Fluoride

Julia said:

Will Ms Bligh and her cohorts take any notice of this?
Unlikely. They have managed to ignore all the other evidence put before them of a similar nature.
Are you, however, sending it through to them,Whiskers?

Click to expand...

I have made a solid complaint to the health dept as highlighted in yeti's post above. In that I have made some reference to the above, and very strenuosly objected and pointed out, among other things, that they are advertising lies when they say the WHO and American authorities say fluoridation is completley safe and there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

Individuals and corporations who make such outrageous misrepresentation of facts are certainly accountable. The idea is to put them on notice that politicans even with parlimentary privelage are not totally exempt as some would like to believe and precedents have been made.

There is no doubt that Mr Robertson and Ms Bligh are the main proponents of enforcing fluoridation. At least Beattie was contemplating some form of community vote.

I am currently networking with other professionals, particularly lawyers, working on more legalistic aspects before a more substantive approach/ action towards Mr Robertson and Ms Bligh.

Good for you, Whiskers. I'd be one of thousands who really appreciate your efforts.

Knobby22 said:

Can anyone point me to any scientific studies or any other basis beside assertion? At present there only seems to be crackpot argument.

Click to expand...

knobby - that is exactly the problem - virtually no studies from either side of the argument and that is why most european countries specifically ban placing it in drinking water

for the pro side of the debate - show us how harmless it is by putting a teaspoon of this S6 poison in your tea or coffee - it has a sweetish taste so is quite palatable.......

how do I know it is sweet? - I have tasted just a few grains and was quite ill with a serious headache and nausea for the next few hours

Hi Julia,

I hope this info helps

http://www.aeoncp.com.au/Reverse_Osmosis_Water_Filtration.htm


Bruiser

Whiskers said:

I have made a solid complaint to the health dept as highlighted in yeti's post above. In that I have made some reference to the above, and very strenuosly objected and pointed out, among other things, that they are advertising lies when they say the WHO and American authorities say fluoridation is completley safe and there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

Individuals and corporations who make such outrageous misrepresentation of facts are certainly accountable. The idea is to put them on notice that politicans even with parlimentary privelage are not totally exempt as some would like to believe and precedents have been made.

There is no doubt that Mr Robertson and Ms Bligh are the main proponents of enforcing fluoridation. At least Beattie was contemplating some form of community vote.

I am currently networking with other professionals, particularly lawyers, working on more legalistic aspects before a more substantive approach/ action towards Mr Robertson and Ms Bligh.

Click to expand...

Great to hear Whiskers, let us know if you need any help even if just in terms of a petition etc.

as one who worked in the water treatment industry for 12 years and was compelled to tip this poison into the bulk water supply in NSW and ACT consider this
it is added to the potable water supply so that everyone gets 1 part per million - ie 1mg/L water
the fundamental assumption of the health department is that 1ppm per day is a safe dose but 1.5ppm is probably not - at least for a significant number of "sensitive types"; so any high dosing variances (they happen reasonably often) must be reported to the health dept by the water treatment plant operator (but not to the public)
the next fundamental assumption is that we all will consume 1l/water per day summer and winter
it is not hard to work out that if you actually drink fluoridated tap water that even in winter most people consume much more than this as the same health authorities tell us we should drink 6-8 250ml glasses a day - add to this tea and coffee, cordials, garden produce watered with Fl2 water and then add more to cooking etc etc etc and your daily dose is nearer 3+ppm

scarey stuff

Bruiser said:

Hi Julia,

I hope this info helps

http://www.aeoncp.com.au/Reverse_Osmosis_Water_Filtration.htm


Bruiser

Click to expand...

