appealing a decision refusing a judicial review into the lack of official evidence produced for fluoridation.

Members of the Stroud and District Safe Water Campaign, which covers Gloucestershire, agreed to continue making grants to the Southampton organisation. "We believe the success on the streets and in the courts means the government has had to put a large part of their national push for fluoridation on hold," asserted committee member Lynne Edmunds. "It is also trying to wriggle out of a European court ruling which our Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has to comply with, which states fluoride is a medical product and so has to go through many stringent legal safety hoops - not a 'food' as this government ridiculously claims."

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

UK - One third of five years olds have tooth decay

One third of five years olds have tooth decay
Almost one third of five-year-olds in England have decayed, filled or missing teeth, official figures have revealed.
A survey of 140,000 state schoolchildren found 31 per cent were already showing obvious signs of tooth decay.
The study was conducted by the new NHS Dental Epidemiology Programme but may be an underestimate of the problem as parents were asked to provide specific consent for their child's teeth to be examined and so those with the worst dental health may have opted out, the authors warned.
Previous studies have suggested as many as 60 per cent of five-year-olds have some level of dental decay although improvements have been made in recent years.
The children who had tooth decay had on average between three and four teeth which were either filled, extracted or were showing obvious signs of damage.
Levels of tooth decay varied around the country with the highest levels in the North East where 40 per cent of five-year-olds had damaged teeth compared with under a quarter in the South East Coast region.
Sue Gregory, Deputy Chief Dental Officer for England, said: "We are pleased to see that most five-year-olds don't suffer the effects of obvious tooth decay, and by the age of twelve our children's teeth are among the healthiest in Europe.
"We need to sustain and improve on this position. Dental decay is preventable and we need to focus on programmes which will ensure that in future all young children benefit from good oral health.
"Brushing for Life already gives free toothbrushes, fluoride toothpaste and advice to children in areas where tooth decay is a problem, and we are advising dentists to give all children over the age of three applications of fluoride varnish every six months to protect their teeth."

USA - Agency awards utilities for maintaining water fluoride

Agency awards utilities for maintaining water fluoride
By Merritt Melancon | merritt.melancon@onlineathens.com
10/20/2009
JEFFERSON - Water departments in Jefferson, Commerce and Athens recently received an unexpected recognition - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2008 Water Fluoridation Quality Award.
The award recognizes municipal water departments that have maintained the optimal level of fluoride in their water throughout the past 12 months.
Utility directors received notice of this year's awards earlier this month.
"I hadn't heard of it until last year when we got it," said Jeff Killip, Jefferson's director of public works. "They were all pretty well taken aback at the treatment plant."

"We make sure (fluoride is) in there," Killip said. "But we do have trickier things to worry about - bacteria, taste and odor."

While most of Georgia's public water systems introduce fluoride in drinking water to strengthen the bond between tooth enamel and the tooth to help prevent decay, only 57 water systems in Georgia and 1,500 systems across the country received the award, according to Linda Orgain, a health communications specialist with the CDC.

The award recognizes water systems that consistently produce water containing the CDC-recommended concentration of fluoride, about 1 milligram per liter of water, according to the CDC's Engineering and Administrative Recommendations for Water Fluoridation. Public works employees usually are not recognized just for doing their jobs well, so it's nice to have the acknowledgment, Killip said.

"I think it's just the psyche of the people who work in public works; they don't seek recognition," he said. "Their satisfaction is that everybody has water and that their toilets work when they go to flush them."
Originally published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Reader Comments

Posted by: jwillie6 at Oct. 21, 2009 at 1:12:50 am
I am sorry to report that they hand out hundreds of these awards across the couuntry each year in a public relations ploy.
Those promoting fluoridation simply refuse to read the current research showing it is ineffective and dangerous to health of children and adults. Go to (www.fluoridealert.org) and read several articles from scientists.
Read the letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback ( DDS, PhD Biochemistry) --- Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto entitled "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water"
He was the principal research advisor to the Canadian Dental Asociation for over 10 years in promoting fluoridation. His letter is an apology to other dentists and the public.
Over 140 Research studies listed, including:
Increased risk of bone cancer -- 13 studies
Lead, arsenic, radium contaminants causing toxic water -- 10 studies
Link with fluoride and other cancer -- 12
Fluoride causes birth defects -- 5
Fluoride affects the immune systems -- 12
Fluoride is neurotoxic (brain, nerves, lowering IQ) -- 11
Etc.
Also see the petition signed by over 2600 professionals opposing fluoridation.


