Flouride in the water supply

by vidkun Wed Aug 30, 2006 22:17

Is it O.K. in Tooth Pastes & Powders, then?

by number 6 - legalize freedom campaign Wed Aug 30, 2006 23:13

Glad to see you got a flier in Galway the week-end on the issue. Do spread the word.
Register your voice with registered mail to 'put on the record' with relevent Law agents in Local Councils that THEY are culpable as the book stops with them.
b.c.n.u.

by number 6 - legalize freedom campaign Wed Aug 30, 2006 23:20

No not at all. The dose in toothpaste is 1490p.p.m. (parts per million), 1489 p.p.m. over the maximum limit of 1p.p.m.
It is pure poison. Large trucks are continiously dumping this waste in the reseviors every Day.
We only use half of one per cent of the total water supply as drinking water. The rest is simply washed down our sinks and toilets as free hazardous waste disposal units for the Chemical industry.

Further info.available on request.

b.c.n.u.

by Carrie Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:11

A lot of health shops provide non-flouridated toothpastes, such as calendula, salt toothpaste
and other varieities such as aloe vera. They do the same job and have health benefits
as well as being produced(largely) by small companies without corporate agendas.

by Charles B. Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:39

That there is enough flouride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a small child? Also, it is a by-product of the aluminium industry, so its quite a handy way of disposing of a hazardous waste, instead of paying big bucks to properly dispose of it, sell it to the Irish, and they'll just drink it!! There are no proper scientific studies to prove that flouride in drinking water is beneficial for dental health. Thats the rationale that one is given if one enquires as to why it is added. People point to the improvement in dental health since flouride was added to our municipal drinking water supplies, but this is probably due to increased awareness, brushing etc. This has been an issue for a long time now, so keep on plugging away.
Also, if you're looking for a flouride free toothpaste, and you want to feel really fresh, try Euthymol, that retro looking tube that you can get in most supermarkets, its pink too!!

by Mick Butler Thu Aug 31, 2006 17:21

Dunnes on Georges St Dublin were selling this stuff that will put a "shine " on your "white" teeth, silvery package from Colgate and it was the ONLY toothpaste available in the store. It carries a health warning for children if they happen to swallow it. In the U S A the toothpaste companies carry a disclaimer and recommend children are immedaitely hospitalised if they swallow the paste. Sodium flouride the by product of aluminum smelting, is banned from drinking water by law, in most west european countries. Public health is the reason why it is banned. In Ireland no such concerns are in vogue what does RTE and the "watchdog" media do ??

by wash Thu Aug 31, 2006 17:28

this is outragoues

Man the Barricades!

Seriously wtf is wrong with the government, this requires a simple change in the law and would hardly be controversial

by Bic Molar Thu Aug 31, 2006 17:37

Fluoride is good for teeth. Nut case anti-communists opposed it in the 1950s in the US. The said it was the basis for compulsory socialised medicine. And what is the problem with that?

The dentists are for it – they should know. Questioning the amount is fine; questioning adulteration of constituents is fine. Being against fluoridation per se is pure bonkers.

People have poorer teeth everywhere there is less fluoridation, especially the poor who have the poorest of the lot. Anyone who is for getting rid of fluoridation is for a toothless republic.

This campaign is up there with the nuts who campaigned against the ‘3-in1’ jab for children. A campaign that was so successful in Britain that child mortality figures rose significantly and near dormant diseases started getting a grip again. Luckily, the sensible Irish mostly ignored that fake-science scare. We will mostly ignore this one too.

by hmmmmm iosaf Thu Aug 31, 2006 18:19

& when Ireland introduced flouridisation most Irish people had a poor diet. They went from having a poor diet to enjoying high obesity levels in a comparitively short time. Only Americans who had survived the great depression and WW2 to enjoy the 1950's saw comparitive weight fluctuation. Yet... Ireland is believed by some aid agencies to have at least 200,000 people who still suffer from food poverty. Food poverty is a difficult thing to measure, but generally means an individual can not afford to eat all food groups as often as they should. This doesn't mean they experience hunger. Because more often than not they make up the shortfall in nutrition with quick time carbohydrates or fatty food. Bad for the gut & bad for the teeth. In the same period all social economic classes have moved from eating food produced locally or nationally to imported and processed food. I'll give you a few examples:-
In 1960 it was commonplace during poaching season (August 12 to first frost) for urban and rural dwellers alike to eat more game including rabbits and to eat mushrooms. In the 1960's the typical Irish diet rotated through the months. The first supermarket & shopping mall opened in the British isles in Stillorgan in the first part of the 1960's bringing US style notions of product range & the logistics of large scale supply networks. Within 25 years economic boom and slump aside, most urban dwellers in Ireland had seen their diet move from rotation of fruit and vegetables ("in season") to enjoying an astounding range of foods & flavours. For the first time both the poor and rich of the realm could find vitamin C and D without scouring the ditches of our highways for bramble fruit. The early capitalist expansion of supermarkets & their suppliers combined with the first effects of the EEC in bringing what was then still considered "exotic fruit & food" to the table. Anyone over 30 years of age may remember we needed television advertising to tell us how to eat a kiwi. At the same time, efforts to balance the economies of Europe's main agricultural players combined with the relative non-existence of a culinary tradition in the British isles saw a move from "potato & spuds & whatever you want" to the typical diet of today :- pasta & sauce with a salad coz telly says it's good & vitamins coz I don't want a common cold.

all great progress?
Well no it's not. in the 1960's hardly any Irish person ingested MSG or any other flavour inhancer. We did have numerous colourants many of which are now banned. In teh 1960's mushrooms were seasonal, in fact not until Miley convinced his dad Dinny in the wonderful didactic social project of RTE the soap opera "Glenroe" did many farmers decide to propogate mushrooms out of season. & oh so easy it was too. Stick them in the dark, feed them shite - just like voters. Today if our state dealt with the 200,000 citizens who suffer from food poverty, & then made proper efforts to educate all citizens of the dangers of obesity and diabetis associated with eating tasty yummy saucey sweet & salty processed food every day - we might not need to worry about teeth or gums at all. But instead Irish & European culture moved from 3 options ( you looked like Shane Mc Gowan where sugary bear had worked its wonders, you had discoloured teeth braced into inverted bites or which discoloured or all your teeth had gone & you had dentures) to US style orthodontics & perfect white teeth. We can not now determine the shite we eat by looking our gift horse of prosperity in the mouth. We've got to look further inside.

You don't need flouride. You don't need much salt. You don't need MSG. You don't need most of the "E numbers" on your food. You don't need fizzy drinks. You don't need extra sugar. & just in case you're wondering rubbing speed or cocaine into your gums is a no-no too.

by Abigail Thu Aug 31, 2006 19:37

Growing up in the 60's, 70's , we were told that the fluoride in our water supply would protect our teeth . I accepted this , as did many of our generation . We were shown many films in school about how important it was to brush our teeth regularly ; these films were provided by the Department of Health I believe . We were also told that sugar was bad for our teeth . Now that I am in my 40's I have had time to think over these messages we accepted and to look at the evidence , ie the state of my own chompers ! ...I am convinced that it is diet that is most important in the maintenance of healthy teeth . Giving sweets and soft drinks to children is tantamount to handing them cigarettes , it's that bad for their teeth . There's an addiction to sugar in our culture that sets the pace for the acquisition of further addictions ; chocolate , coffee , tea , tobacco and alcohol . All big moneyspinners for big corporations ,all cashcrops , all poisons that we think can't live without . Feeding our children poison in the form of chocolate and sugar is doing lifelong damage that can't be eliminated by continuing to put fluoride in the water supply . However apparently it's good for business . And it seems there's a link between business and fluoride . What I'd love to know is - who is supplying the Irish Government with the fluoride ? And how much are they being paid?Why can't I be told this information...it's coming out of my pocket after all, in the form of taxes etc. In the next few years the Government ( it doesn't matter who's in power apparently we are signed up to an E.U. directive on this ) will introduce water rates and still we have no say over whether our water is laced with fluoride , chlorine or whatever ! Thinking about this is setting my teeth on edge...

by Bic Molar Thu Aug 31, 2006 19:47

It boils down to this: fluoride and poor diet: better teeth than with no fluoride. Fluoride and good diet, even better teeth. No fluoride: more teeth fall out.

When there is a perfect society, a perfect diet and perfect teeth we will all be happy. For the moment, we have fluoride. The Committee on Fluoride found nothing wrong with it – no one has produced any evidence for why they should be considered part of a conspiracy against public health.

When you strip away all the rhetoric and the obfuscation, nothing has been found wrong with fluoride. This is just a scare. It is bonkers.