Thanks, Bruiser. Consensus of quotes I've obtained for fully installed is around $1000 for undersink model. The government should offer rebates on this imo.

treefrog said:

as one who worked in the water treatment industry for 12 years and was compelled to tip this poison into the bulk water supply in NSW and ACT consider this
it is added to the potable water supply so that everyone gets 1 part per million - ie 1mg/L water
the fundamental assumption of the health department is that 1ppm per day is a safe dose but 1.5ppm is probably not - at least for a significant number of "sensitive types"; so any high dosing variances (they happen reasonably often) must be reported to the health dept by the water treatment plant operator (but not to the public)
the next fundamental assumption is that we all will consume 1l/water per day summer and winter
it is not hard to work out that if you actually drink fluoridated tap water that even in winter most people consume much more than this as the same health authorities tell us we should drink 6-8 250ml glasses a day - add to this tea and coffee, cordials, garden produce watered with Fl2 water and then add more to cooking etc etc etc and your daily dose is nearer 3+ppm

scarey stuff

Click to expand...

Very true treefrog.

An important point that should not be forgotten is that fluoride doesn't evaporate off, it concentrates in the residue as the water steams off. It is not difficult to see how one could get double or tripple the concentrations of fluoride in hot cooked food.

Research in the US also found that juices, soft drinks, energy drinks and particularly baby food made from chicken had in many cases 1ppm or more, up to 6.8ppm fluoride. http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-concentrations.data.htm

There are so many individual variables that make the reason for fluoridation an indiscriminate mess in terms of individual doseage.

The single most obvious is that the target group with poor dental health, probably consume a higher amount of soft drinks and incorrectly start feeding their babies on sugared juices far too early. When you consider that these drinks already contain high fluoride levels that equate to at least 1ppm fluoride, according to the fluoride arguement, they should have better teeth than those who eat healthy and consume more (unfluoridated) water.

Often a little logic goes a long way. It is generally accepted that only 1% of water is consumed, so 99% of fluoridation is just urban industrial waste disposal.

Oh, and most of it eventually washes back into our water courses and ocean and contaminates the marine life. Fluoride levels in fish was recorded from 2 to 4.5ppm fluoride.

PS: I'll remember, thanks spottygoose.

As mentioned at the beginning of this thread I had grown up not thinking much about fluoride, and it wasn't until I followed up on some of the posts on this thread that I started hearing alarm bells... like the line in the Qld TV adverts, that 'there is no credible evidence that it [fluoride] causes ill health'

I will come back to that later, but for now while I personally haven't checked all the data sources that Qld gov refers too in their advertising propaganda material, I am far more inclined to believe the information presented in the following open email.

> OPEN LETTER ( #1 ) TO THE PREMIER AND MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSLAND
> PARLIAMENT, THE QUEENSLAND PUBLIC AND MEDIA
>
> Lies, damn lies and misleading water fluoridation statistics.
>
>
> Dear Premier
>
> On Dec 5th 2007 you announced you had made the decision to mandate water
> fluoridation in Queensland. At that time, you made claims that Queensland
> children had "the worst teeth in Australia" and that children from
> fluoridated "Townsville had up to 65% less decay than children from
> Brisbane".
>
> Premier, it appears that you have been wrongly, or, misleadingly advised.
>
> The 65% less decay in Townsville that you claim is data from 1991 and the
> 65% less decay in Townsville relates to a tiny 0.2 of a single tooth
> surface average less. Your claim is misleading and cannot be justified
> when all of the last 3 Queensland Children's surveys published (data for
> years 2000, 2001 and 2002) clearly show that Townsville children have more
> decay in their permanent teeth than children from North Brisbane, the Gold
> Coast and several other Qld Health Districts that do not have water
> fluoridation. At best, Townsville is in the middle, it is not better or
> significantly worse than any other area in Queensland.
>
>
> If Fluoride ingested in water made a real difference to decay, the longer
> it was consumed, the more difference there would be.
>
> After drinking fluoridated water for 12 years, Townsville children have
> more decay, or the same amount of decay, as children who have not consumed
> fluoridated water; obviously then ingesting Fluoride isn't justified.
>
> The latest National Children's Dental survey (2002 data) was just released
> on 17th Dec 2007. This survey shows that with less than 5% of the
> population drinking fluoridated water, children from Queensland have
> slightly less decay in their baby teeth than children from the Northern
> Territory which has 70 % of its population drinking fluoridated water.
>
> This new survey also shows Queensland children have less decay in their
> permanent teeth than children from the ACT ( 100 % fluoridated ) and they
> have an average of only a twentieth of a tooth more decay than children
> from Tasmania ( 83% fluoridated ) . Qld children and adults do not need
> or want fluoride in their water!
>
> Premier, forced mass medication can NEVER be justified. To try and
> justify it on the misleading claims put forward by your advisors is
> extremely unethical.
>
> There will be a rally to protest forced mass medication by fluoride
> chemicals in our water.
>
> Dear Premier,you are invited you to address the rally at 9am, Tuesday 12
> th February outside Parliament House,George St.
>
> Yours faithfully, Merilyn Haines spokesperson for Queenslanders Against
> Water Fluoridation Inc ( QAWF Inc )
> media contacts 0418777112 info@qawf. www.qawf.org
>