Posted by: athensga2 at Oct. 21, 2009 at 2:01:18 am

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1094: Paul Connett's visit to Ohio
October 20, 2009
Last week, I gave presentations outlining the arguments against fluoridation in Athens and Yellow Springs, Ohio. Both cities are fluoridated and councilors in each are reconsidering the practice. The organizers had hoped for debates in both venues. We got a kind of debate in Yellow Springs, but failed to get one in Athens (see below). However, my presentation in Athens was videotaped and can be viewed (unedited) by going to http://athensoh.swagit.com/player.php?refid=10162009-18

ATHENS, Ohio. Denied a vote, now denied a debate.

The citizens of Athens have rejected fluoridation three times in referenda. Then, in 2002, the city council introduced fluoridation without getting approval from the citizens. A number of councilors elected since then have wondered about the wisdom of the practice. One in particular, Elahu Gosney, tried to organize a public debate on the issue when he learned I was prepared to present the arguments against fluoridation.

But efforts to get a debate with a state health official (Colleen Wulf) were met with the following rebuff. She wrote this to Elahu Gosney on September 29, 2009:

"debates like the one you are considering have the potential to confuse and divide a community about a proven public health measure…Debating the issue tends to give credence to spurious claims of harm. It provides opponents with a platform to spread misinformation."

But having refused to debate me this state official does not hesitate to provide one side of the argument from the safety of her office. She wrote:

"The use of fluorides is economical…

"Fluoridation is necessary...

"Fluoridation is good public policy: It benefits people of all ages and does not discriminate...

"Why do some people object to fluoridation? Fluoridation is the only public health measure that is put to a vote of the public. Because of this an entire subculture of opposition has been founded to resist its implementation. They distort the science and spread confusion and fear. In the 1950's it was a communist plot. In the 60's and 70's it caused cancer; in the 80's it caused AIDS/HIV; in the 90's it hurt the environment. Antifluoridationists have a history of using whatever the current concern of the day to justify their opposition. There is no legitimate controversy…

"We spoke briefly about a publication that opponents of fluoridation have misused in their efforts to alarm the public. In March 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) published "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standard." This was a periodic assessment of drinking water guidelines as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It examined the MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) Goal of 4.0 mg/L. The report addressed safety of high levels of fluoride found naturally in water-NOT community water fluoridation. See the following website for more information: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety.htm#1

"The bottom line is, who do you trust? A fringe website or your physician? The American Cancer Society or the local health food store owner? The American Public Health Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the dental and medical research community or the Fluoride Action Network?

"The average person cannot begin to respond to all the claims of harm that some opponents make. It is admirable that Council is available to listen to concerns from its citizens, but in the final analysis, it makes more sense to base major health policy decisions on what the experts say. I think if you take the time to research this issue, you will find proven experts agree that drinking water with fluoride at 1 part per million (1mg/L) an excellent measure that can prevent dental caries. All oral health experts will tell you that a combination of proper fluoride intake, good oral hygiene, use of topical fluorides and controlling dietary carbohydrate intake work together to maximize oral health. Fluoridation is simply the cornerstone of that effort since it is most economical and equitable."

When Elahu Gosney pursued this further he received another email from Colleen Wulf on October 9, 2009 (my emphasis in bold):

Hello Mr. Gosney.

Our reasoning for not participating in debates on fluoridation is simple. Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists. All major dental and public health associations (the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Association of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Public Health Association, the Association of Public Health Dentistry to name a few) support the practice of fluoridation. Community water fluoridation has been recognized as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. Debates and public hearings give the vocal minority a forum to spread misinformation and fear.