To last poster, we are being told 'nothing' because there is nothing to tell. I have not been told (for some time) about the man in the moon, or about the aliens who kidnap human beings from time to time. Sometimes 'we' are not told about things that do not exist.

by John Gaffney Thu Aug 31, 2006 22:36

Hey BIC are you a communist nutcase? You assigned the term "anti communist nutcases" to some of those who have concerns about this issue and you also ranted about people being "bonkers" in the same vein.

Two concerns I have are, why have Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Finland, Britain, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland Norway, France not allowed, by law, flouride into their drinking water supply. And why, when the Act allowing for flouride in this country's water supply, expressly mandates the government to monitor same for health reasons, have the government not done so? Michael Martin's answer on RTE, when Minister for health, was that the "population was too small".

You can't dismiss those facts with your "nutcase"comments or maybe you will, but therein will hang the tale !

by Elaine Fri Sep 01, 2006 02:04

You will find below the kind of information, links included, that is missing from the trolling comments above. Bic Molar has used the word 'conspiracy' three times. He/she has also used words such as 'bonkers' to describe something he/she doesn't understand. Nowhere in any of the mentioned trolls comments will you find a link or quote to back up his/her argument. You will only find his/her opinion, for what it's worth.

"Dental fluorosis is an irreversible condition caused by excessive ingestion of fluoride during the tooth forming years. It is the first visible sign that a child has been overexposed to fluoride.
Fluoride causes dental fluorosis by damaging the enamel-forming cells, called ameloblasts. The damage to these cells results in a mineralization disorder of the teeth, whereby the porosity of the sub-surface enamel is increased."

"While the dental profession claims that dental fluorosis is solely a 'cosmetic' effect, and not a health effect, this statement is an assumption and not a fact. Certainly, dental fluorosis represents a toxic effect on tooth cells. The question is whether tooth cells are the only cells in the body that are impacted.
As noted by former proponent of fluoridation, Dr. John Colquhoun, "Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child's body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm also is likely."

"It's all a big conspiracy by the Irish government, who are in league with dentists to keep people away from dental surgeries, so that dentists have time to read the sports pages of their daily newspapers."
Says Bic Molar, who clearly hasn't researched the subject. For if he/she had, they might have come across the following...

"The damage that dental fluorosis causes to the internal matrix of the teeth is permanent. There is no way to reverse this damage.
However, there are ways to 'hide the damage' -- to treat the surface of the teeth so as to hide the discoloration.

Treatment options for fluorosis vary and will depend in part on the severity of the fluorosis and what you can afford (some of the treatments are very expensive). Some of the more common treatments include:

- Abrasion: Abrasion involves finely sanding off the outer layer of the enamel. It is a common approach when the fluorosis is mild. However, if the fluorosis is of a more advanced severity, abrasion is probably not a good idea as it can bring to the surface of the teeth a highly-porous enamel that will be prone to attrition.

- Composite bonding: Composite bonding first involves lightly roughening the area of the damaged enamel. After etching the enamel, a composite resin (with a color matching your teeth) is "glued" on to the exterior of the tooth.

- Porcelain veneers/laminates: Made out of porcelain, veneers form a ceramic shell over the surface of the tooth. Veneers may need to be replaced after several years, however, which can become quite expensive.

To determine which method of treating fluorosis will be best for you, contact your local dentist. If your dentist doesn't specialize in cosmetic dentistry, he/she should be able to refer you to a nearby dentist who does."

Let's hope he is not too busy reading the sports pages when you go visit him, you might end up with teeth like a rugby player.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/dental-fluorosis.htm

So clearly Fluoridation will not only damage your teeth but will cause your Dentist (overworked due to the increase in fluorosis) to miss out on his regular sports page fix.

by P.S.G. Fri Sep 01, 2006 04:58

Just a Personal observation. I live in NYC and have Drank Flouridated Water for most of my Life, I'm 43 now and never a single cavity.
My Diet isnt always the greatest, but I'm no Obese pig eating three, four times a day at McDonlads either. My Children (6,14,20) have had a total of two cavities among them.

My Father born in the early 1930's had horrible teeth to the day he died, mum too.

Most of my older relatives suffered dental problems, but Those of us born in the 1950's-60's onward have fairly Good teeth. The other poster was right in that when Flouridation was first put forth in the fifties, many thought it a "Commie" plot. I see the Hysteria is now being turned to Capitalists now, thats a Hoot.

by number 6 - legalize freedom campaign Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:46

Dear Folks! I will publish this again. It is very important. Our Supreme Courts were 'stacked' in '63 to introduce this Poison into our Water under the guise of ,"less tooth cavities" and People literally swallowed the Lie (probably because they were never told).
We have found out that (managing Director Mr.Ed Story)Chemifloc in Shannon Co.Clare have the very lucrative Contract to 'medicate the Population' on behalf of Alcoa Mafia. Dick Cheney,Rumsfeld and Daddy Kelloggs planned this many moons ago. They also sold Asparteme Lie. That's another Story. I ask this; What are YOU out there going to do about all this?
The effects of this on the Body and Brain in the first year of life CANNOT be reversed.

B.C.N.U.

FLUORIDE ALERT! PLEASE READ.

The Govt.injects the following into the People’s Water every Day.
Sulphuric acid / Calcium hydroxide, Aluminium sulphate & Polyelectrolite,
Hydrofluorsilicic acid, Chlorine gas. You can check this with Dublin City Council if you wish. Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminium, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs and military nerve gas. It is not the same as Natural Fluoride. It’s historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminium industries with an over abundance of the stuff sold the Public (via the Govt.) on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our Water supplies, and then… DRINKING it.
It is injected at 1ppm(part per million), but since we only drink ½ of 1% of the total Water supply, the rest is literally washed down the drains as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical industry. We actually pay for this, to flush their hazardous waste down our toilets and sinks and pollute our Waterways Rivers and Seas? How many salesmen dream of such a dream? (Follow the money). This stuff was first produced to filter uranium for the atomic bomb. Hitler also fluoridated the Water supply before he invaded any Country. The effects of this stuff are, WAIT FOR IT. Many Cancers, Hip fractures, low I.Q., reduced sperm, accelerates aluminium to the brain (especially when heated or boiled--have a nice cup of Alzheimer’s tea), disrupts thyroid, accelerates osteoporosis and sexual activity in Children, adheres to pineal gland, makes one stupid docile and subservient all in one package, even table salt and many cereals are laced with fluoride, just to make sure we all get it. [A convenient light Lobotomy]. And the list goes on and on. It is almost impossible to discover whom the “made very rich” Fluoride Contractors are. These are paid large amounts to silently medicate the Population. Dublin City Council’s Water and Legal Departments are very shy, even under the freedom of information Act to reveal whom these Contractors are. Does Alumia Plant in Aughinish Askeaton Co. Limerick have the secret Contract to all Co. Councils to rid Alum.Sulphate and Fluoride etc. from their Sites?
Why not write to Law agent of Dublin City Council Terence O’Keeffe or the new City Manager John Tierney or Health Minister Mary Harney or your local Council Law Agent and ask [registered post]. Scientists who have attempted to expose the Fluoride scam have been victimized. Most dentists are kept very busy cleaning mottled teeth caused by dental fluorosis while Drug Producers are kept busy manufacturing, selling and administering the Drugs (via the Medical Mafia) needed to cure the “problems”. The addition of Water additives is contrary to Muslim and Jewish Principles in that it adulterates God given Water and Food. It also violates Constitutional Rights under Art.40 and E.U Convention of Human Rights. People were never asked about a grade 2 poison being dumped into the water in 1960. Essentially, Forced medication of a Populace without their consent or even knowledge. Two Books The Fluoride deception-Bryson and drinking ourselves to Death-Groves are must-reads.
Checkwww.prisonplanet.com.www.apfn.org.www.conspiracyplanet.com.www.populationcontrol.com.www.fluoridealert.org. www.infowars.com.www.indymedia.ie There are many more.(Buy a copy of the Irish Constitution at any book store only€2.55). You can do something. A registered letter is a legal document. It puts the issue “on the record”. It cannot be denied it was received. Register your voice to the Person with the biggest pair of shoes in the relevant section or Govt.Dept. And demand that it be removed. It is your Constitutional right and duty to do so and protect your Children and Family- the most fundamental unit in Society. Why not photocopy this info. Do it for your Children, Family, yourself, our World. Not the new world order.
IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE TOO SMALL TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT ANYTHING ----------------------THEN TRY SLEEPING WITH A MOSQUITO.

by pat c Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:03

I might not be convinced that flouride poses as great a a danger as stated above, but, and its a big BUT. Why add it to the water? If taking flouride is such a good idea then those who require it could have it prescribed by a doctor or a dentist.

