Moderator: Louis P. Burns aka Lugh
- activist and campaigner
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:25 pm
I would like to raise the issue of Fluoride.
I am submitting two points and thereafter two questions.
thank you for your time
First is to make known the completed research of Dr Elise Bassin of the Harvard School of Dental Health 1 (pdf) which shows that Fluoride increases cancer rates in children and a quote of Richard Wiles 2
"i've spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you dont have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause caner as you now have with fluoride"
Secondly the work of Dr Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health for Aukland, NZ and President of the NZ Fluoridation Society (a fervent supporter of fluoride and fluoridation) who found and made public knowledge that decayed teeth rates for 3 decades previous to the introduction of fluoride were dropping at a steady rate and continued unaffected with the introduction of fluoride 3 .
Dr Colquhoun was given a warning that these facts were not to made public. [ibid 3 ]
"They showed that in most Health Districts the percentage of children who were free of tooth decay was greater in the unfluoridated parts of the district." [ibid 3]
The reason i draw attention to these points is that on Page 14 of the "Childrens and Young Peoples Plan (second draft) " plan it is stated that this plan will "Implement the Oral Health Strategy". This strategy states in Appendix 2 'What works? The evidence' 7
"Epidemiological studies and independent reviews of the relevant literature have consistently failed to find evidence that fluoride in water, at or around one part per million, has any effect on the health of the body other than reducing tooth decay. Fluoride toothpaste is another effective method of delivering fluoride. The use of fluoride supplements in schools has been shown to be effective in caries prevention but regular use is unlikely to be sustained at home by those most in need."
Now since the Water Act 2003 states
“If requested in writing to do so by a relevant authority a water undertaker shall enter into arrangements with the relevant authority to increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by that undertaker to premises within the area specified in the arrangements.” (Chapter 37, Part 3, Section 58 ) 8
and i also quote the World Health Organisation 1994;
"The question of possible secondary effects caused by fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health." 9
This is an incredible difference between what we are told and what the recent research is showing.
My two questions are as follows
1. Are you going to promote and encourage a known toxic substance namely Fluoride?
2. Are you going to 'Implement the Oral Health Strategy' which is based upon questionable judgement and grossly inadequate research?
- Louis P. Burns aka Lugh
- site owner, media producer & writer
- Posts: 2184
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:32 am
- Location: Derry, Ireland
To be honest, I'm not as clued up on this one as I should be mate, but thank you for posting it. This is a theme that should grate on the nerves of many people because the vast majority, like me, aren't fully in the picture.
What I do know is that it's imposed on us, and people's right not to be medicated (with flouride), indeed their civil / human rights are being stamped on by the 'powers that be'...
If my memory serves me well, here in Derry there were plans to 'upgrade' our water supplies with flouridation. A figure like £160 million was mentioned back in 2003. This is completely insane. I live in an environment where there are many mountain lakes and streams that have provided fresh, clean running water for centuries. Why mess with something this perfect?
While surfing the net to compile a response for you, I found this:-
BBC Action Network wrote:In Sicily, Turkey and India there is naturally occurring flouride in the water ranging from 0.7 to 5.4 ppm. The villagers and livestock were chronically ill, while neighbouring villages with no fluoride had no such illnesses. Premature ageing is the overall effect. Children had brown decaying teeth and many young adults had none. Many young men were bent over and crippled with pain in their joints and hips. The rate of stillborn miscarriages by four months was extremely high.
Read the full article here ...
From that quoted paragraph alone, people should be demanding explanations from big business and the government. Maybe you can invite someone who is in defence of (poisoning us) flouridation, onto here for a bit of debate. You're very welcome to proceed with that if it helps your campaign in any way zArk...
I will feedback more on this as the thread develops. Hopefully some of our other active members will also have points they'd like to raise on this topic. Again.., thanks for introducing it and getting this aspect of SENSITIZE © operational...
Administrator, editor & owner of the Sensitize © online community of forums and domain for artists, e-poets, filmmakers, media/music producers and writers working through here. To buy the Kindle book of Illustrated Poetry, Sensitize © - Volume One / Poems that could be Films if they were Funded by myself with illustrations by Welsh filmmaker and graphic artist; Norris Nuvo click here for N. Ireland and UK sales. If purchasing in the U.S.A. or internationally then please click here.
My writing is not covered by Creative Commons policy and may not be republished without permission. All rights reserved. All Sensitize © Arts sponsorship donations and postal inquiries to:
Louis P. Burns
42 Farland Way
Telephone (UK): 028 71219225
Click here to Join Sensitize © Arts via Facebook or to contact the site owner: Louis P. Burns aka Lugh with any forum hosting or site related inquiries.
- activist and campaigner
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:25 pm
We dont want to be, in 30 years time, in exactly the same position we are now with asbestos and lead in petrol.
The cost is an extremely important point to raise as local councils have very little expenditure and will use any excuse (which is beneficial) to block expensive policies.
One of the difficulties activists will encounter is that the Primary Care Trust - the authority (see Water Act) - prefer not to allow public access to their meetings.
For a watchable case against fluoride please watch
online compressed version bittorrent
- lugh's sensitize toolkit
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:39 pm
- Location: A cardigan pocket, amid handkerchiefs and hard boiled, fruit flavoured sweets.
zark wrote:It is most important that activists realise that the Water Act 2003 allows us, the public, direct access to blocking government policy with regard to fluoridation.
Without sounding too pessimistic; does anything that we wish to question of the government, really get a hearing? It seems to be the case now more than ever, that big business holds sway on how the government operates.
If activists and members click here they will be taken to the (UK) Water Act 2003 - Implementation that zArk has referred to. Have a read folks... People need to band together in large groups to have any kind of audible voice and activists need to use every means at their disposal to make the public aware of what can be achieved in numbers...
zark wrote:We dont want to be, in 30 years time, in exactly the same position we are now with asbestos and lead in petrol.
zark wrote:The cost is an extremely important point to raise as local councils have very little expenditure and will use any excuse (which is beneficial) to block expensive policies.
Yes. They need the money for important things like wining, dining and rubbing shoulders with big business. Not much chance of them ever digging deep and spending OUR MONEY correctly...
zark wrote:One of the difficulties activists will encounter is that the Primary Care Trust - the authority (see Water Act) - prefer not to allow public access to their meetings.
Then, and it's only my opinion; shouldn't we get as many people as possible clued up and watch the Primary Care Trust, like a hawk? Be at every meeting, preferably with recording devices and cameras... I have found the best way to catch these people out is to quote them and where possible link to online media services (like us) where findings can be uploaded and shared.
Some of our visitors and members may not be on broadband connections. The file appears to be 199MB's which could be a problem. Do you know if these films are copyright free and if so, would it be ok for Diesel here on Upstate Renegade Productions and SENSITIZE ©to compress them further then upload them to our domain, same as the marijuana film, Healing Herbs ..?
I'd be grateful if you checked this out for me zArk, but obviously when you've got the time to mate...
- activist and campaigner
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:29 pm
- Location: essex, england
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence surprisingly didn't have anything listed that I could find. These are the people who are meant to regulate and give advise on medications!
I have had a quick look on google and found these articles. Although they are US based the findings will be the same.
The only way you are gonna do anything zark is by attending these meetings in large numbers, ring the papers and make lots of noise. If you don't do this you won't get noticed. The public should be warned of the dangers.
'He who shouts with the loudest voice'!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests