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

UK Against Fluoridation

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Paul certainly has had an active life fighting world wide injustices.

Just for today

You may like to see this video http://credence.org/PDOnline/

National Pure Water Association shared a lecture hall once with Credence. Good video that is only viewable today.

Fluoride - Poison On Tap

Saturday, January 30, 2016

6 Best & Natural Alternatives to Fluoride

imageFluoride known as ingredient that prevents cavities, actually can be very toxic to the body. In fact, if you suffer from acne outbreaks around the mouth and chin area, fluoride toothpaste may be the cause!
Long-term exposure to fluoride can be harmful to the digestive system, heart, brain and even the bones (including the enamel). Fluorosis, a chronic condition caused by excessive exposure to fluoride, can cause mottling of the teeth and in severe cases calcification of the ligaments..........................

Tamworth dental and implant clinic

Dental fluorosis - Before and after 1What Is Dental Fluorosis?
Dental fluorosis is an effect that can occur on the protective area of your teeth (enamel) during the early development stages. It happens if the teeth are exposed to high doses of fluoride.

Who Can Be Effected?

This issue mainly happens during the very early stages of child development, from 3 months to 8 years old. In the majority of cases, it will be very minimal effects and it will barely be noticeable, with tiny specks or white streaks on the teeth that are affected.
In the most severe cases, teeth can become uneven, rough and even have brown marking discolouration.
If you have suffered from fluorisis as a child, the stains and spots can darken over time and will be permanent. However, we do offer cosmetic treatments that can be used to improve the staining, making it look more aesthetically pleasing.

How To Prevent Fluorosis

The most important steps to take is to limit your child intake of fluoride at a young age, and ensure to carefully read labels of foods, mouthwash and toothpaste to ensure they have low levels.

What Has Fluoride In It?

Fluoride can be found in a number of sources, which is why it is very important to be aware of where it can be found:
  • Some mouthwashes (check the ingredients to be sure)
  • Foods (a lot of processed and soy foods)
  • Water (depending on where you live, more fluoride will be found in the water – less developed countries tend to have higher amounts)
The early stages of a child’s development is very important to ensure there teeth grow naturally and healthily. During this stage it is important for your child to attend regular check ups with the dentist so warning signs can be spotted early on.

Free Consultations

If you are unhappy with your teeth and have suffered from dental fluorosis please do not hesitate to call us and book your free consultation today.
Veneers From £550.00
Now one dentist admits how fluoride is good for business.

Tamworth Borough Council in Staffordshire voted in March 2012 to support the continued fluoridation of local water supplies. This followed an intensive review of the benefits and safety of fluoridation by Tamworth’s Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, which culminated in a unanimous recommendation that the Council should endorse this public health measure. The review was called for by an independent Tamworth councillor who, with the backing of a West Midlands anti-fluoride group, had sought to generate doubts about the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation. In the event, the Council overwhelmingly rejected their arguments. Detailed evidence was presented by both sides to the Scrutiny Committee at an allday hearing, with Dr Peter Mansfield (who has also campaigned against the use of a single MMR vaccine for children) and retired general dental practitioner Tony Lees putting the anti-fluoride case. South Staffordshire consultant in dental public health Dr John Morris presented data to show how Tamworth children had benefited from fluoridation since it was introduced to the area between 1986 and 1988. Today, around 497,000 South Staffordshire residents are supplied with fluoridated water, including the 75,000 people who live in Tamworth.

Does it make you swear - evidence it does!

Friday, January 29, 2016

NZ - Whakatane Stops Water Fluoridation

Whakatane Stops Water Fluoridation: Money to Be Spent on Oral Health Care Programme

After 44 years of water fluoridation, Whakatane District Council has voted to end the out-dated practice. Instead, they will consider providing funds to the District Health Board for targeted oral health programmes, like CHILDSMILE, which has been successful in Scotland for more than a decade. Because of this programme, Scottish children now have better teeth than New Zealand children, and Scotland has never been fluoridated.

37,000 people, including Whakatane and Ohope, will now have their water without added Hydrofluorosilic Acid (aka fluoride). With dental health statistics for Bay of Plenty showing no difference in decay rates between fluoridated Whakatane and the non fluoridated rest of the region. The only health effect from ending fluoridation is expected to be better health for all.

Fluoride Free New Zealand congratulates those Councillors that voted to stop. The reason most Councillors gave for choosing to stop fluoridation is that they were unsure of the health risks, and did not feel it should be their job to decide. Mayor Bonne said one of the reasons he voted to stop fluoridation was because he had been advised by previous Health Ministers that the Council was responsible, and that if it is found that fluoridation causes harm, then it will be the Council that would carry the consequences, not the Ministry of Health or Central Government..............