No need to force everyone to take it by adding it to the drinking water.

by Sean Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:24

fluoride has been linked to bone cancer in boys. See:

http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060405/index.php

it is also linked to osteroporosis and other serious physical illnesses. the fact is because many irish foods are also made from irish fluoridated water we far exceed the official 'safe' recommendations set by the WHO.

by LaLa Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:46

Normal medication is administered in quantative doses (e.g take2 tablets twice daily).
For this mass medication not everyone is getting the same dose as different people drink different amounts of water.

Here some more info :

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/fluoridationfraud....html

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/fluoride.html

by Pallaskenry supporter Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:50

The offense given to the people of Pallaskenry by the county council and planners
and their activism for the health of their community gains context through this
discussion. Solidarity!

by S Fri Sep 01, 2006 13:15

GUINNESS – GIVES YOU FLUORIDE!

Guinness Ireland recently admitted that Guinness brewed in St. James Gate, Dublin, has high levels of fluoride. In a recent response, to a request for information, they clearly stated that, "…Dublin stout has 6 times the fluoride level of London stout." Moreover, the Guinness website (www.guinness.com) declares that, "the water used in the brewing process comes from the Wicklow Mountains, south of Dublin." Fluoride Free Water find this statement misleading as the water used is fluoridated "town water". In addition, the agent used to fluoridate our water is called hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxic waste product of the fertiliser industry.

There is an anti -fluoride Irish site though I dont think it has been updated for some time.

http://www.fluoridefree.com/

by Terence Fri Sep 01, 2006 13:26

Pat,

A few years ago when this issue was getting some slight airing the Irish government held a kind of submissions forum thing where the public could write to the particular body setup by the government in order to have their input.

The public was overwhelming against Flouride in the water but what was most interesting was that 85% of the people objected to Flouride being added to our water. The body itself was made up of hand picked people with various interests that from the start was obviously going to be in favour in the government not only continuing with Flouridation but spreading it further. And that is exactly what they endorsed. Needless to say the public input was totally ignored as they gave the 'wrong' answer.

Whether you think it is safe or another I think you should consider the following. The human body and any other living body is only made up of a handful of atomic elements like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and then lesser quantities of sodium, chlorine, calcium and iron and even smaller quantities of other elements. Now flourine is the most reactive chemical around and you rarely find it in its free form and it will always bind to something. Now we know any living thing -i.e. the body is an extemely complex system where carbon (organic) chemistry is central because it allows for the formation of literally 100s of thousands of different kinds of chemicals to give rise to the tissues and structure of the body. Bone as we know is made up of Calcium. Again it is not as simple as this and much more complicated. And teeth are an extension of bone, but again in some ways a special case. Now what the Flouride folks want us to believe is that simply adding some flouride to the body strengths the teeth and makes them resistant to disease. This is absurd in the extreme. In other words they are saying adding something in near elemental form to this extremely complex bio-chemical system which lets face it has been evolving for billions of years, that this actually improves this system. How come evolution never spotted this? If things were only so simple! If that's the case why not add some other elements and remember there is a limit number, and see if they improve the body.

Anyway, Aspirin is supposed to prevent heart attacks and there is reasonably good evidence for this. Surely we would do more good by actually saving lives, as opposed to just decaying teeth, by adding it to the water. Let me see now, there must be another 100 other medicines here that we should add....

Another point to consider is that Dental schools and associations before flouride was added to the water had studies showing it was harmfull. After they started receiving money from then, initially in the 1940s in the USA, they changed their tune and said it was beneficial. I would guess that many dentists who repeat the mantra that flouride is good, are just repeating the dogma that they received from day one entering dental college. You have to ask how many dentists have actually read the research papers for pro and con. And how many have actually done any research? And many of the research papers will be of statistical / clinical nature. I think you will find that there is close to zero research that details the chemical steps showing how flouride supposedly improves teeth.

by number 6 - legalize freedom campaign Fri Sep 01, 2006 13:26

It sure does gain context.Is it a fact that the Alumin.Plant in Aughinish is expanding and needs more of the People's Water from the locality?
Is this the reason why the Councils are stealing your Water, to facilitate the Plant? The same Plant that produces the toxic waste that is then dumped into all our Water Reservoirs as a waste disposal mechanisim?
Chemifloc are a front for these gangsters.Mr. Ed Storey

Mang.Dir.will answer some questions - registered post of course.
B.C.N.U.

by :-) Fri Sep 01, 2006 13:56

Flouride in the Water & now Flouride in Guinness & if you look closely at Mick Lally the actor who played Miley in Glenroe the direct descendent of the Riardons you won't see any teeth in that smile.

We really need to know why Ireland continues to flouridate water when no other state does so. I'm old enough to remember worms in the drinking water in some Dublin suburbs. Does flouride kill the worms?

they put flouride in the Guinness.

by Observer 3 Fri Sep 01, 2006 14:46

(Insult removed by editor)

The dental profession and their representative bodies are the paid up whores of big business. Go into most surgeries and you will see a display of flouridated toothpastes and products on sale to remorseful people with aching teeth. You'll also see posters in primary colours explaining carefully, as if to Noddy, why flouride is good for your teeth. Dentists training and research is subsidised by these companies too. Another thing that gives them away is their attitude to amalgam fillings - another major scandal being hushed up. So, as Elaine above says, bite down on this too:

"An often overlooked, but extremely important source of toxic material is the mercury from silver [mercury] amalgam fillings. Some people who are aware of the situation are confused by the mixture of information available. Unfortunately, statements from dental trade organizations and on a few poorly-researched news reports have muddled the situation.

Here are a few facts about mercury amalgam fillings:

Causes Damage to Brain in Children
In February, 1998, a group of the world's top mercury researchers announced that mercury from amalgam fillings can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and immune system of children.

Amalgam Fillings Linked to Neurological Problems, Gastrointestinal Problems
The first large-scale epidemiological study of mercury and adverse reactions was recently completed and showed that of the symptoms looked at, there was a link seen to gastrointestinal problems, sleep disturbances, concentration problems, memory disturbances, lack of initiative, restlessness, bleeding gums and other mouth disorders.

Mercury / Alzheimer's Disease Connection Found
A study related to mercury and Alzheimer's Disease was recently completed by a team of scientists led by well-respected researcher Dr. Boyd Haley. They exposed rats to levels of mercury vapor diluted to account for size differences between humans and rats. The rats developed tissue damage "indistinguishable" from that of Alzheimer's Disease. Repeating the experiment showed the same results. Dr. Haley is quoted as saying "I'm getting the rest of my fillings taken out right now, and I've asked my wife to have hers replaced too." Also see: http://www.holistic-dentistry.com/artalzeimer.asp

Amalgam Fillings Since 1970s Unstable
The type of mercury fillings that began to be used during the last couple of decades, non-gamma-2 (high copper), releases many times more mercury than the older style of amalgam fillings. Also, please see the article on the instability of dental amalgam fillings by Ulf Bengsston.

Amalgam Fillings Release Highly Toxic Elemental Mercury
Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known. The mercury release from fillings is absorbed primarily as highly toxic elemental mercury vapor.

Amalgam Fillings Largest Source of Mercury By Far
Based on a number of studies in Sweden, the World Health Organization review of inorganic mercury in 1991 determined that mercury absorption is estimated to be approximately four times higher from amalgam fillings than from fish consumption. Recent studies have confirmed this estimate. The amount absorbed can vary considerably from person to person.

Gold Crowns, Gum, Bruxism, Computer Monitors Increase Release of Mercury Significantly
Gum chewing, grinding of teeth/bruxism, computer terminal exposure, presence of gold fillings or gold crowns (even if covering mercury fillings), teeth brushing, braces, and chewing cause the release of significantly increased amounts of mercury from the fillings. Also, please see the following short review related to increases in mercury exposure from dissimilar metals in the mouth, exposure to magnetic fields, chewing, etc.

Cumulative Poison and Builds Up in Organs
Mercury released from fillings builds up in the brain, pituitary, adrenals, and other parts of the body.

Mercury Amalgam Fillings Effect Porphyrins
Preliminary results from the first detailed biochemical analysis (scroll half-way down) of patients who removed mercury amalgam fillings showed a significant drop in the excretion of porphyrins (important to heme synthesis -- heme carries oxygen to red blood cells), as well as a number of other key biochemical changes. Also, see the Video of the preliminary results from the study.

Potential Contribuatory Factor in Other Diseases
Mercury from amalgam fillings has been implicated as a possible contribuatory factor in some cases of Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, IBS, reproductive disorders, allergies, and a variety of other illnesses.

Mercury Build Up in Brain, Organs and Breast Milk of Fetuses of Mothers With Amalgam Fillings
Mercury from fillings in pregnant women has been shown to cause mercury accumulation in brain, kidneys and liver of human fetuses (all of the areas tested). Studies have shown that mercury can be passed to infants from breast milk.

Proper Removal of Fillings Produces Eventual Health Improvement
A recent study published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine related to the proper removal of mercury amalgam fillings from 118 subjects showed an elimination or reduction or 80% of the classic mercury poisoning symptoms. In many cases, it took 6 to 12 months after mercury amalgam removal for the symptoms to disappear.

World-reknowned Experts Agree About Potential Danger
In contrast to statements from dental trade organizations, toxicologists and medical researchers are often quite concerned about the use of mercury. Lars Friberg, the lead toxicologist on the World Health Organization team looking at inorganic mercury and health effects recently stated that he believes that mercury is unsuitable for dental materials because of safety concerns.

Canadian Class Action Lawsuit
Canadians are in the process of beginning a major class action lawsuit based on the fact that the government knew of but did not warn the public about mercury dangers from amalgam fillings. Legal actions related to mercury exposure from mercury amalgam fillings and vaccines are beginning in the United States. For more information and a directory of Mercury-free dentists, please see the TalkInternation.com web site.

Obviously, not everyone experiences acute toxicity effects from the mercury in amalgam fillings. However, virtually everyone does have mercury build up in their bodies from implantation of such fillings. The large increase in mercury exposure from the newer non-gamma-2 mercury fillings means that only time will tell how much damage has been caused by daily exposure to mercury to such fillings.

I do not recommend that people assume automatically that they will be healed by the removal of amalgam fillings. Many people are helped tremendously and some are healed. The 80% figure for people showing improvement within a year likely refers to people who had good reason to suspect that they were being significantly effected by the fillings. The percentage of people in the general population who might experience health improvement within one year after removal is probably much lower than 80%. I recommend going into the mercury amalgam removal procedure knowing that, at the very least, you will have removed yourself from a regular exposure to an extremely toxic material such that it will not build up in your organs and possibly cause significant health problems at a later date.

Mercury amalgam fillings should be removed only by dentists with experience using the IOAMT mercury amalgam removal protocol (presented with the permission of the excellent Preventive Dental Association web page). Such dentists are often experienced with proper evaluation and placement of composite fillings, both of which can be crucial for the success of the treatment. Biocompatability tests are often important in determining which composite materials can be safely used. I believe that composite (plastic) fillings are a better replacement than metal (e.g., gold) fillings even in chemically-sensitive individuals. They are, however, not without safety questions, but are still likely to be much less toxic than mercury amalgam fillings. Proper placement of composites should be left to experienced amalgam removal dentists as the average well-meaning dentist may not be aware of the newer placement techniques.

Further scientific information can be found at Mercury Adverse Effects Web Page, 150 Year's of Russian Roulette Web Page, Alt Corp's Amalgam Page, and Bo Walhjalt's Mercury Articles Web Page. More information about removal, detoxification, and placement of composite fillings can be found at Bioprobe, Inc. and at the Preventive Dental Association. Information about finding a dentist practicing non-toxic dentistry can be found on the Resources For Related to Non-Toxic Dentistry web page. Also, the AMALGAM mailing list can be a good source of accurate, up-to-date information"

by Jack D. Ripper Sat Sep 02, 2006 00:50

please read

Fluoride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_..._Bomb

by General Jack D. Ripper Sat Sep 02, 2006 21:18

IIRC, when the introduction of flouridation of drinking water was on the cards in post-war USA, there were voices on the right-wing who opposed it. I think one of their concerns was the effect it had on the brain, fearing that it might make the population more coercive and thus open to Communist psychological warfare...

Convincing argument for:
http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/fluoridespo....html

"You've probably heard the accusations against fluoridation—that it is a poison; that it may cause cancer, heart disease, birth defects, allergies and other diseases; that its use in a public water supply is an invasion of people's constitutional rights unless they consent. Other, wilder, claims are that it is a communist plot to weaken our country (even though the Soviet Union uses fluoridation), or that it is simply a money-making scheme of the aluminum companies who produce the fluoride as a by-product. All adverse claims and accusations which had the slightest plausibility have been scrupulously investigated by scientists and government officials and have been found to be baseless. But nothing seems to keep the more determined opponents from repeating old accusations and making new ones."

Benjamin Spock, M.D.
June 1980

by MercuryMan Sun Sep 03, 2006 00:38

Quackwatch has been accused of representing the interests of the pharmecutical industry and of targeting holistic medicine. On a quick glance of their website, they list Gulf War Syndrome, Lyme Disease and ME as 'fad' diagnoses, and of not really existing at all in the case of GWS, which ignores all the scientific evidence. (And also helps the insurance industry/psychiatrist agenda! There's money to be saved/made in labelling sick people as only mentally ill.)
Seems that's all it takes to devalue evidence - call someone a 'quack' or a 'nut'.

We somehow find it strange that the chlorine in swimming pools causes lung damage although it was used in poison gas during WWI! Just look at the evidence and use your reason. and don't be distracted by abuse as is the intent.

by Seán Ryan Sun Sep 03, 2006 00:39

It’s never over till it’s over.

There’ll be quite an interesting piece published on Indy this coming week. Here’s a very small piece now to whet appetites.

Chemifloc, the company that fluoridates our water has published lots of materials on their lovely products. In particular I’d like to quote some of what they’ve published on one product in particular.

“Fluorosilicic Acid is an acute irritant to the skin, eyes and mucous membranes and lungs. The
acid and its vapour are moderately toxic. Fluoride poisoning effects may be delayed up to 24
hours, depending upon the fluoride ion concentration.”

Flourosilicic Acid is of course what is dumped into our water supplies.

Let’s look at some of the health concerns, that using our drinking water as a waste disposal site for toxic waste, raises.

“Toxicity Data

Acute: Fluorosilicic Acid is an acute irritant to the skin, eyes and mucous
membranes and lungs. The acid and its vapour are moderately toxic.
Fluoride poisoning effects may be delayed up to 24 hours, depending upon
the fluoride ion concentration.

Ingestion: Severe irritant. Ingestion may cause burns of the gastrointestinal tract
leading to vomiting, acidosis, bloody diarrhoea, wheezing, laryngitis,
shortness of breath, headache and shock. Circulatory system may be
affected with symptoms of shock, rapid, weak or no pulse, severe
hypertension and pulmonary changes with dyspnea, and emphysema. In
some cases, necrosis and haemorrhage of the gastrointestinal tract, liver
damage and death may occur. Scarring of the gastrointestinal tract may
occur in non-fatal cases.

Eye: Severe irritant. Contact may result in lacrimation, irritation, pain, redness
and conjunctivitis. Prolonged contact - corneal burns and possible
permanent damage.

Skin: Severe irritant. Prolonged contact may result in irritation, itching and
possible skin rash.

Inhalation; Severe irritant to the respiratory tract. Over exposure at high levels may
result in mucous membrane irritation of the nose and throat with
coughing, shortness of breath and pulmonary oedema.

Chronic: Chronic exposure to fluoride present in Fluorosilicic Acid may lead to
sclerosis of the bones, calcification of ligaments, loss of weight, anorexia
and teeth disorders. At low levels, chronic exposure can lead to nose bleeds
and sinus problems.

Health
Information:
OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEP): 2.5 mg/m3 (as F)
ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV): 2.5 mg/m3 (as F)

Toxicity Data: LD50 200mg/kg (Oral-Guinea Pig)”

This information is taken from a booklet (in pdf format) issued by Chemifloc in order to promote its product. I’d urge interested parties to read it in full, it’s incredible stuff.

I get the picture that even if we were supposed to drink it, that it should be very carefully measured and monitored, as it is added to our water supplies, instead of just the wholesale dumping that occurs instead, with no monitoring.

Here’s a link to the pdf file:
http://www.chemifloc.ie/msds/MSDS_Fluorosilicic_Acid.pdf

by John Kelly - CFSD Sun Sep 03, 2006 01:52

What is the legal/regulatory framework within which all this material gets dumped into our water supply ? Who is responsible ? Are there annual reports that get placed before Dail Eireann each year and if not, why not ? There must be a tight regulatory framework and I take it it is fully transparant ! ! Why have so many other european countries, banned this product from their water supply ? Even north of the border it is banned ! Is this a prodigiously bad 26 county Irish joke?