Click to expand...

treefrog said:

as one who worked in the water treatment industry for 12 years and was compelled to tip this poison into the bulk water supply in NSW and ACT consider this
it is added to the potable water supply so that everyone gets 1 part per million - ie 1mg/L water
the fundamental assumption of the health department is that 1ppm per day is a safe dose but 1.5ppm is probably not - at least for a significant number of "sensitive types"; so any high dosing variances (they happen reasonably often) must be reported to the health dept by the water treatment plant operator (but not to the public)
the next fundamental assumption is that we all will consume 1l/water per day summer and winter
it is not hard to work out that if you actually drink fluoridated tap water that even in winter most people consume much more than this as the same health authorities tell us we should drink 6-8 250ml glasses a day - add to this tea and coffee, cordials, garden produce watered with Fl2 water and then add more to cooking etc etc etc and your daily dose is nearer 3+ppm

scarey stuff

Click to expand...

Treefrog,

Did the drums actually have Poison labels on them as well?

It's great to see some reality finally come into this Thread...

I`m for the letter which would come under the ADWG of which I just perused.

1.4 Community consultation

The ADWG are intended to provide consumers with safe and aesthetically pleasing water and ultimately it is consumers who will be the final judges of water quality. It is vitally important that consumers are viewed as active partners in making decisions about drinking water quality and the levels of service to be adopted.

Click to expand...

Copy of further letter to the Premier:

OPPOSED TO FORCED FLUORIDATION?.......PLEASE SEE BOTTOM OF EMAIL
> OPEN LETTER ( #2 ) TO THE PREMIER AND MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSLAND
> PARLIAMENT, COUNCILS, PUBLIC AND MEDIA
>
> Dear Premier
>
> On the 20 April 2005, you and 38 current Labor Party MPs voted
> against Jean-Paul Langbroek's Private Members Bill for mandated water
> fluoridation.
>
> According to Hansard these are the 39 Labor MPs who have previously
> voted against mandated water fluoridation ~
>
> Julie Attwood, Anna Bligh, Michael Choi, Peta-Kaye Croft, John
> English, Gary Fenlon, Simon Finn, Andrew Fraser, Carolyn Male, Andrew
> McNamara , John Mickel, Jo-Ann Miller, Michael Reynolds, Neil
> Roberts, Stephen Robertson, Robert Schwarten, Desley Scott, Kerry Shine,
> Christine Smith, Judy Spence, Barbara Stone, Karen Struthers, Carryn
> Sullivan, Craig Wallace, Rod Welford, Dean Wells and Geoff Wilson.
>
> Although some of these members spoke in favour of water
> fluoridation, all rejected the Bill, many saying it was because of the
> process of forcing fluoridation.
>
> The Local Govt Assn in 2005 commissioned a survey on water
> fluoridation which reported that 73 % of respondents favoured
> fluoridation.
>
> This result was not unexpected because it was a push poll that
> employed a leading preamble and a leading question, but even despite this
> the survey found ~
>
> * 64% of people want a state-wide referendum
> * 56 % of people said a local referendum should be mandatory before
> fluoridation commenced locally
>
> As Constituents have shown they want a Referendum, Labor MPs
> cannot vote for mandated fluoridation even if the Premier orders them to
> vote for it.
>
> Since 2005, tooth decay in Queensland children has not worsened,
> children from Qld with less than 5% water fluoridation, compare very
> favourably with children from very heavily fluoridated states; the
> latest national children's dental survey published December 2007 shows ~
>
> * Qld children now have less decay in baby teeth than children from
> the Northern Territory
> * Qld children have less decay in permanent teeth than children from
> the ACT and very similar to those from Tasmania.
>
> Since 2005 , there has still been no evidence to show water
> fluoridation is safe, but there has been many reports linking adverse
> health effects to the practice
>
> * National Research Council 2006 report " Fluoride in Drinking Water"
>
> * Lancet publication defining Fluoride as an emerging Neurotoxin
> * Chinese studies linking Fluoride to lowered IQ
> * "Cancer, Causes Control" publication linking Osteosarcoma in boys to
> water fluoridation
> * American Dental Association & Centre for Disease Control 2006
> advisories that infants under 12 months of age not consume fluoridated
> water.
>
> Premier, even if you want your family to swallow fluoride, it is not your
> right to force this on 4 million Queenslanders and it not your right to
> order all the Labor MPs to vote for mandated fluoridation. Queensland
> Members of Parliament have been elected to represent their Constituents,
> not to force fluoridation on them.
>
> Premier, you are invited to address the Rally Against Forced Fluoridation
> commencing at 9am Tuesday 12 th February, Parliament House, George St.
>
> Rally organisers Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation Inc,
> Fluoride... My Choice, Australian Fluoridation Information Network
> contact M Haines QAWF Inc mob 0418 777 112 info@qawf.org
>
> If you are opposed to forced fluoridation, It would be really
> appreciated if you could copy / paste this email and forward on to as many
> contacts as you can. We cannot afford the full- page fluoridation
> promotion ads in the Courier Mail , ads in the regional newsapers and the
> ads on radio and TV that the goverment has been doing with taxpayer funds.
>
> Please see www.qawf.org in " tools " for an easy way to email all
> 89 Qld MPs to let them know that you do not want your water supply to be
> fluoridated .
>
> Please keep watching the website for details of a " MY WILL "
> petition campaign and about the rally on the morning of Tuesday 12 th
> February. Many thanks QAWF Inc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Latest open letter.

This one is a disgustingly blatent misrepresentation. To suggest that your childs teeth will look like that without fluoridation is a clear indication of the scare mongering and deceptive length these people are prepared to go to.

I can't wait to see the source of this photo.

Simillarly, the teeth allegedly exposed to fluoridated water... I'll bet they have been touched up with whitening.

OPEN LETTER ( #3) TO THE PREMIER AND MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENT, COUNCILS, PUBLIC AND MEDIA
Dear Premier Anna Bligh

The Qld Health document shown here is criminally misleading. The appalling tooth decay as shown, is not a result of drinking water without fluoride.

We therefore call for the immediate dismissal of the Chief Health Officer Dr Jeannette Young, who must take responsibility for this duplicity.

The latest National Children's Dental Survey (pub 17 Dec 2007) in the " National Summary ", page 25 shows 75.1 % of Queensland Children aged 5 to 12 yrs, have no decay at all in their permanent teeth ( DMFT = 0 ). The Australian average is 76.9% and it ranges from 72.9% of children in the ACT having no decay, to 79.7% in South Australia having no decay in their permanent teeth. Current Queensland figures are right in the middle and are very good .

The latest national results can be found at this link http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.html

To make it plain Premier, three quarters of Queensland children ( aged from 5 to 12 yrs ) are recently and publicly documented as having NO DECAY in their permanent teeth. Queensland children and adults do not need, or want Fluoride chemicals added to their water.