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Fluoride Action Network Newsletter

As the Fluoride Action Network reported back in December, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is planning on conducting an extensive study to investigate fluoride's effect on the brain, including learning and memory. Unlike the countless government whitewashes on fluoridation that we have seen in the past, we remain cautiously optimistic that the NTP is approaching its fluoride investigation with integrity. 
Earlier this month, FAN submitted additional information to the NTP to explain why "high dose" animal studies can be relevant to the neurotoxic risks that vulnerable humans face in fluoridated communities. Fluoridation proponents like to dismiss any animal study that exposes animals to more than 1 ppm fluoride in the water; FAN's submission explains why this reasoning is superficial and flawed. 
The NTP is also currently considering a re-examination of fluoride's potential to cause or contribute to cancer, including bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in children.  In response to this tentative proposal, FAN submitted extensive information to the NTP, including a detailed discussion of the recent studies that have investigated the relationship between fluoride and osteosarcoma. As we discuss at length in our submission, many of the studies that are cited by fluoridation proponents as disproving the fluoride/osteosarcoma connection had little, if any, power to do so. In fact, when the limitations of these studies are taken into account, some of the studies actually support the fluoride/osteosarcoma link. As we explain, "the current epidemiological evidence linking fluoride to childhood osteosarcoma is much stronger than currently recognized."
For those interested in getting a better understanding of the recent science on fluoride and cancer, FAN's submission and accompanying appendices can be accessed here. I particularly recommend the appendices in which Chris Neurath explains the glaring problems with the studies by Kim (2011)Blakey (2014); and Gelberg (1995). Chris also addresses the obvious weaknesses of the studies by Young (2015)Levy (2012); and Comber (2011). Chris did a phenomenal job with these critiques, proving once again why we are so lucky to have him on our team!
The American Dental Association (ADA), which paid $200,000 in lobbying efforts to prevent California from classifying fluoride as a carcinogen, has -- not surprisingly -- submitted its usual "everything is fine and dandy" info to the NTP, which you can read here
Finally, we are happy to report that FAN's comments have attracted the attention of InsideEPA, a journal that provides "relevant news about the federal policymaking process to professionals who have a need to know about the process." We have provided an excerpt from this article below.
As we did during the National Research Council's historic three-year review of fluoride toxicity, FAN will continue to closely monitor the NTP's fluoride studies, and will continue providing the NTP with the best available science on fluoride's carcinogenicity and neurotoxicity.
Thank you again for your support!

Michael Connett
Executive Director

Inside EPA (publication)
Advocates Back NTP Fluoride Review, Citing Risk To Developing Brain
January 20, 2016
Advocacy groups are backing the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) plan to evaluate fluoride's possible neurodevelopmental risks, arguing the review should be a high priority and consider all sources of exposure to the substance, though consumer product and dental industry officials contend current levels of exposure pose no risk.
NTP, part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, took comment through Jan. 8 on a proposal to review fluoride's potential neurodevelopmental risks after studies in other countries have found adverse effects to IQ, though the studies were of areas with higher levels of exposure than commonly found in the United States.
In recent comments to NTP, groups including the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and Parents of Fluoride-Poisoned Children argue fluoride exposures result from multiple sources, ranging from toothpaste to pharmaceuticals, and that numerous studies show the substance poses health risks including to children's developing brains.
In Jan. 8 comments, the Parents of Fluoride-Poisoned Children say NTP "should place the review of developmental neurotoxicity as a high priority."
And in Nov. 30 commentsFAN says "a large body of published scientific research ... shows that fluoride can damage the developing brain at worryingly modest levels of exposure." The group also notes that the National Academy of Sciences has identified fluoride as an endocrine disruptor.
During a Dec. 2 meeting of NTP's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), the advisors backed the NTP Office of Health Assessment and Translation's plans for a literature review and experimental animal studies to determine the level at which fluoride may pose a risk of neurodevelopmental effects, but questioned the level of resources the project justifies.
Some advisors said the NTP review would face complicating factors, such as estimating exposures given the prevalence of fluoride in consumer products, flaws in published epidemiology studies and difficulties extrapolating risks to humans from animal studies. The panel considered the review a "high to medium" priority.
NTP's plan to review fluoride's potential for developmental neurobehavioral effects comes asEPA is reviewing its maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the substance, currently set at 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to review MCLs every six years to ensure safe levels in drinking water, and says the review should consider "occurrence, health effects and other factors."
The MCL regulates drinking water systems with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride but does not apply to local decisions to add fluoride to drinking water to prevent dental cavities. The U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends an optimal fluoridation level of 0.7 mg/L.
Environmentalists' Concerns
Environmentalists have long argued fluoride increases risks of bone damage, and studies in other countries have also flagged the mineral as a potential neurotoxicant, linking fluoride in drinking water to lowered IQ in children. NTP is also considering future literature reviews of other effects possibly linked to fluoride exposure including cancer and endocrine disruption, but those efforts have not progressed as far as the evaluation of neurdevelopmental risks, NTP staff told the BOSC last month.
In comments, FAN calls NTP's plan to review a potential neurodevelopmental risk for fluoride "warranted and timely," noting that dozens of studies have found an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ.
Specifically, FAN says 23 studies have found reductions in IQ among children consuming water with fluoride levels at or below EPA's current MCL of 4 ppm. The group also says dozens of animal studies suggest fluoride exposure can impair learning and or memory.
In additional comments, filed Jan. 8, FAN says humans are more susceptible to fluoride exposure than rodents used in animal testing, which require greater amounts of the substance to achieve a similar internal dose.
Officials with the dental and consumer products industries have argued in public comments to NTP that current levels of exposure to fluoride do not pose a neurodevelopmental risk, and that the review is of questionable utility.
A representative of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association told the Dec. 2 BOSC meeting the review could have unintended consequences, such as leading to hazard warnings that fail to account for dose or level of exposure.

