FLUORIDE IN WATER
Sarah Fox
Sarah FoxJuly 20, 2010 at 4:54am
Re: Fluoride in Water
Hi Bryan,
In reply to your response to my query of your stand on the Fluoridation Issue..
You said "Fluoride is an issue for some people" In fact Bryan Fluoride is an issue not for some but for all people in fluoridated areas.
You said "My personal solution is a filter that I have used for many years" If it is a reverse osmosis filter for your drinking water then this is the only type that will take out fluoride, good on you for investing the money in one. It is a shame that not everyone can afford to do the same. However if the council continues to add fluoride to the water then you simply cannot avoid exposure to it. When you shower you are absorbing the equivalent fluoride if you had drunk a litre of water...If you are drinking the water at council everyday then I am sure theirs is not filtered by reverse osmosis. If you are eating processed foods/ drinks made in a fluoridated area then it will have fluoride. Fluoride based pesticides on fruit and vegetables are often used as well. You can see that the water suddenly doesn't become the only concern. I would go as far to say that we are all overdosed. When a baby drinks a bottle of formula mixed with fluoridated water and a grown man drinks the same amount of water they are both getting exactly the same dose... does this make good sense from a pharmacological point of view?Who is monitoring this exposure? No one.
The issue may not be seen as high importance right now though what is going on behind the scenes shows something different. The MOH have just put out an RFP for a PR/science group to represent the case to increase fluoridation and will probably be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payers money to spin the public propandaga.
The case against is strong enough even just with the acknowlegment of harm in the form of dental fluorosis in 30% of people in areas of fluoridation. These are their stats from their studies. The science is there and a strong case has been presented not only by fringe activists in the past but now with a growing body of professionals and scientists.
The far North has stood up and voted against it, Waipuk in October had a survey which showed that 60% of the people did not want it but their council kept it in anyway. Kapiti were divided down the middle in their vote and chose to stay with the status quo. They were threatened with a judicial review a week before voting. The shift in the last year has been enormous because people are actually starting to become aware that mass medication is against every persons basic rights to refuse a medicine.
Think of it like this Bryan... Would you be comfortable adding arsenic or lead in small doses to your peoples water for them to drink everyday? because as we all well know fluoride is as toxic.
Currently we are asking all candidates on their stand because we have thousands of members in various poison awareness groups all over the country who want to be know who to vote for in the upcoming elections in their various areas. If you were to vote for or against which would it be?
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
Sarah Fox
Wellington Representative, Health Freedom New Zealand Trust
Sarah FoxJuly 20, 2010 at 4:54am
Re: Fluoride in Water
Hi Bryan,
In reply to your response to my query of your stand on the Fluoridation Issue..
You said "Fluoride is an issue for some people" In fact Bryan Fluoride is an issue not for some but for all people in fluoridated areas.
You said "My personal solution is a filter that I have used for many years" If it is a reverse osmosis filter for your drinking water then this is the only type that will take out fluoride, good on you for investing the money in one. It is a shame that not everyone can afford to do the same. However if the council continues to add fluoride to the water then you simply cannot avoid exposure to it. When you shower you are absorbing the equivalent fluoride if you had drunk a litre of water...If you are drinking the water at council everyday then I am sure theirs is not filtered by reverse osmosis. If you are eating processed foods/ drinks made in a fluoridated area then it will have fluoride. Fluoride based pesticides on fruit and vegetables are often used as well. You can see that the water suddenly doesn't become the only concern. I would go as far to say that we are all overdosed. When a baby drinks a bottle of formula mixed with fluoridated water and a grown man drinks the same amount of water they are both getting exactly the same dose... does this make good sense from a pharmacological point of view?Who is monitoring this exposure? No one.
The issue may not be seen as high importance right now though what is going on behind the scenes shows something different. The MOH have just put out an RFP for a PR/science group to represent the case to increase fluoridation and will probably be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payers money to spin the public propandaga.
The case against is strong enough even just with the acknowlegment of harm in the form of dental fluorosis in 30% of people in areas of fluoridation. These are their stats from their studies. The science is there and a strong case has been presented not only by fringe activists in the past but now with a growing body of professionals and scientists.
The far North has stood up and voted against it, Waipuk in October had a survey which showed that 60% of the people did not want it but their council kept it in anyway. Kapiti were divided down the middle in their vote and chose to stay with the status quo. They were threatened with a judicial review a week before voting. The shift in the last year has been enormous because people are actually starting to become aware that mass medication is against every persons basic rights to refuse a medicine.
Think of it like this Bryan... Would you be comfortable adding arsenic or lead in small doses to your peoples water for them to drink everyday? because as we all well know fluoride is as toxic.
Currently we are asking all candidates on their stand because we have thousands of members in various poison awareness groups all over the country who want to be know who to vote for in the upcoming elections in their various areas. If you were to vote for or against which would it be?
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
Sarah Fox
Wellington Representative, Health Freedom New Zealand Trust
posted by pepptalk at 6:14 PM
10 Comments:
I agree with Sarah. This issue is the most important issue facing people in Wellington. As it effects everyone, everyday, every drink, every bite, every swim, every shower. The environment also takes the remaining 99% of fluoride through every shower, every flush, every car wash etc etc etc etc etc..
Ban fluoride now. The science is plain to see. Open your eyes.
Dilution is not a solution to by-product pollution.
Totally agree with this response. It is outrageous that virtually every country in contental Europe has stopped flouridation because of its lack of benefits for teeth, and the ethical consideration of mass medication, yet NZ seems dedicated to following America's lead to continue pouring S6 poison into our water supply.
I remember my own fight against flouridation in the Waimakariri council's 1984 referendum. We won. Councillors who voted to keep it in the water supply lost.
When parents realise that their children are bearing the tell-tale sign of toxic fluoride over-exposure (dental fluorosis), and when people find out that fluoride is both accumulative and highly pharmacologically active (disruptive to DNA, thyroid gland, heart, bone, brain), there will be hell to pay for imposing this substance on everyone. The science says fluoride's benefit is predominantly topical. There's no reason to swallow it and expose all our internal organs to its disruptive effects over a lifetime.
On the basis of toxicological data and respect for medical ethics, over 3,000 medical, scientific and environmental professionals have now signed this statement:
"It is time for the US, and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now."
New Zealand is one of the few backwards nations still pushing for the continuation and expansion of this obsolete, dangerous practice.
If someone reads the chemical data for the fluoridating agents (see this album) and still wants to add them to their own water, that's their choice. But the rest of us should not have to be made to drink it, cook and shower with it, consume it in restaurants and foods processed in fluoridated areas, etc. Not all of us can afford to remove fluoride from our drinking water, let alone from our shower water and our food.
Basic principles of medical ethics are being violated here. We demand our right to medical self-determination and informed consent. We are guaranteed the right to refuse medication under the Nuremberg Code and NZ Bill of Rights. Which councillor will be brave enough to defend these rights for our families?
Hi Bryan. I read Christopher Bryson's book The Fluoride deception and that was it for me. You have to read it yourself to really be educated about fluoride. I'm a councillor, I gave 2 books to 2 other councillors and I gave one to my dentist. None of them read the books. Ignorance is bliss! They no doubt believed as I blindly once did. MOH are the Gods and they are looking after us? I also spent over 1000 hours researching pro and anti. When you have the knowledge the pro group are so predictable it is like listening to a parrot on a perch saying the same thing over and over. 'It's Safe and Effective' "We are only increasing the natural level of fluoride in the water" 'It will benefit underprivileged groups' Believe you me it is none of those things!It is ethically, morally wrong it is a highly toxic poison,a waste product from the fertiliser industry making these industries billions of $. They are not allowed to put the stuff anywhere else but if a municipality buys it it automatically becomes a product! In New York parts of which have been fluoridated for 50 years underprivileged have dire teeth problems as well as fluorosis (fluorosed teeth and and the time of getting dental fluorosis, internal fluoride intoxication). Two parts of Now York that are not fluoridated have better teeth and way less fluorosis. Mandatory fluoridation of Southern Ireland is a disaster and over 100 dentists have now turned against it. Read Christopher Bryson's book and educate yourself please.
Totally agree with this response. It is outrageous that virtually every country in contental Europe has stopped flouridation because of its lack of benefits for teeth, and the ethical consideration of mass medication, yet NZ seems dedicated to following America's lead to continue pouring S6 poison into our water supply.
I remember my own fight against flouridation in the Waimakariri council's 1984 referendum. We won. Councillors who voted to keep it in the water supply lost.
I agree with Sarah and Will. Fluoridation should be the biggest issue that councillors are thinking about considering they are medicating the entire population of Wellington. They don't even have a licence to deliver medication, yet the letter I received from the CEO says they are doing it for "dental health reasons". Therefore they are giving us all a dental medication when they don't have a licence to practice medicine, they don't know who is allergic to it, they don't know what dose anyone is getting, they don't care (or know maybe) that 30% of Wellington children show the first sign of fluoride overdose (aka fluoride poisoning) etc etc. All councillors should be hugely concerned that they have taken on this responsibility which must be the biggest undertaking of their life. and it's not good enough to say "They MOH told us to do", "just following orders" didn't wash in the Nuremberg Trials and it doesn't wash now.
Mary.
Sarah has hit the nail on the head.
Fluoridation is incredibly unethical, it boils down to compulsory mass-medication with no regard to given to individual tolerances. The EU has released a report stating that fluoridated water is not safe for babies - and we still have this stuff in our water!?
Water fluoridation is UNSAFE and INEFFECTIVE. Anyone with an ounce of commonsense who researches this issue will conclude that there can be no justification for this practise.
By the way: Sodium fluoride is MORE toxic than lead - and yet we add it to our water in concentrations 20 TIMES above what the acceptable levels of lead are in our water. Anyone else see a problem here?
A toxin is a toxin, END OF STORY - It has negligible to non-existant affect on dental health (as shown in the dental health records of countries that do not fluoridate - where, if anything, dental health is superior) GET IT OUT OF MY WATER. Water filters are no solution as the writer correctly points out that we absorb as much fluoride through the skin and lungs as we do through drinking.
There is no escape from this poison.
Saying "Fluoride is an issue for some people" is akin to saying "asbestos or mercury is an issue for some people". Just because the majority of people may be ignorant of the issues surrounding fluoridation doesn't lessen the real-world dangers of the practise.
I am taking time to remind our Councillors that their obligations are to the interests and wellbeing of their consitituents (and not to a draconian administrative board like the Ministry of Health), and that their decisions pay regard to eithical principles as well as populist sentiment. (lol ... dream on)
I'm also keen to have it taken out. Its not in the tap water of most developed countries and NZ needs to catch up.
Theres no real reason for having it in there - all the benefits of fluoride can be gained in other ways that can be much more easily monitored... especially with babies - as the 1st poster mentions with babies using formula.
I have white spots on my teeth from overexposure and while its not debilitating it is really frustrating that theres no real reason to be marked permanently like this (and some people do have much worse effects)
The risks to children exposed to fluoridated water are highlighted in a scientific review just published in the peer-reviewed journal Toxicology. Study author Dr Robert Verkerk, argues that if the same methods used by European and American authorities for risk assessment of vitamins and minerals are applied to fluoride, then fluoridation of the water supply would need to be banned due to the high risk of dental fluorosis in children.
Here is yet another scandal covered up by the New Zealand Ministry of Health who still claim that formula made up with fluoridated tap water is safe and effective. This is in complete disregard of repeated international warnings to the contrary from the American Dental Association, the US Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta and even the British Fluoridation Society due to the risk of dental fluorosis.
A pertinent comment on the ethics of fluoridation is by Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine who says: “Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete. I don’t think anybody, not a single dentist, would bring up this question in Sweden anymore.”
Science now concludes that fluoride doesn’t work for teeth by swallowing it and that using it on the surface of teeth is the only viable option - if it needs to be used at all.
There are known health risks with fluoridation especially for infants, those with chronic kidney disease and various allergies among others and in continuing to assert that fluoridation is a proven public health measure district health boards and other agencies grossly misinform communities and their local governments.
Researchers on fluoridation in the UK National Health Service, the universities of York, Wales and Leicester and the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health searched 25 electronic databases (with no language restrictions) and the world-wide-web. Relevant journals and indices were hand searched and attempts were made to contact authors for further information. This project is known as ‘The York Review’.
The review was exceptional in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards. A summary was published in the British Medical Journal.
Inclusion criteria were assessed independently by at least two reviewers. Extraction of data from and validity assessment of included studies was independently performed by two reviewers, and checked by a third reviewer. Disagreements were resolved through consensus.
The review concluded that fluoridation slightly reduces caries prevalence but qualified that by saying that estimates of effect could be biased due to poor adjustment for the effects of potential confounding factors.
The studies reviewed were not only of moderate quality but also of limited quantity and the degree to which caries is reduced was not clear from the data available. Not one study of grade A status, that is one of “high quality, bias unlikely”, was found.
Four years after publication, so incensed was he at misrepresentations of its findings by British dental and medical establishments, that Prof Trevor Sheldon of York University, as former chair of the review advisory group, responded with an open letter to correct some of their errors.
He stated:
1. although there is evidence that fluoridation reduces caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit far from ‘massive’,
2. fluoridation is significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which is not ‘just a cosmetic issue’,
3. the review did not show fluoridation to be safe,
4. there was little evidence to show that fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health,
5. there was no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation,
In the ten years since the York Review there has accumulated considerable scientific evidence supporting a highly precautionary approach to fluoridation which should be driving policy by both health agencies and local governments.
Also largely ignored is WHO data unequivocally showing that dental health is improving around the world whether communities are fluoridated or not.
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, a world-wide network of dentists, physicians and medical researchers working together to obtain the latest interdisciplinary scientific research relating to their professions is adamant that dentistry should be based on peer-reviewed science - not on history and tradition - and in establishing its policy position on the effects of swallowed fluoride and fluoridation undertook a comprehensive, scientific and unbiased assessment with reference to criteria established to assure the protection of public safety.
It concluded that the only acceptable public health goal for bodily exposure to fluoride (as with all cumulative poisons like arsenic and lead)is zero.
Post a Comment
<< Home