If questions are a "burden to others" it is no time to lighten the burden, in fact the burden has been as light as a feather on the shoulders of our elected and unelected public servants. A WAKE UP CALL ON OUR WATER SUPPLY IS LONG OVERDUE.

by David McCollough Sun Sep 03, 2006 03:57

Since Canada & the US both have had Flouridated water since the mid 1950's, one would think listening to the diatribes here that Canadians were Mutants or Gravley ill. However the evidence shows we are not.

I'm 37 and have suffered No Cavities or Dental Problems, On average I drink over 5 liters a day, counting tea,coffee, etc. I have recently had a Physical for flight training and passed with a clean bill of health. Interesting that the label for the chemical says how dangerous it is, Of course only the sadly misinformed would drink the full strength chemical from the drum.

The absolutely Ironic thing is that the american Right wing nuts were totally against this as well. Add 50 odd years now the left is whinging about it as well.

by Sean Sun Sep 03, 2006 14:09

I think that in the interests of people's health they should avoid goods made from irish fluoridated water.Drinking and bathing in this water in addition to eating foods made from it greatly increases and means that people far exceed the 'recommended' and 'safe' levels of fluoride.

by Sean Sun Sep 03, 2006 14:10

I think that in the interests of people's health they should avoid goods made from irish fluoridated water.Drinking and bathing in this water in addition to eating foods made from it greatly increases and means that people far exceed the 'recommended' and 'safe' levels of fluoride.

by General Ripper Sun Sep 03, 2006 16:07

Worry not. The Flouride in the water is greatly diluted. Have you heard of any unfortunates dissolving in baths lately? Swimming pools have even greater concentrates of Flouride.Have they killed anyone?

As for your twice posted advice that we should not wash in flouridated water, well what should we wash in? Polluted rivers? Or buy bottled water? It would work out rather expensive.

by Seán Ryan Sun Sep 03, 2006 16:59

I think you missed the point. I haven't stated that fluoride dissolves people. I think you are possibly referring to chlorine gas when you talk of swimming pools, though there is probably fluoride in them too.

Allow me to give you an example. Say you are an optimist and your glass is half full of water. Then imagine me urinating in your glass. Would you drink it?

Say I emptied your glass into a barrel or water. Would you drink from the barrel. At which point of dilution, does my urine become sought after?

When flourosilicic acid is dumped in a drinking water resevoir, would you prefer to be living close to the resevoir or far away from it? It's not rocket science is it.

For the record I'd prefer a glass of urine to a glass of Fluorosilicic Acid.

I want clean water. If I need or want drugs, I'll get them myself, and I'll choose which ones I want. This shite about not worrying about the fluoride because of the dilution ratio is nonsensical. If the fluorosilicic acid ceases to be fluorosilicic acid after a certain dilution ratio, then its supposed benefits cease also. There is no good reason to fluoridate drinking water. It's very dangerous and expensive, and its benefits are miniscule if any. If the money used to accomplish fluoridation was spent in education or in a dental health service, it would be money well spent.

The twice posted advice was not mine. I only post under my full name and I always include the fada.

by Franklin Delano Williams Sun Sep 03, 2006 18:20

Please, someone show me some evidence that the Health of Canadian or American Citizens is Horribly fucked up due to Flouridated water?

Love the urine analogy, how much Fish(or Sheep,Canine, Bird Droppings, etc) urine is acceptable to you as well? Dilution people, it's why dumping a 55 gallon drum of LSD into a reserviour wont do anything. The mainstream of History & Science is against You on this, Your coming off as Rubes, like the yank John Birchers in the 60's.

by gurgle Sun Sep 03, 2006 19:20

Both the UK and the US took that sort of thing seriously in their war on terror infrastructure risk appraisals.

by redjade Sun Sep 03, 2006 19:27

awaywolf.com website says....
'I find it hard to understand why members of the healing profession feel this need to belong to an exclusively dental secret society. What have dentists, or rather a group of 'elite' dentists, got to be secret about? What have I been missing? Perhaps some readers could help shed more light on this odd society of dentists.'

——————

Delta Sigma Delta will be holding their annual convention in Las Vagas this year...

suspicious conspiratorial activity includes....
• Old Supreme Council Meeting
• Supreme Grand Master's Reception
• Past Supreme Grand Masters Breakfast Meeting
• Loving Cup Luncheon
• Supreme Chapter Meeting
• No Host Cocktail Reception
http://www.deltsig.com/annual.html

more about DELTA SIGMA DELTA
Dentistry's secret society
http://www.awaywolf.com/fluoridation/fluoride/propagand...a.htm

Delta Sigma Delta
http://www.deltsig.com/

Water fluoridation controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

Delta Sigma Delta's symbol:
The Cross keys (Top left). Two crossed keys are quite a common charge. "The two keys are the symbol for St. Peter, gatekeeper of the heaven in the Catholic religion. St. Peter is a very popular saint, hence the two keys are a common charge".[2] NB. The keys on the DSD insignia are pointing downwards whereas they would normally be pointing upwards (based on the observation of numerous heraldic representations).

DSD Evil Logo - note Skull & Cross Bones (homage to GWB?)

DSD Meeting in Las Vegas: Dentists experiment on own kids using hotel's fluoridated swiming pool

by General Jack D. Ripper Sun Sep 03, 2006 21:41

"For the record I'd prefer a glass of urine to a glass of Fluorosilicic Acid. "

Well, seeing as you believe that the vnormal drinking water is contaminated with Fluorosilicic Acid, may I take it that you drink and wash with urine? Or are you just taking the piss?

You cannot have it both ways: if tapwater is so dangerous then you should refuse to use it in any manner. Otherwise you are not being consistent.

by Seán Ryan Sun Sep 03, 2006 22:09

I said I'd 'prefer.'

I try not to drink or wash with either. It aint easy.

A filtration system can be bought and set up to remove fluoride (and possibly urine too). So I am as consistant as I can be.

by Derka Derka - Muhammed Sun Sep 03, 2006 23:03

You've yet to show a documented Case of Poisoning from swimming in a Pool, washing in it, Drinking it. If any of this were even remotely true, California would be full of genetic mutants, masses of corpses, & there would be Howls from the Press,.

50+ years on, You've got nothing except Conspiracy theory thats ludicris in it's millions of Canadian & American Citizens unaffected.

Next up, the Moon Landing- Conspiracy of Richard Cheney, a 24 year old George Bush & the Rothchilds, filmed in Iceland at night.

by C Guerin Mon Sep 04, 2006 04:02

"Swimming pools have even greater concentrates of Flouride.Have they killed anyone?"

General Ripper, you may have forgotten the news reports about a year ago about the studies showing lung damage caused by chlorine (not fluoride) in swimming pools.

by Micro-tingler Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:09

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/

The campaign against the food directive and the EU crackdown on homeopathy,
and alternative health practicioners.

You can join the campaign or inform yourself about how the directives are effecting
personal choice with regard to health care, alternatively many shops involved in
disseminating informations on the alliance carry petitions.

by Sean Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:24

People should remember that the fluoride content in tea is high therefore they should try to limit their intake. fluoride is linked to osteoporosis and ireland has one of the highest rates. Most bottles of mineral water contain no fluoride.I very rarely drink fluoridated water but I have no choice but to wash in it. As I said certain vitamins and minerals can mitigate against the effects of fluoride and there is also an argument for removing chlorine from drinking water as it destroys healthy bacteria in the gut. Let's not forget- the fluoride in our water is a by product of industrial waste from the manufacture of phosphate fertiliser and the aluminium industries.

by Terence Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:38

I have heard reports in the past pointing out that Tea contains quite a lot of fluorine. Unfortunately I like tea, but what I could not determine is; is this because the tea plant itself is an effective absorber of fluorine from the soil or is it due to contamination of the soil where tea is grown, either from application of fertilizers or possibly the irrgated water, or is the high concentration perhaps due to the particular soils in those regions where tea is grown?

Anyone got answers to the above? And if so, could they provide links & sources as it would be interesting to track down the original source of this statement to see if it is actually true or not.

by Sean Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:54

Good point Terence, I like tea myself. I've just contacted the fluoride discussion forum bout that. See:

http://fluoride.squarespace.com/forum/

The fertilizer I believe is a factor. From what I understand the industrial manufacturing results in this stuff being pumped out into the atmosphere and the tea plant easily absords it. I wonder about coffee?

I've just tried contacting Dunnes -there apperas to be no email address. There bottled water is th cheapest around St Bernard, I am not 100% sure whteher there is any fluoride in it though.Anyone , any idea?

by Gums Mon Sep 04, 2006 16:16

Just a point of information regarding the probable origin of one of the pro fluoride poster's choice of name in case other readers didn't get the reference
(mr durka durka mohammed)

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id...pe=NR

You get the impression that someone choosing a name like this is not particularly enlightened!!!