See all FAN bulletins online

Canada - Parry Sound votes to remove fluoride

Parry Sound votes to remove fluoride from municipal water

Parry Sound North Star

By Stephannie Johnson
Fluoride debatePARRY SOUND – The town is done adding fluoride to municipal water – almost.Last night town council rescinded an earlier resolution approving fluoridation upgrades to the Tony Agnello Water Treatment Plant; the upgrades were necessary to continue fluoridating the municipal water supply.
The upgrade would have cost taxpayers $250,000.
Once again, the council chambers were packed with supporters and members of Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management – the group that has urged the town to drop fluoride treatment.
The motion was brought back by Coun. Paul Borneman, as he was on the prevailing side of the original vote to make the upgrades necessary in order to keep adding fluoride to the water supply.
In a recorded vote, all of council voted in favour of the resolution, except Coun. Bonnie Keith.
If approved by formal bylaw next month, the change must be posted for 21 days for public comment before coming into effect.
See the January the January 29 edition Beacon Star or parrysound.com for the full story.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Canada - Peel Region expected to vote on removing fluoride from drinking water

Councillor John Sprovieri would like to see fluoride removed from  Peel Region's water. He cites a growing body of research suggesting it’s no longer necessary because of all the other ways people now receive fluoride.
Councillor John Sprovieri would like to see fluoride removed from Peel Region's water. He cites a growing body of research suggesting it’s no longer necessary because of all the other ways people now receive fluoride.

Some Peel councillors want the region to join the growing list of municipalities who no longer add fluoride to drinking water.
As more municipalities remove fluoride from their water, Peel region councillors are asking why the provincial and federal governments keep pushing fluoridation while leaving ill-equipped municipalities responsible for it.
“If they think it’s so important, that there would be such bad health and medical consequences without fluoride in the drinking water, then why don’t they take responsibility?” asked Brampton and Peel Region Councillor John Sprovieri, following a closed-session workshop where the pros and cons of fluoride were presented. A vote by Peel council on whether to remove fluoride is expected soon, councillors said.
The federal government says fluoridated water is critical to public health, but it leaves responsibility for implementation to lower levels of government.
“The Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada strongly support water fluoridation as a safe and cost effective public health measure to prevent dental decay,” said Eric Morrissette, a spokesperson for both agencies, in an email Monday. “The federal government does not have the authority to impose requirements for fluoride in drinking water in the provinces and territories.”
Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins likewise says fluoridated water is crucial.
“Tooth decay is the single most common chronic disease among Canadian children and can lead to a number of other health conditions. Poor oral health is linked to diabetes, heart disease, respiratory conditions, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis and even low birth weight in babies,” he wrote in an email Monday.
“I urge all municipalities to ensure that they continue to protect their communities from avoidable health issues by maintaining fluoride in their drinking water.”
If Peel council drops fluoride, it would follow the lead of other Canadian cities, including Quebec City, Calgary, Waterloo, Windsor and Saint John. Israel imposed a national ban on fluoride in 2014, prompted by concerns over the mass medication of its citizens without consent.
“(The federal and provincial governments) have health ministries, all the experts and scientists on their staff. We don’t,” Sprovieri said Monday. He would like to see fluoride removed, citing a growing body of research suggesting it’s no longer necessary because of all the other ways people now receive fluoride, such as toothpaste, oral washes, cereal and other food.
And despite the increasing number of cities across North America quitting the decades-long practice — to cut costs, because of reports of negative health effects from a range of toxins in industrial fluoride such as bone problems and better ways to get fluoride on teeth — Sprovieri says the argument he and other councillors will use is that it’s an issue beyond the expertise of municipalities. “City councillors should not make this decision. It’s simply not an issue we’re capable of properly debating.”
He and the others on Peel council, who told the Star they’ll vote to have the practice suspended until Ottawa or Queen’s Park mandates it, will face stiff opposition. On Monday, all three Peel mayors — Caledon’s Allan Thompson, Brampton’s Linda Jeffrey and Mississauga’s Bonnie Crombie — released a joint statement in support of fluoridation.
“Regardless of income, education or employment, residents of all backgrounds benefit from access to safe and effective fluoridation in their drinking water,” Crombie stated.
“Removing fluoridation will widen the gap between the rich and poor. It is unacceptable and irresponsible to make life harder for our most vulnerable residents. The very families unable to afford ongoing dental care treatment will have their oral health at risk without fluoridation.”
Asked to comment on Sprovieri and other Peel councillors' theory that if fluoride is such a crucial medical issue, Ottawa or Queen’s Park should be responsible for it, Crombie responded: “In Peel, we have a system that isn’t broken. This is about putting public health before politics.”
The fluoridation debate
Anti-fluoride arguments
Many municipalities use industrial fluoride — a byproduct of various practices such as fertilizer production that can contain other toxins including arsenic — instead of pharmaceutical fluoride. As a result, opponents raise health risks such as bone decay, lowering of thyroid function and neurological damage.
  • Swallowing fluoride isn’t a very good way of getting it to teeth and with it now contained in cereal, canned fish, tea, wine, many fruits and vegetables, oral rinses, along with toothpaste — not to mention natural fluoride in some water supplies, some recent research suggests fluoridated water has minimal benefits compared to decades ago.
  • Jurisdictions around the world have dropped fluoride from their water. Here are some, among at least 50, that stopped using it in the last two years: Yoshikawa, Japan; Galway, Ireland; Prince George, B.C.; Southampton, U.K.; Hernando County, Fla.; Kingsville, Ont.
  • Pro-fluoride arguments
  • Health organizations including Health Canada and almost every dental association in the world recommend fluoridation, citing the prevention of tooth decay and other oral health problems.

