A Round-up of the Fluoride News


	Back to Eclub Navigator Archives CTM main page Recommended Reading Contact
		A Round-up of the Fluoride News Dear All, Today's The Times (one of UK's leading national newspapers) carried the following opinion piece from a Times leader writer, Camilla Cavendish. Paul Connett www.fluoridealert.org _______________________________________________________________ Public opinion: Camilla Cavendish We all want that ring of confidence, but at what price? Celebrities spend fortunes on straighter, whiter teeth. Now our Government wants to improve everyone's molars by fluoridating the water supply. If public health officials think aesthetics are now as important as health, they may find that human rights lawyers disagree. The drive to fluoridate Britain's water sounds fairly harmless - fluoride occurs naturally in water - until you discover that there is no compelling reason to do it and there is increasing concern about possible risks. Europe has much lower rates of tooth decay than America despite only about 2 per cent of Europeans drinking fluoridated water compared with about 60 per cent of Americans. Finland, Cuba, Canada and eastern Germany have seen tooth decay continue to decline since abandoning the policy. Last May the Swiss city of Basle stopped fluoridation after 40 years, saying that there was no evidence that rates of tooth decay were lower there than in non-fluoridated cities. The British policy puts us alone in Europe, save for Ireland and one region of Spain. Campaigners argue that silico-fluorides are a class 2 poison and claim that America uses an unpurified hazardous waste product in its water supply because pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride is too expensive. Fluoride supposedly inhibits the functioning of enzymes which cause acid to build up on teeth. But there seems to be little certainty about what other enzymes it might inhibit. We know that fluoride accumulates in bones, making them more brittle and prone to fracture, and that it can displace iodine, which is crucial to the functioning of the thyroid. Hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid) is a growing problem in the US. Fluoride also appears to damage the tooth enamel of between 30 and 50 per cent of children in fluoridated communities. But ministers are determined to overcome the water companies' resistance to fluoridation. In 1995 Yorkshire Water said that they would not fluoridate because their customers did not want it and because government indemnities to them were "insufficient" - thus appearing to acknowledge that mass medication could breach civil liberties. So the new Water Act gives health authorities the power to force water companies to fluoridate supplies after "local consultation" , although the nature of that consultation and the level of indemnity have yet to be fixed. Why are we spending public money on a policy that has so little apparent public benefit? In 2000, scientists at York University carried out a major review of fluoridation and recommended studies to determine its possible effects on the thyroid gland and child intelligence. Two years later the Medical Research Council advised that these recommendations were unimportant and instead proposed research to determine the "public perception of aesthetically unacceptable dental fluorosis ". Staggeringly, the York review concluded that "little high-quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health". The Government should surely have spent money to correct this before plunging into legislation that could bring with it a heavy bill if it is found to violate the individual's right to refuse treatment for non-contagious diseases. The water companies will hope to blame the health authorities, but the first test case should be fascinating. The Times, 10th February 2004 PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Camilla Cavendish is to be applauded for her article. In fact, I think everyone on the EClub listings should send Camilla a note of support for her stance. Just a short two-liner to letters@thetimes.co.uk should do nicely. INTERNATIONAL FLUORIDE INFORMATION NETWORK IFIN BULLETIN 906: Victory in Honolulu! February 11, 2004. Dear All, For some days we have been sitting on the fact that the City Council in Honolulu had voted 7 to 2 to keep fluoride (and any other chemical added for medicinal purposes) out of Honolulu's water. We held the story back because it had to be ratified by the Mayor - he could have exercised his veto - we have just heard that he has not done so and has just signed the bill. This is a huge victory and the result of a huge amount of work by our friends in Hawaii - so well done Thelma Martindale, Bob Briggs, Adrian Chang and many others to numerous to name. Heartiest congratulations. Those who want to add their voice to the celebrations please email Bob Briggs at Rgbriggs2@aol.com and I am sure he will share your messages to all who have worked on making this great achievement possible. Paul Connett. www.fluoridealert.org PS Now you know where to take your next vacation! =================================== Here is Bob Briggs' earlier message: Dear Prof. Connett: I think you would want to know this. Yesterday, 1/28/04, the Honolulu city council passed, on final reading, our bill [City & County of Honolulu Council Bill 66CD1] which is for an ordinance to prohibit the introduction of unnecessary chemical additives, considered to be medication. All we need now is for our mayor to sign it. At the moment we are not certain the mayor will sign it, but we have high hopes. The mayor has until 2/12/04 to sign it or veto it . Should he veto it, it appears we have enough votes on the council to override his veto. At the hearing yesterday, the proponents of fluoridation, including of course Mark Greer, provided the same old garbage in their testimony and tried to get the council to defer action. Yes, the council's action yesterday gave our gang a big lift, with hugs and handshakes all around. We expect the fluoridation proponents will be pressuring Mayor Harris, so we will, I expect, in big numbers, be advising our mayor concerning the absurdity of their claims and urge him to sign. Aloha, Bob Briggs INTERNATIONAL FLUORIDE INFORMATION NETWORK IFIN BULLETIN 895: Things hotting up in the UK. January 30, 2004. Dear All, Water companies in the UK, which have been promised indemnity from legal action (by Blair's government) if they fluoridate the water, are being inundated with 'Yellow Cards' from their customers. These cards warn the companies that if they deliver fluoridated water to their homes people will refuse to pay their water bills or simply deduct the costs of providing alternative sources. Here are two articles and an editorial sent to us by Jane Jones, Campaign Director, National Pure Water Association http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk. In particular, Jane asks us to write to the editors of the Newcastle Chronicle, you'll understand why when you read their editorial. It will make your blood, if not your bottled water, boil! Seriously, it is really important when our colleagues risk jail on a matter of principle, especially one that we are all working for, that we show our solidarity. So please write to the editors of the Newcastle Chronicle - paul.robertson@ncjmedia.co.uk, grahamheslop@icnortheast.net and send us a copy at ggvideo@northnet.org and also to Jane at jane@npwa.freeserve.co.uk. And please pass this message on to your friends and colleagues. Thank you. Paul Connett _______________________________________________________________ WATER CAMPAIGNERS FACE THREAT OF ACTION Shropshire anti-fluoride protesters have been warned they face legal action if they carry out a threat to withhold water charges if the county's supply is treated with the chemical, it was revealed today. The National Pure Water Association has launched a campaign in Shropshire to fight any move towards treating the county water supply and is planning a big protest meeting in Shrewsbury next week. It is urging people to write to water companies saying that fluoride is mass medication and is against fundamental human rights. Supporters are also being urged to tell water companies that if supplies are artificially treated, they will protect the health and rights of people in their households by providing them with non-fluoridated water and deduct the cost from their water bills. But people who have sent protest letters to Severn Trent, which supplies most of Shropshire, have received a reply warning against such action. Customer contract manager, Fraser Pithie, says: "The Water Industry Act provides that people who receive supplies from a water company are under a legal duty to pay water charges. Fluoridation of water supplies under the Act does not provide a legitimate reason for non-payment of water charges. A water company is entitled to take enforcement action through the courts." The Shropshire protest meeting will be held at the Lord Hill Hotel, Shrewsbury, next Wednesday at 7pm. It will be chaired by Dr Alan Shrank, a retired consultant dermatologist and chairman of the Shrewsbury branch of the association. The meeting has been called following a Government decision last month to give strategic health authorities, such as the one for Shropshire and Staffordshire, the power to compel water companies to fluoridate drinking water in the interests of cutting decay in young children's teeth. The Shropshire Star, 29 January 2004. http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/publish/article_11834.shtml __________________________________________________________ FLUORIDE RISK TOO MUCH TO SWALLOW by Jamie Diffley Our drinking water is at the centre of a one-man protest today as osteopath Robin Watkins claims he'd rather face jail than pay his bill. He refuses to drink the Northumbrian Water which comes through his taps, insisting the fluoride it contains is bad for the health of him, his wife and his children, aged six and three. Instead the family, of Harley Terrace, Gosforth, drinks around six litres of bottled water