Good thread. This issue needs addressing. IMHO Group medication of a population through the water supply is an abhorrent idea. Also, you have no way of regulating the dose any individual gets.

Surely a more sensible way to do this if it is really of such benefit to us all is to
(a) Properly inform us of the "benefits" AND the pitfalls
(b) Get an independent and scientific recommendation of dosages
(b) make the stuff available in toothpastes or as a water additive.
(c) leave us to choose ourselves whether we use the stuff or not

It should not be forced on us in uncontrolled dosages and with a total lack of good information on the subject.

Think of the money the Govt would save for the taxpayer. They seem to like privatising everything and making us individually responsible for ourselves so oddly,why not in this case too? Do they REALLY care for our teeth that much?? ( Well I suppose a big fake smile DOES matter if you are a politician!! :)

Personally I would not be surprised if there were some financial elements distorting any arguments that might arise in government circles for continuing to use the stuff in the current ridiculous and undemocratic fashion .

One other trivial point. I notice that My cup of tea tastes disgusting in built up areas but is rather nice tasting out in the country where group water schemes operate. Has this anything to do with the addition of fluoride to the water or the relative amounts added. Just curious. (the fluoride content of the tea itself is likely a constant. Same packet!!)

by gníomhaí Mon Sep 04, 2006 19:15

A lot of crap is written about flouridation. Look at what other countries that have banned flouride have to say about the practice:

Statements from European Health, Water, & Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation

UPDATES:
November 2004: After months of consulation, Scotland - which is currently unfluoridated - rejected plans to add fluoride to the nation's water.

April 9, 2003: The City Parliament of Basel, Switzerland voted 73 to 23 to stop Basel's 41 year water fluoridation program. Basel was the only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water, and the only city in continental western Europe, outside of a few areas in Spain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germany:

"Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/germany.jpeg

France:

"Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/france.jpeg

Belgium:

"This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm

Luxembourg:

"Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg

Sweden:

"Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

(See statement by Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the Nobel Laureate in Medicine, who helped lead the campaign to prevent fluoridation in Sweden in the late 1970s.)

Denmark:

"We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm

(To read the Danish Ministry of the Environment's reasons for banning fluoridation, click here)

Norway:

"In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm

Netherlands:

"From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

Finland:

"We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.) www.fluoridealert.org/finland.jpeg

Northern Ireland:

"The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000). www.fluoridealert.org/Northern-Ireland.jpeg

Austria:

"Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

Czech Republic:

"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:

uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
unethical ("forced medication")
toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999). www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg

by Some info Mon Sep 04, 2006 19:38

Terence in a previous comment states:

"The human body and any other living body is only made up of a handful of atomic elements like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and then lesser quantities of sodium, chlorine, calcium and iron and even smaller quantities of other elements."

" Now flourine is the most reactive chemical around and you rarely find it in its free form and it will always bind to something."

What's being added is not pure fluorine (a gas) but a fluorine compound (probably Hexafluorosilicic acid).

"Now we know any living thing [...] Now what the Flouride folks want us to believe is that simply adding some flouride to the body strengths the teeth and makes them resistant to disease. This is absurd in the extreme."

Actually it's not. It's very clearly the case that it binds to and stabilizes hydroxyapitite during tooth formation.

"How come evolution never spotted this? If things were only so simple! "
Evolution is a random process, not a global optimizer that finds the best possible solution to any problem.

There's a case to be made against fluoridation, but you aren't making it. A rampant mis-statement of the basic facts (which suggests that you haven't bothered to do even basic research before writing this comment) combined with conspiracy theories about chemical companies dumping their waste obscures the real argument and does a disservice to opponents of fluoridation: fluoridation has not been shown in wealthy societies (good oral care practices, dental intervention, good diets) to improve the dental health of the population, so there's no reason to do it. Also, people should be free to choose medications and not have them delivered to them in the water supply. (That way anti-fluoride parents can ensure that their children grow up with bad teeth and a deep knowledge of scripture).

by Seán Ryan Tue Sep 05, 2006 04:41

ABC Sydney are reporting this morning that the Bellingen Council will today consider reversing its decision to fluoridate the Shire’s water supply.

The acting Mayor, Jillian Cranny, says that there are health concerns for not adding fluoride to the public water supply, but the main issue is that the majority of residents do not want it.

Related Link:- http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200609/1732968.htm?sydney

by Seán Ryan Tue Sep 05, 2006 05:24

As requested: Scientific evidence that fluoridation is bad news.

Fluoridation linked to Bone Cancer in Harvard Study - http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060405/index.php

“New York - Fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in a recent National Academy of Sciences'(NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth.(1) At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.”

The study even recognises that fluoridation may harm IQ’s especially in children.
http://www.topix.net/content/cj/18369366616089161902

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
124 Edward St., Toronto, Ontario, M5G-1G6

Hardy a one-time proponent of fluoridation is now advocating that fluoridation cease. I’ll only quote a tiny part of what he has to say, the rest is well worth reading.

“Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer and sold to most of the major cities in North America, which use this industrial grade source of fluoride to fluoridate drinking water, rather than the more expensive pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride salt. Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans. Increased lead levels have been found in children living in fluoridated communities. Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has been shown to be associated with radium in the drinking water. Long-term ingestion of these harmful elements should be avoided altogether.”
http://www.slweb.org/limeback.html

Finally, here’s a very interesting report:
The Danger In Your Water - http://health.theledger.com/article/20060901/TOPSTORY/1...e=RSS

by sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:26

I think it would be an idea if the Irish anti-fluoride group campaigned to highlight basic food and drink that has been fluoridated with our public water supply - boycotting such 'goods' nationwide may have the effect of forcing the Government to change its policy. I notice they don't drink this stuff in the Dail.

by Get A Grip Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:31

That would include practically all of the food produced on this island. Are you suggesting that only food that has beenn treated or raised with non-flouridated water should be used? This would be rather expensive and damaging to the environment. Think of all the carbon fuel that would have to be expended to get the food here.

Sean I think you just have an obsession about flouridisation and you dont think very much about the Environment.

by sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:48

You have to think about the serious adverse effects on peoples health though.there is a lot of food in the country made with unfluoridated water which people can buy and I'd say cheaper too. Take bread- I refuse to buy bread made with irish fluoridated water or drinks. yes i refuse to buy almost anything made with with this stuff-if it's made in ireland with our water I don't touch it.I encourage others to follow suit and the Irsih anti -fluoride group who seem uncontactable these days to draw up a list of all irish fluoridated foods that should be boycotted.all the government has to do is stop pumping this shite into our water.it's also rather ironic you mention your concern for the environment in the context of a discussion about fluoride.

by Get A Grip Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:05

I mention the envionment because I am worried about it. I think its apalling that onions, potatoes and tomatoes are transported from around the world to Ireland. I dont however share your paranoia about Flouridation. How many people have died due to flouridation?

by sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:31

as pointed out young people have died . it is linked to bone cancer in boys.

See:

http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20060405/index.php

by Get A Grip Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:55

This proves nothing. It does not give the rsults of the study. It does not give the sample size. Was the study a double blind? The link you give is more concerned with asserting a scientist misrepresented the study.

In any case one study proves very little. If you knew anything about the scientific method you would be aware of this.

by Pearly White on the outside Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:07

if it's made in ireland with our water I don't touch it.I encourage others to follow suit

So, given that the majority of bread made in Ireland is made with fluoridated water, you're encouraging people to either not eat bread or else to import bread (using fossil fuels to transport it). Doesn't seem like a rational strategy because most people aren't going to give up a basic foodstuff unless there's strong evidence to show that it's bad for them, and the alternative is expensive and probably far worse for their overall health (due to the convoys of British and French bread trucks and bread frigates spewing out pollution).

by Sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:13

"Boys who drink water with levels of fluoride considered safe by federal guidelines are five times more likely to have a rare bone cancer than boys who drink unfluoridated water"

Can you elaborate on how a double blind trial would have added scientific credibility to this particular scientific study? I think it is you that doesn't actually understand empirical scientific research. Double blind trials often apply to drugs and we could from a scientific perspective dispute just how objective they are.

You fail to explain how ingesting a by product of the maufacturing of phosphate fertiliser and the aluminium industry is beneficial to health.

by Get A Grip Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:18

I see. Normal scientific methods do not apply to the test results which you favour. I suppose in your eyes that makes them more reliable. You just take a leap of faith.