  • While proponents of fluoridation concede it can cause toxins to be ingested, they dispute claims that these are in amounts that exceed safe guidelines. There is little scientific evidence that fluoridation poses a risk to people’s health.

  • Ending fluoridation could force individuals and publicly funded health systems to spend more money treating oral decay and diseases including heart disease, diabetes and osteoporosis. The cost of adding fluoride to the public water supply is a small fraction of that.
  • Canada - Fluoride and festivals on Neepawa Council to-do list

    By Eoin Devereux

    Neepawa Banner/Neepawa Press

    The Town of Neepawa is examining whether it should continue to add fluoride to its water. A presentation was made to council on Tuesday, Jan. 19 by wastewater supervisor Howard Buffi, outlining the impact the fluoridation program has had on the system.

    The addition of fluoride to tap water has been common in communities across North America for many years as a means to help prevent dental issues such as tooth decay. Recently however, many municipalities have started reexamining use of the compound in their water supply, as some new research has suggested the practice may not be as beneficial as first thought.

    During his presentation, Buffi outlined a number of issues with the fluoridation program such as cost increases and the undiluted chemical compound actually being damaging to the lines. Councilor Bill Stilwell suggested further information was needed, specifically from a doctor, who may be able to discuss the medical benefits. Mayor Adrian de Groot agreed that both sides of the issue need to be brought forward before an informed decision could be made. The desire of council is that a recommendation on the use of fluoride in the water will be presented before they present the 2016 town budget.

    Tuesday, January 26, 2016

    The disdain of a lord

    From: COLWYN, Lord
    Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:43 PM
    To: Cllr Chris Cooke
    Subject: RE: Letter from Cllr Chris Cooke

    Thank you for your interesting letter. The contents have been noted.

    Lord Anthony Colwyn

    -----Original Message-----

    Sent: 15 January 2016 13:24
    To: COLWYN, Lord
    Subject: Letter from Cllr Chris Cooke

    Dear Lord Colwyn,

    In a recent speech you spoke these words -  "I once again urge the Government to consider the overwhelming worldwide scientific evidence which clearly points to fluoridation being a safe and effective way to fight caries and narrow the significant inequalities in children's oral health

    You ask that the "worldwide evidence" be considered.  I would very much like to see some sample of this "worldwide evidence" and would be grateful if you could identify it.

    Please note that I have no interest in people's "opinions", no matter how rofessional or scientific they claim to be.  I am only interested in the evidence.

    From my own researches, which have been extensive over many year, I would suggest that fluoride in toothpaste (giving a topical application) works - probably more because fluoride is a poison and will attack tooth bacteria (the direct cause of cavities). This effect is seen in countries all around the world where dental health has improved steadily - quite regardless of water fluoridation. The fluoridation chemical remains a poison though. There have been numerous scientific studies that are
    increasingly alarming as to the effect on various body organs and functions, thereby questioning your "overwhelming worldwide scientific evidence" view that fluoride is safe - or indeed that it's systemic use in fluoridated water supplies is even "effective".

    I would welcome sight of your evidence. I would also ask that you reconsider your own views as to whether that evidence is proper scientific evidence or whether it is either based on unscientific principle or even (as I mostly find) just some suspect observational methodology supporting opinions of people who support fluoridation.

    Thank you

    Yours sincerely,

    Cllr Chris Cooke

    USA - The fluoride debate rages on after the chemical spill at the MV Water Treatment Plant

    UTICA, NY - It's an issue that's been debated for years - whether adding hydrofluorosilicic acid (fluoride) in our water is good or bad for you.

    Some parents and grass roots organizations say fluoridation makes children susceptible to tooth decay and other health problems. Government agencies say it helps prevent cavities.

    We took a closer look at the pros, the cons, and the science behind it.

    What everybody agrees about, the liquid fluoride is a neurotoxin at full concentration.

    According to the Mohawk Valley Water Authority, our area is at 0.8 parts per million (PPM) fluoridation.

    The agency says they follow EPA and NYS Health Department regulations.

    According to them, liquid fluoride between 0.4 to 1.0 parts per million is just fine for humans.

    Meanwhile the CDC has revised its recommendation, that communities fluoridate water at 0.7 PPM.

    But some parents and groups, like the Fluoride Education Coalition of the Mohawk Valley say fluoridation does not work, and children are overdosed, resulting in permanent tooth damage.

    "If I go to the doctor, he doesn't force medication on me. Or of I go to the dentist, they don't force me to do fluoride. But if you put it in my water, you've taken away my ability to say no. Water fluoridation is outdated, it hurts more people than it hurts," said Whitesboro resident and organizer Cathy Sturgeon.

    "I don't want it at all. We're supposed to be supplied with pure clean water. We're being medicated without our consent, and that's the most important thing. You cannot control it," said Utica resident Ross Quinn, who has a long history of fighting for clean water rights. "You ask any doctor, you cannot give anybody the same dosage of medication. It depends on the age, sex, size and age of the individual."

    But MV Water Authority's Executive Director, Pat Becher said, "We believe very firmly that there is a health benefit, it reduces cavities, and reduces tooth decay. So unless something changes and new research and evidence points to something contrary, it's a practice we'll see continuing."

    What about the science? According to a Utica area dentist, Dr. Justin Zalatan, fluoride works, but pubic health education works better.

    "The problem with eliminating fluoride is the 30 percent of the population who are careless and don't follow dental hygiene, which would inevitably cause more problems. But personally I think that there is no benefit in the fluoridation of water to people who look after their teeth. And there is no scientific benefit to ingesting it for any other purpose than to prevent cavities in people who don't look after their teeth."

    Dr. Zalatan also says in recent years, he and other dentists in the area have seen an increase in the numbers of people who are drinking bottled water. But he can't necessarily attribute that to lack of fluoride, and said it could be genetics, hygiene, or a number of other factors. He said there is really no clear evidence.

    What's the answer here?

    From what we've learned, it still depends on which side of the debate you're on.

    Monday, January 25, 2016

    USA - Machias to consider removing fluoride from water

    Randy Davis, manager of the Machias Water Co., rests his hand on the lid of the fluoride tank at the plant. He said the plant adds 0.7 parts per million of fluoride to the water. &quotIt's a white powder. It almost looks like flour or salt," he said.MACHIAS, Maine — After one man complained about the possible dangers of fluoride, selectmen here have decided to let residents choose at the annual town meeting in June whether to continue fluoridating the water supply.
    If residents vote to remove fluoride from the drinking water, Machias will be one of only four municipalities in Maine to discontinue using the additive, which is designed to improve dental health.
    Carlton Gardner, compliance enforcement team manager for the Maine Drinking Water Program, said he knows of only three Maine municipalities whose residents have voted to stop fluoridating water. The communities of Jackman, Seal Harbor and Northeast Harbor all voted to discontinue adding fluoride in 2007, he said.
    “Every once in awhile it comes up … but it doesn’t happen often,” Gardner said.
    The Machias selectmen decided to put the question to townspeople in the form of a warrant article at the annual town meeting after resident Vince Roberts urged them to stop fluoridating.
    “I feel that … fluoride in the water is highly dangerous,” Roberts said at the Jan. 13 selectmen’s meeting. “It’s stronger than chlorine. It makes chlorine look like candy. People just don’t realize it.”
    Roberts handed out copies of “Fluorine Facts” from the About.com website and underlined a passage that says, “The presence of sodium fluoride in drinking water at the level of 2 ppm [parts per million] may cause mottled enamel in teeth, skeletal fluorisis and may be associated with cancer and other diseases.”
    According to the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Environmental Health website, the level of fluoride used in water in Maine is 0.7 ppm...........

    Australia - Fluoride is harming our kids in the north

    water-tapI keep reading about the benefits of fluoride in water supplies and how it is supposed to be good for teeth. It is unusual that I often read this in the Cairns Post and the Courier Mail that are both Murdoch newspapers.  I wonder why they push fluoride and vaccines? It is easy to find scientific publications that say fluoride is killing us slowly and causing a lot of medical problems.  I have had a first hand experience with the problems related to toxic fluoride being added to drinking water. In 2004 when Mareeba had fluoride in the water, we had to send our son to primary school. He had been home schooled or on school of the air for most of his life on a cattle property and was drinking rainwater.
    When he went to school in town he had to drink town water.
    After being at school for about a year, we noticed his teeth were becoming quite motley with patches of white like staining and he complained of soreness. I asked a dentist what could be causing this and he said straight away, fluorosis!
    He asked if we were giving him fluoride tablets which no sane parent would ever do. Of course we were not doing that.
    Then I contacted the local council who told me the amount of the dose of fluoride going into the water, and when I checked it up it was quite high compared to other places like Townsville that I checked.
    I also found out the fluoride the councils use is a very toxic by-product of aluminium production and comes from the refinery at Gladstone. It is not naturally occurring fluoride.
    We then sent him to school with rainwater bottles and told him not to drink the tap water and put him on a course of anti-oxidant supplements.  A few months later the symptoms disappeared and his health improved..............

    Some Tea Bags Contain Frighteningly High Fluoride Levels. Is Your Favorite Tea One Of Them?

    tea-bagsMost  conventional tea brands  such as  Lipton, Allegro, Celestial Seasonings, Tazo, Teavana, Bigelow, Republic of Tea, Twinings, Yogi, Tea Forte, Mighty Leaf, Trader Joe’s, Tetley  contain really high levels of toxic substances such as fluoride and pesticides. We are not talking about calcium fluoride which is a natural element, but about the synthetic fluoride which is a toxic by product.  These levels are dangerously high to the point of being considered unsafe. So drinking cheap tea can be as bad as eating junk food.

    Cheap Tea Contains Fluoride and Pesticides

    Most teas are not washed before being dried, thus non-organic teas  contain pesticide residues. Some tea brands (even those claimed organic or pesticide free!) have recently been found to contain pesticides that are known carcinogens – in quantities above the US and EU limits!
    A new study published in the journal of, Food Research International, found that cheaper blends contain enough fluoride to put people under the risk of many illnesses such as bone tooth, kidney problems and even cancer.
    In fact,  some brands of cheap tea contain nearly 7 parts per million (ppm) and the allowed level of fluoride  is 4 ppm. This is quite scary since fluoride gets into your bones and accumulates in your body. It stays there for years.

    So how did fluoride get into tea?

    The tea plant accumulates fluoride as it grows. This means that old leaves contain the most fluoride. Cheaper quality teas are often made from old leaves that contain more fluoride than young tea leaves (here is an example). Additionally, these cheaper brands use smaller leaves which contain more fluoride.
    And what about decaffeinated tea?
    Well, decaffeinated tea showed higher fluoride levels than caffeinated tea.
    So what is the solution? Should you stop drinking tea all together? Of course not!
    • First of all, make sure to buy  loose leaf tea and brew your tea from scratch. Bagged tea which might seem convenient  and ready to go, is often made from low quality leaves which surely contain more fluoride.
    • Stick to white tea (here). It has the least amount of fluoride.
    • Buy organic tea because the methods for cultivation are more sophisticated and conscious. They might even use purified water for the soil.
    We’ve just scratched the surface here, please check out Food Babe’s full report for more detailed information and a chart of which teas came out with their reputations intact – and please share with your tea-loving friends! http://foodbabe.com/2013/08/21/do-you-know-whats-really-in-your-tea/

    Sunday, January 24, 2016

    Disclose.tv - Fluoride: Poison On Tap [Documentary]

    Saturday, January 23, 2016

    Fluoride is the 13th most common element on the earth crust. It is found abundantly and our exposure to fluoride happens through food and water. However excess consumption of fluoride poses severe health risk. The adverse effects of its over consumption are severe forms of dental and crippling skeletal fluorosis. Please watch the video to know more about Fluoride, Fluorosis and its remedies

    Should fluoride be added to our tap water? Wakefield Council to hear the evidence from Joy Warren

    editorial imageAdding fluoride to drinking water is a waste of money and could harm people’s health, according to evidence presented to Wakefield Council.

    A council watchdog considering whether the move would cut rates of tooth decay has received a report titled The Case Against Water Fluoridation.

    Its author Joy Warren will present the report to the council’s Caring for Our People overview and scrutiny committee today.

    The report said it would cost Wakefield Council £140,000 a year to add fluoride to the district’s tap water.

    It said: “This would be an unjustifiable waste of money since it could never be a financially viable proposition to spend that amount of non-targeted money for the sake of a tiny percentage of disadvantaged tiny tots when targeted dental hygiene education would be far less expensive and more effective.”

    The report also claims a US study linked exposure to fluoridated water with rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among kids.

    Wakefield Council has been considering fluoridation to cut tooth decay after research found that 40 per cent of five-year-olds and one in five three-year-olds had decayed teeth. Five-year-olds were one and a half times more likely to have tooth decay than the rest of England.

    A report by Public Health England has suggested water fluoridation is safe and effective.

    But the Case Against Water Fluoridation said: “We ask if it is equitable to expect entire populations to be fluoridated with a compulsory medicine for the sake of small children belonging to disadvantaged families which appear to be incapable of practising dental hygiene and providing nourishing food.”

    Friday, January 22, 2016

    Louis Farrakhan: An Open Dialog With Alex Jones (Full Interview )

    I found this really interesting to listen to. Nothing about fluoridation but you too might like to see it. A world wide view of the world not found in our press.

    Australia - Fluoride activists prepare for court challenge, and party

    Anti fluoride protesters outside Rous Water last year.  (Picture Robert Hearne)Lismore-based anti-fluoride activists are preparing a federal court challenge that they hope will ‘cripple the fluoride industry in Australia’.
    But in the meantime, they are having a party on Saturday night to raise further funds for their cause.
    Fluoride activist Al Oshlack said the money had already been raised to fund the legal challenge, but more was needed to keep the anti-fluoride movement operating out of their new office space in Lismore.
    Mr Oshlack said the Fluoride Free Northern Rivers group had been corresponding with the Therapeutic Goods Administration which had denied that registering fluoride was its concern.
    ‘Our challenge is that fluoride, which they claim is good for us, is not registered with the TGA nor does it have an exemption,’ he said........................

    The Flint Water Crisis

    Dr. Oz Investigates: Toxic Tap Water in Flint, Michigan: Is Your Town’s Water Safe? Erin Brockovich Tells All

    Sneak Peek: How to Identify Toxic Water
    Originally aired on 1/21/2016
    The health consequences of lead exposure and poisoning are serious and especially harmful to children. Find out how to recognize whether your water is toxic and how to test your water yourself.
    GUESTS: Dr. Sanjay Gupta , Melissa Mays , Erin Brockovich , Brian Ross , Elisabeth Leamy

    Unable to embed video click on heading to go to URL

    Thursday, January 21, 2016

    The Former Dentist Uncovering Sugar's Rotten Secrets

    University of California–San Francisco researcher Cristin Kearns dropped a promising career at the Kaiser Foundation to dig through sugar industry archives for a smoking gun. With help from the man who brought down Big Tobacco, she’s now proving that Big Sugar steered scientists away from looking at the ingredient’s harmful effects.
    For Cristin Kearns, it happened like all great Google finds: late at night, after clicking through every link on 10 pages of search results. That’s when she first saw the name of famed nutritionist Ancel Keys inside an unlikely book, Zoology Reprints and Separata, etc., Vol. 166.
    Cristin Kearns hopes that one day the sugar industry will be barred from influencing nutritional guidelines. (Photo: Helena Price)Zoology Reprints is one of the tens of millions of books Google has scanned, uploaded to the Internet, and made word-searchable. The volume’s contents are varied and obscure. There’s a list of tree species living in forests in the United States; a course catalog for Sul Ross State Teachers College in Texas; and a number of sugar-company pamphlets from the 1940s, including “Sugar Is the Foundation of All Life” and “Some Facts About the Sugar Research Foundation, Inc. and its Prize Award Program.”
    It was in the latter that Kearns learned that trade associations for sugar manufacturers even existed, and that they funded research. From there, she found library catalog listings of other papers, hidden in plain sight in university collections. Kearns has been using these papers to determine how corporations influenced American research on sugar’s adverse health effects.
    One of her more fruitful finds was the correspondence of Roger Adams, a professor emeritus of organic chemistry at the University of Illinois and an advisory board member for the Sugar Research Foundation. When he died, Adams left the university his letters, including memos and reports he had exchanged with the Sugar Research Foundation. Based on those documents, Kearns published a study inPLoS Medicine last year showing that the foundation and other groups attempted to deflect federal researchers’ interest away from studying how to decrease Americans’ consumption of sugar to prevent cavities. The groups—supported by fees from cane- and beet-sugar manufacturers—funded research into improbable alternatives to consuming less sugar, including a vaccine against cavities. The International Sugar Research Foundation, the successor to the Sugar Research Foundation, invited federal scientists to serve on a panel during the same month the scientists were deciding what dental studies the government should fund. Afterward, the foundation sent research recommendations to what was then called the National Institute of Dental Research, downplaying the importance of eating less sugar to remaining cavity-free. Kearns found that the National Institute of Dental Research took 78 percent of the sugar groups’ recommendations...............................

    USA - Dentists, physicians create new fluoridation society

    Dentists, physicians create new fluoridation society
    By DrBicuspid Staff
    January 20, 2016 -- A group of dental and medical professionals has created the American Fluoridation Society (AFS), seeking to "debunk myths and clarify the evidence behind fluoridation's safety and benefits."
    The society will provide testimony and technical assistance to state and local communities that are seeking to start fluoridation or defend the practice against attacks.
    The organization will move aggressively to assist communities that want to share the facts about fluoride, according to Johnny Johnson, DMD, a pediatric dentist in Palm Harbor, FL, and president of the society.
    "AFS will be active both online and on the ground," Dr. Johnson stated in a press release. He noted that he knew firsthand how critics of fluoridation can confuse the public and elected officials.
    "In Pinellas County, Florida -- where I live -- a handful of people worked behind the scenes to circulate a lot of inaccurate information, and health professionals were caught off guard when a vote was taken to stop fluoridation," Dr. Johnson stated. "Eventually, we were able to reverse that decision, but no community should have to go through that experience."
    The society has received a grant from the Delta Dental Foundation of California.
    The other AFS officers are listed below:
    • Vice President Myron Allukian Jr., DDS, MPH, a clinical assistant professor in the department of health policy and health services in the research dental school at the Boston University Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine
    • Secretary Chuck Haynie, MD, of Hood River, OR
    • Treasurer Kurt Ferre, DDS, of Portland, OR
    • Information Director Steven Slott, DDS, of Burlington, NC