every week. And 48-year-old Mr Watkins has told Northumbrian Water he is going to offset the cost - about 2 pounds sterling a week - against his next water bill. Northumbrian Water bosses have hit back and threatened court action to claw back unpaid monies but Mr Watkins is undeterred. He said: "I am keeping all the receipts and will send them to Northumbrian Water, plus the financial difference when I get the next bill. I have told them what I am doing and I'm prepared to go to court. I am standing up for my rights." Fluoridation began in the North East in the early 70s at the request of the local health authorities. About one million of Northumbrian Water's 2.6 million customers have fluoridated water paid for by health chiefs. But Mr Watkins called it "mass medication" and said he should have a choice. He said: "It's treatment without consent. I have never been asked if I want fluoride in my water and if I had I would have said no. Northumbrian Water is breaking my fundamental rights." Mr Watkins is a member of campaign group the National Pure Water Association, founded in 1960, which fights for clean water. Campaign director Jane Jones said: "The NPWA's position, which it has maintained since 1960, is that drinking water should be as safe for consumption as is possible, with minimal chemical treatment. No chemicals intended to medicate or treat populations should ever be added to drinking water." But information officer for the British Fluoridation Society, Sheila Jones, said there are massive benefits. She said: "If you compare like-for-like areas that have had fluoride in the water to those that haven't, the benefits are enormous. In the North East, adults have grown up with having fluoride in the water and all the health benefits that come with it." Should flouride be added to tap water? Yes says: Chief Executive of the British Dental Health Foundation Dr Nigel Carter. "Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in all water. It helps the teeth by strengthening the tooth enamel, making them more resistant to tooth decay. Research proves that adding fluoride to the water supply reduces tooth decay by between 40 and 60 percent. "As it is a natural mineral, the British Dental Health Foundation sees no reason why it should not be added artificially to those water supplies with a low level of fluoride. Those against fluoride argue that adding it to water nationwide could lead to other health problems. However, research such as that carried out by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York University (2000) and the Medical Research Council (2002) has found no evidence yet of a link." No says: Jane Jones, Campaign Director of the National Pure Water Association. "Our 'Yellow Card' is a warning to water companies that they must not violate the rights of their customers, no matter who tells them to. Northumbrian Water has been fluoridating about 40% of its drinking water supply for decades. "All fluorides in water are classified as pollutants - that's why the water companies are asking the Government to give them civil and criminal indemnity if they add fluoridation chemicals. "In 1997, Northumbria acknowledged that water customers didn't want fluoridation and Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authorities took the company to court for refusing to extend it in their area. Now Northumbrian Water is threatening to take Robin Watkins to court because he wants them to stop polluting Newcastle's water. The NPWA applauds his courage in standing up to protect his family's health and rights." Evening Chronicle, Newcastle. _______________________________________________________________ CTM COMMENT: This editorial appeared in the same paper (The Newcastle Chronicle) on the same day as the article above (Jan 29, 2004). With it came the FOLLOWING nasty Evening Chronicle comment: 'We hope water protester Robin Watkins enjoys prison food - because that's where he's heading. The dad-of-two says he'd rather go to jail than pay his water bills in protest at the addition of fluoride to our supplies. He's happy to bathe and flush his toilet with Northumbria Water's fluoridated water but, because he doesn't drink the stuff, he doesn't see why he should pay for it all. Well his gripes don't wash with the rest of society which has benefited from better dental health courtesy of the fluoridation policy. A spell behind bars might bring him to his senses.' So might a spell behind bars for those deliberately contaminating the public drinking water supply with raw industrial waste out of the phosphate fertiliser industry. And, come to think of it, their poodles in the media. Further Resources: For a full explanation of the water fluoridation argument: Health Wars by Phillip Day (Chapter. Water under the Bridge) To join your national anti-fluoride organisation, contact www.fluoridealert.org. Click here to purchase or review any of the above. Click here for telephone sales around the world. Click here if you wish to contact Credence for information on treatment options or resources.