Often opponents call for a debate so that 'the people can decide who is right.' However, after listening to unfounded claims of harm and implications that the water is "poisoned" by fluoride, the public is more confused than ever. Antifluoridationists steal undeserved credibility just by sharing the podium with dental public health officials who are there to defend fluoridation. It is a no-win situation.

If members of council have questions after Mr. Connett appears, please have them submit these questions to our office, to Ms. Jane McGinley of the American Dental Association or to the Division of Oral Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I'm sure we can answer questions that arise with sound, scientific documentation. (our emphasis, PC)

Sincerely,

Colleen A. Wulf, RDH, MPH
Preventive Services Coordinator
Bureau of Oral Health Services
Ohio Department of Health

When I read this I thought the two sentences highlighted above sounded familiar and sure enough when I checked they were exact quotes from Dr. Michael Easley's writings on this matter (see below). Dr. Easley's chief claim to fame is his ability to insult opponents of fluoridation and verbally intimidate other members of the dental community if they dare to utter a word in public against fluoridation. While we are surprised that Ms Wulf did not acknowledge their origin, we are not surprised she feels the same way as Easley because it appears that they have worked together on this issue for many years (see references 1 & 2 below).

Michael Easley, Community water fluoridation in America: the unprincipled opposition. 1999.

"Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view...

"Like parasites, opponents steal undeserved credibility just by sharing the stage with respected scientists who are there to defend fluoridation...

"Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of practice." (my emphasis, PC)

In lieu of a debate I gave a presentation in the city of Athens council chambers. About 20 people showed up and it was televised live. You can watch this presentation (unedited) by going to http://athensoh.swagit.com/player.php?refid=10162009-18

I was very pleased with this production because the crew were able to feed my power point slides directly into their recording system - thus we don't get the fuzzy images we sometimes get when videographers try to combine shots of the speaker and the slides.

The good news coming out of this meeting, as well as the email exchange between Elahu Gosney and Colleen Wulf, is that she has committed to give answers (or get answers from the ADA or the CDC) for any question that Elahu sends her.

YELLOW SPRINGS, Ohio. A kind of debate (October 15, 2009)

In Yellow Springs we did get a debate but don't hold your breath, it was a very tame affair. Each side was given 20 minutes to present their case. I spent most of the day getting my power point presentation down from an hour to 20 minutes. Not easy.

About 20 people showed up for the event.

Arguing on the other side was a County Health Commissioner and a local dentist. Neither was very well prepared and gave the usual mantra listing the agencies that endorse fluoridation. The dentist said she could tell the difference between the children she treated in unfluoridated Xenia and fluoridated Yellow Springs. As far as my presentation was concerned she said that I was "spreading fear tactics" and for every study I cited she said that she could "cite a study which found exactly the opposite." I asked her to list the studies done in fluoridated countries that have found opposite results to the 23 studies that have reported an association between moderate to high fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children. She could not. Even if she had been on top of the literature (she clearly was not) she would have only been able to cite one small IQ study from New Zealand.

The health commissioner said that they kept a careful track of the health of the Yellow Springs community and said that after 40 years of fluoridation they saw no health problems. I responded that unless they did a formal study and had it peer-reviewed and published that such observations meant very little. This meeting was also televised but I am not sure when the video will become available.

My trip to Ohio was a lot of effort to reach about 40 people, but I suspect it has given an extra push to those concerned in both towns. Also the video of the first meeting may do us yeoman service.

On a personal note it was a very enjoyable experience. In Athens, I met up again with people I worked with over 20 years ago fighting a proposed incinerator there. In Yellow Springs, I met up with someone I had worked with in the successful effort to prevent a local cement company burning hazardous waste in their kiln - that was 18 years ago! I was also delighted to meet up again with Debra and David Cattrow who drove over from nearby Springfield. In this town, they had led the successful campaign to keep fluoridation out of their city in a referendum held there a few years ago.

One of the privileges I have traveling around the world and the country, on both the waste and fluoridation issues, is that I meet, and work with, some of the best people in the world. They are not in this for money, for prestige, or for power - but rather for the common good.

Paul Connett