    For more information on the society, email info@americanfluoridationsociety.com.

    Blackpool - Questions over fluoride milk - Politically Correct by Brian Coope

    Chairman of Clean Up Blackpool and community activistTalking about corn flakes takes me on to my next subject, the fluoridation of milk for our schoolchildren.
    I read this news with concern, as I am aware there is a wide debate across the country and for many years about the addition of fluoride in water and milk. So people think it will lead to healthier teeth while others believe fluoride can cause health problems.
    I am cautious over this scheme. I do understand in Blackpool some of our young people have very poor dental hygiene, and that bad teeth can have a negative effect throughout life, however is over fluoridation the answer?
    I would like to know what work educationalists have done on encouraging and providing facilities for children to clean their teeth at school.
    I am also concerned about all those children who have parents who do care, of which there any many tens of thousands in this town, who do ensure good oral practices at home.

    Why don't dentists promote adding ARSENIC to the water alongside FLUORIDE? They're both 'naturally occurring,' after all

    Why don't dentists promote adding ARSENIC to the water alongside FLUORIDE? They're both 'naturally occurring,' after all
    Thursday, January 21, 2016 by: Jennifer Lea Reynolds

    Water fluoridation
    Water fluoridation(NaturalNews) Many dentists and fluoride advocates tout the benefits of fluoride by saying that it's great for teeth, cavity prevention in particular. Furthermore, they often maintain that it's not harmful to your health and is naturally occurring, so no worries about the fluoride that shows up in your drinking water. In fact, the American Dental Association's (ADA) website boasts the headline, "Fluoride in Water is Safe and It Works," preceding a brief write-up about its safety.(1)

    "Simply by drinking water, Americans can benefit from fluoride's cavity protection whether they are at home, work or school," the ADA site says. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."(1)

    Many are on board with this thought, often backing up their claims by going to the "it occurs naturally in the environment" point. Therefore, they argue, it must be perfectly safe, because anything that's naturally occurring is obviously a good thing.

    If water fluoridation is fine, then why not the addition of naturally occurring arsenic, too?
    Wait a minute.

    Arsenic is naturally occurring too. So why doesn't the ADA and other let's-add-fluoride-to-water advocates favor adding that toxic substance to drinking water also? Might as well, right?

    Of course not. This is simply to illustrate a point in which facts are getting seriously jumbled up.

    Here's what's happening.

    A huge equation is often left out of the fluoridation issue, at least by advocates: There's a difference between naturally occurring fluoride and water to which fluoride is being deliberately added. The latter presents a serious health hazard, and there's nothing natural about it; when water is fluoridated, chemicals such as hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride are used. Translation: not natural, not good. According to the Fluoride Action Network, these chemicals are "unpurified industrial by-products that are collected in the air pollution control systems of certain industries."(2)

    Reality: There's nothing natural and safe about artificial water fluoridation
    Yet people continue to cling to the "natural" claim, seeming to confuse what occurs naturally with industrial waste. There's a huge difference. All of those unnatural byproducts that are added to water for fluoridation purposes can produce detrimental health consequences. Consider that fact that a study published in Environmental Health found that just a "1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011."(3)

    There are more findings that sodium fluoride wreaks havoc on health; TruthWiki.org notes that "these fluorides interfere with electron transport and calcium metabolism. This very calcium humans need for maintaining cardiac membrane potentials and for regulating coagulation. This is why so many elderly Americans are on blood thinner, because they drank tap water their whole lives." Furthermore, such chemicals are linked to fatal arrhythmias, calcification of bones, build-up on teeth, skin corrosion, brain damage, thyroid dysfunction and much more. Sadly, contrary to what the public has been told about toothpastesing contain naturally occurring fluoride, the fact remains that many contain sodium fluoride instead.(4)

    So, back to arsenic.

    It occurs naturally, so let's just have ourselves one giant "it's ok" free for all. Wrong thinking.

    Just like artificial water fluoridation, it too, is linked to neurological issues and heart problems. Like artificial water fluoridation, many experts maintain that its appearance in water is simply unsafe. Seriously, folks, let it go. Stop making the "but it's naturally occurring" argument and see this issue for what it really is: mass medication with unpurified chemicals that destroy your body and mind