I see you mention phosphate by products. The major cause of this is farmers using fertilisers on their fields. When are you going to take on the farmers?

by Pallaskenry Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:25

The aluminum plant expansion in Bleach Lough will affect the natural community supply?
expansion of capital versus community rights to safe drinking water-

political action begins with agigtaing the CC/lobby nexus with interest in this scheme

by Pearly White Ones Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:29

Rhetoric about "waste from industry" does nothing to prove or disprove the central contention: that fluoridated water is a population level health risk. It's just emotive and makes anti-fluoridation advocates look like conspiracy nuts.

The steps in removing fluoride from our water should be:
1) show what problems it causes
2) show what the benefits are
3) make a decision based on 1) and 2) as to whether fluoridation is a net benefit or disadvantage

The study cited (Bassin, E; May 2006; _Cancer Causes & Control_) is hard to evaluate clearly. It shows that boys have apparently an increased correlation between exposure to fluoridated water and osteosarcoma, but that girls do not.

There are a couple of things to bear in mind here. The first is the hoary, old saw that "correlation does not prove causation". The second is that there is no overall population level effect showing the correlation.

by sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:30

I thought you wouldn't directly address the challenge I set you in relation to double blind trials. i think you should read and check out the references to the following peer reviewed scientific literature on fluoride.

you fail to understand that toxic fluoride is actually pumped into our public water supply -can't blame the farmers for that.

by Get A Grip Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:34

"you fail to understand that toxic fluoride is actually pumped into our public water supply -can't blame the farmers for that."

You can blame the farmers for polluting the fields and the run off of phospates into rivers. You also on the one hand question the usefulness of scientific results but accept those results hwn it suits your agenda. No rational person would be convinced by you.

by Pearly White Ones Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:36

The paper (which does not use a non-fluoride exposed population as a control)
Bassin, E.B.; _Cancer Causes and Control_, May 2006; vol 17: pp 421-428

A commentary (whose author is now the center of an ethics investigation at Harvard)
Douglass, C.W. & Joshipura, K.; _Cancer Causes and Control_, May 2006; vol 17: pp 481-482.

by sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:39

You're are not showing any basic understanding of the issues here and huge database of scientific evidence against fluoride. As a student with a third level University education in a health science discipline with access to medical databases on the scientific literature I can assure that scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against fluoride. You should do some basic research on the type of fluoride in our water as a first step to a greater understanding.

by Pearly White Ones Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:42

online in PDF or HTML

by Sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:48

In relation to study's conclusion an association was found between fluoride and oesteosarcoma in young males :

"Our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females"

by Pearly White Ones Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:59

with possible selection bias which only demonstrates a _correlation_. A lot more work is necessary before anything can be determined from this.

If one were to take a naive interpretation of the correlation as definitive proof (which it is not), then one conclusion would be that you are wasting your time going to all the effort of boycotting bread made with fluoride because you're not between 6 to 8 years of age. Also, from a purely selfish point of view women, and mice are unaffected and shouldn't worry about it.

by Pearly White Ones Tue Sep 05, 2006 15:02

I can assure that scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against fluoride

Your assurances aren't worth much then. I'd suggest that you drop the ad authoritatem. If you'd even read the paper I cited and linked to you'd see that the available evidence is equivocal and ambiguous. If it weren't then there'd be no controversy.

by Sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 15:05

I am not surprised you want to drop out.

If you knew anything about research at all you would know that in relation to the said study that the findings are statistically significant.

by sean Tue Sep 05, 2006 16:27

Sadly some people on this thread seem to think that the anti-fluoride activists are conspiracy theorists and that there is no scientific evidence backing up their claims in relation to serious health consequences of water fluoridation. Here is a list of numerous peer reviewed scientific studies on the serious health consequences on bone. People in Ireland need to start taking this seriously.

FLUORIDE & BONE

Endemic fluorosis
Azar HA, et al. (1961). Skeletal fluorosis due to chronic fluoride intoxication. Annals of Internal Medicine 55:193-200.
Barot VV. (1998). Occurrence of endemic fluorosis in human population of North Gujarat, India: human health risk. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 61: 303-10.
Bo Z, et al. (2003). Distribution and risk assessment of fluoride in drinking water in the west plain region of Jilin province, China. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 25(4): 421-31. (See abstract)
Boyle DR, Chagnon M. (1995). An incidence of skeletal fluorosis associated with groundwaters of the maritime carboniferous basin, Gaspe region, Quebec, Canada. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 17: 5-12.
Bruns BR, Tytle T. (1988). Skeletal fluorosis: a report of two cases. Orthopedics 11: 1083-1087. (See abstract)
Cao J, et al. (2003). Brick tea fluoride as a main source of adult fluorosis. Food and Chemical Toxicology 41(4):535-42. (See abstract)
Choubisa SL, et al. (2001). Endemic fluorosis in Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Environmental Health 43:177-89. (See abstract)
Christie DP. (1980). The spectrum of radiographic bone changes in children with fluorosis. Radiology 136(1):85-90. (See abstract)
Cook HA. (1971). Fluoride studies in a patient with arthritis. The Lancet 1: 817. (See study)
Dhuna AK, et al. (1992). Skeletal fluorosis. An unusual cause of progressive radiculomyelopathy. Spine 17:842-4.
Faccini JM, Teotia SPS. (1974). Histopathological assessment of endemic skeletal fluorosis. Calcified Tissue Research 16: 45-57.
Felsenfeld AJ, Roberts MA. (1991). A report of fluorosis in the United States secondary to drinking well water. Journal of the American Medical Association 265:486-8. (See abstract)
Fisher JR, et al. (1981). Skeletal fluorosis from eating soil. Arizona Medicine 38: 833-5. (See abstract)
Fisher RL, et al. (1989). Endemic fluorosis with spinal cord compression. A case report and review. Archives of Internal Medicine 149: 697-700. (See abstract)
Gilbaugh JH, Thompson GJ. (1966). Fluoride osteosclerosis simulating carcinoma of the prostate with widespread bony metastasis: a case report. Journal of Urology 96: 944-946.
Goldman SM, et al. (1971). Radiculomyelopathy in a southwestern indian due to skeletal fluorosis. Arizona Medicine 28: 675-677.
Gupta RK, et al. (1996). Compressive myelopathy in fluorosis. Neuroradiology 38: 338-342. (See abstract)
Haimanot RT. (1990). Neurological complications of endemic skeletal fluorosis, with special emphasis on radiculo-myelopathy. Paraplegia 28:244-51. (See abstract)
Hileman B. (1988). Fluoridation of water. Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News August 1. 26-42. (See excerpt)
Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: E Johansen, DR Taves, TO Olsen, Eds. Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293. (See extended excerpt)
Jolly SS, et al. (1973). Endemic fluorosis in Punjab: 1. skeletal aspect. Fluoride 6: 4-18.
Jolly SS. (1970). Hydric fluorosis in Punjab. In: TL Vischer, ed. (1970). Fluoride in Medicine. Hans Huber, Bern. pp. 106-121.
Jolly SS. (1968). An epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study of endemic, dental and skeletal fluorosis in Punjab. Fluoride 1(2): 65-75.
Juncos LI, Donadio JV Jr. (1972). Renal failure and fluorosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 222(7):783-5. (See abstract)
Kilborn LG, et al. (1950). Fluorosis with report of an advanced case. Canadian Medical Association Journal 62: 135-141.
Krishnamachari KA. (1986). Skeletal fluorosis in humans: a review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Progress in Food and Nutrition Sciences 10(3-4):279-314. (See abstract)
Krishnamachari KA, Krishnaswamy K. (1973). Genu valgum and osteoporosis in an area of endemic fluorosis. The Lancet. 2(7834): 877-879. (See abstract)
Kumar SP, Harper RA. (1963). Fluorosis in Aden. British Journal of Radiology 36: 497-502.
Lantz O, et al. (1987). Fluoride-induced chronic renal failure. American Journal of Kidney Disorders 10:136-9. (See abstract)
Latham MC, Grech P. (1967). The effects of excessive fluoride intake. American Journal of Public Health 57: 651-660.
Leone NC, Stevenson CA, Hilbish TF, Sosman MC. (1955). A roentgenologic study of a human population exposed to high-fluoride domestic water: a ten year study. American Journal of Roentgenology, Radium Therapy and Nuclear Medicine 74: 874-885.
Lian ZC, Wu EH. (1986). Osteoporosis--an early radiographic sign of endemic fluorosis. Skeletal Radiology 15(5):350-3. (See abstract)
Linsman JF, McMurray CA. (1943). Fluoride osteosclerosis from drinking water. Radiology 40: 474-484.
Littleton J. (1999). Paleopathology of skeletal fluorosis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 109(4):465-83. (See abstract)
Lyth O. (1946). Endemic fluorosis in Kweichow, China. The Lancet 1: 233-235.
Misra UK, et al. (1988). Endemic fluorosis presenting as cervical cord compression. Archives of Environmental Health 43:18-21. (See abstract)
Mithal A, et al. (1993). Radiological spectrum of endemic fluorosis: relationship with calcium intake. Skeletal Radiology 22(4):257-61. (See abstract)
Morris JW. (1965). Skeletal fluorosis among indians of the American Southwest. American Journal of Roentgenology, Radium Therapy & Nuclear Medicine 94: 608-615.
Muthukumar N. (2005). Ossification of the ligamentum flavum as a result of fluorosis causing myelopathy: report of two cases. Neurosurgery 56: 622. (See abstract)
Pandit CG, et al. (1940). Endemic fluorosis in South India. Indian Journal of Medical Research 28: 533-558.
Pinet A, Pinet F. (1968). Endemic fluorosis in the Sahara. Fluoride 1(2): 85-93.
Sauerbrunn BJ, et al. (1965). Chronic fluoride intoxication with fluorotic radiculomyelopathy. Annals of Internal Medicine 63: 1074-1078.
Savas S, et al. (2001). Endemic fluorosis in Turkish patients: relationship with knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International 21(1):30-5. (See abstract )
Shortt HE, et al. (1937). Endemic fluorosis in the Madras presidency. Indian Journal of Medical Research 25: 553-568.
Siddiqui AH. (1970). Neurological complications of skeletal fluorosis with special reference to lesions in the cervical region. Fluoride 3: 91-96.
Siddiqui AH. (1955). Fluorosis in Nalgonda district, Hyderabad-Deccan. British Medical Journal ii (Dec 10): 1408-1413.
Singh A, Jolly SS. (1970). Chronic toxic effects on the skeletal system. In: Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization.
Singh A, et al. (1963). Endemic fluorosis. Epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study of chronic fluoride intoxication in Punjab. Medicine. 42: 229-246.
Singh A, et al. (1961). Skeletal fluorosis and its neurological complications. Lancet 1: 197-200.
Soriano, M. (1968). Periostitis deformans due to wine fluorosis. Fluoride 1: 56-64.
Stevenson CA, Watson R. (1957). Fluoride osteosclerosis. American Journal of Roentgenology, Radium Therapy and Nuclear Medicine 78: 13-18.
Susheela AK, Bhatnagar M. (2002). Reversal of fluoride induced cell injury through elimination of fluoride and consumption of diet rich in essential nutrients and antioxidants. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry 234-235(1-2):335-40. (See abstract)
Susheela AK, et al. (1993). Prevalence of endemic fluorosis with gastro-intestinal manifestations in people living in some North-Indian villages. Fluoride 26(2): 97-104. (See abstract)
Teotia M, Teotia SP, Singh KP. (1998). Endemic chronic fluoride toxicity and dietary calcium deficiency interaction syndromes of metabolic bone disease and deformities in India: year 2000. Indian Journal of Pediatrics 65:371-81. (See abstract)
Teotia SPS, et al. (1976). Symposium on the non-skeletal phase of chronic fluorosis: the joints. Fluoride 9(1): 19-24. (See paper)
Teotia M, Teotia SPS. (1973). Further observations on endemic fluoride-induced osteopathies in children. Fluoride 6: 143-151.
UNICEF Water, Environment & Sanitation. (1999). Fluoride in water: An overview. Waterfront December. (See report)
Xu RQ, et al. (1997). Relations between environment and endemic fluorosis in Hohot region, Inner Mongolia. Fluoride 30: 26-28
Waldbott GL. (1956). Incipient fluorine intoxication from drinking water. Acta Medica Scandinavica 156: 157-168. (See summary)
Wang W, et al. (2004). Ossification of the transverse atlantal ligament associated with fluorosis: a report of two cases and review of the literature. Spine 29 :E75-8. (See abstract)
Wang Y, et al. (1994). Endemic fluorosis of the skeleton: radiographic features in 127 patients. American Journal of Roentgenology 162(1):93-8. (See abstract).
Webb-Peploe MM, Bradley WG. (1966). Endemic fluorosis with neurological complications in a Hampshire man. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 29:577-583.
Whyte MP, et al. (2005). Skeletal fluorosis and instant tea. American Journal of Medicine 118:78-82. (See press release)
Yang L, et al. (2003). Developing environmental health indicators as policy tools for endemic fluorosis management in the People's Republic of China. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 25(3):281-95. (See abstract)
Zhavoronkov AA. (1977). [Non-skeletal forms of fluorosis]. Arkh Patol. 39(3):83-91. (See abstract)

by Saddened Tue Sep 05, 2006 17:44

does not equal brain activity or prove anything. As is common throughout this "discussion" you have cut and paste vast tracts from other online sources instead of presenting a simple link to the origin. That is, as you well know, a violation of Indymedia Editorial guidelines.

I very much doubt that you've read any, let alone all, of the literature that you cite and thus are just falling back on another irrational appeal to authority, similar to your refusal to read and understand the Bassin paper. (Hint, you seem to think that the magic words "statistically significant" are all that's needed to prove that a correlation must imply causation).

No one has denied that excess flouride can cause problems. The central contention is whether there are safe levels of fluoride and whether it's been shown that what are currently thought to be safe levels are not.

That's got /nothing/ to do with evil industrialists dumping their waste into our water supply, or the taste of a cup of tea (which is probably to do with Chlorine and not Fluoride), or any other of the fevered rambling that you've been splattering over this.

There is a serious case to be made for avoiding fluoridation: you're not doing it.

by Sean Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:42

Sorry,I have not cut and paste vast amounts of material .I cut and pasted the above references to try to educate people like you a little and because certain people seemed to be denying the serious health effects of fluoride.

by Sage Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:55

Publishing the titles of papers without telling where they are available is hardly education. Have you links to any of these articles? How many (if any) of them have you read?

by sean Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:10

You can try the following which gives links to a sound body of scientific literature on the serious adverse effects of flouride

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/sitemap.html#bone

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 16, 2006 00:14

Tis nice to see that this subject is still alive and kicking, despite the mass medication inflicted on Irish society. On the 13th of this month the Irish Medical News printed the following:
http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=ne...17425

This was in relation to a decision made by Mary Harney to reduce fluoride levels in drinking water (due to the fact that it doesn't do what they say it does). http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=...14797

by Mike Adams Thu Nov 16, 2006 16:39

Look at who used Flouride to control people. Only those in the pay of the chemical companies deny the truth.

'The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin. )'

Yes the Irish State is putting Flouride in the water to control us. See what this honest scientist says about flouride in the water.

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine - any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." - CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954.

Communists also use this trick to dominate humanity.

"I, Oliver Kenneth Goff, was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, from May 2, 1936, to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats with number 18-B-2.

While a member of the Communist Party, I attended Communist training schools in New York and Wisconsin ... and we were trained in the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Government. "... We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring about a spirit of lethargy in the nation, where it could keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism."

http://100777.com/fluoride

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Thu Nov 16, 2006 23:49

Fluoride (Hexafluorosililic acid, not Natural Fluoride) is but one of the chemical waste products that are dumped into the drinking water . Aluminium Sulphate is just another. This , like Hexafluorosililic acid ,is a 'difficult' toxic waste material to get rid of.

It is dumped into the water in large soap like blocks measuring approx. three feet by nine inch square.

These are waste products from Chimney stacks ,Aluminium plants etc. There is no 'safe 'way to get rid of them , so the People are sold the brainwash (literally) idea that it makes the water cleaner and prevent little holes in your teeth. Why is the system SO concerened about 'having nice shiny perfect teeth'.

The people swallowed the lie.

When your tap water is boiled to make a cup of tea , it , Alum.sulph. ,adheres with the 'Fluoride' and is accelerated to the Brain , crossing the Brain protective barrier and lodging in the Pineal gland.

It then desends and accumulates in the thyriod gland.

The effects are too numerous to mention just now but do go and dig this info.up yourselves as there have been many links posted up.

Also, in the interest of your Families and Children , DO post REGISTERD LETTERS to Ministers and local Council Law agents on the issue. These are the People who are silently medicating the Population. Go ask them why.

This is more of a Referendum issue than anything at the moment.

There was never ant Plebicite on the forced medication of ..................YOU.

by gummy Sun May 20, 2007 18:01

Hi

Does anyone know of a flouride filtering kit that your can get installed onto mains water, all the dentists have them shhhh I did not say that