The Qld Health picture "teeth without exposure to fluoridated water " is almost certainly an example of " Baby Bottle Tooth Decay " ( BBT ) which occurs when young children are left sucking on bottles of liquids containing sugars and it occurs in all other Australian states which are heavily artificially fluoridated .
It is NOT a result of having an un-fluoridated water supply as is in most of Queensland. Fluoridation cannot, prevent " Baby Bottle tooth decay "

In 2006, more than one thousand children in Adelaide had anaesthetics to remove rotten teeth ( Stateline South Australian 20/7/2007) SA has only 8% of Australia's total population but 90% of the residents of South Australia have a fluoridated water supply ( NHMRC 2007 ). Fluoridation does not prevent BBT.

Dear Premier it is no wonder the Health Dept is in such a mess when untruthful, unethical, misleading publications like this, are allowed to be put out by senior Queensland Health public servants.

Premier, we call for you to dismiss the Chief Health Officer and to refer this matter to the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

Premier, we invite you to address the " Rally Against Forced Fluoridation " commencing 9am Tuesday 12 th Feb, Parliament House, George St

Authorised by M Haines on behalf of Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation Inc contact info@qawf.org mob 0418 777112 www.qawf.org

Click to expand...

Kimosabi said:

Treefrog,

Did the drums actually have Poison labels on them as well?

It's great to see some reality finally come into this Thread...

Click to expand...

yes they were/are still labelled toxic sustance S6

fluoride dosing and storage romms are VERY strictly controlled and almost every teaspoonful must be accounted for - if it was generally available (1 teaspoon of the powder is fatal), rat poison, arsenic etc would be readilly used to bump off whoever we didn't like -

not hard to envisage the post mortem - "appears to have consumed too much tap water" -

unfortunately often is that many a true word spoken in jest

but is very potent and very controlled

Whiskers said:

Latest open letter.

This one is a disgustingly blatent misrepresentation. To suggest that your childs teeth will look like that without fluoridation is a clear indication of the scare mongering and deceptive length these people are prepared to go to.

I can't wait to see the source of this photo.

Simillarly, the teeth allegedly exposed to fluoridated water... I'll bet they have been touched up with whitening.

Click to expand...

Whiskers, do you know where those photographs have appeared? i.e. how widely circulated has this phoney and misleading rubbish been?

Julia said:

Whiskers, do you know where those photographs have appeared? i.e. how widely circulated has this phoney and misleading rubbish been?

Click to expand...

Merilyn says they were sent by an official Qld Health source. Haven't been able to find copy on internet yet. Just don't know yet whether it was meant for internal department purposes, a new promotion or whatever.

Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease
Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research.


here is the link: http://mizar5.com/fluorideGumDisease.html

also - explore the website, if you are interested in keeping your teeth as you age you may pick up some stuff here

Does anyone have any proper statistics for dental decay rates in Brisbane (no fluoride) compared with Sydney which has fluoride?

My mother came from Holland just after WWII, she had perfect teeth in a non fluoridated country. Her dental health suffered almost immediately she arrived - she blames it on the water quality, and as we all know "Mother Knows Best"

Smurf1976 said:

Does anyone have any proper statistics for dental decay rates in Brisbane (no fluoride) compared with Sydney which has fluoride?

Click to expand...

Can't find anything specific to Sydney or Brisbane, Smurf.

However, the 2002 report, results from New South Wales are excluded due to a lack of representativeness of the sample as highlighted in the appendix of the report.

It should also be noted that the survey also points out that:

In all jurisdictions, children from both public and private schools are eligible for school dental services. The care typically provided by the school dental services includes dental examinations, preventive services and restorative treatment as required. However, there are some variations among state and territory programs with respect to priority age groups and the nature of services. As a consequence, there are variations in the extent of enrolment in school dental services, with some jurisdictions serving more than 80% of primary school children and others serving lower percentages.

Click to expand...

So there is a significant element of rubberiness in the figures depending on the particular states priority of health services and bias in reporting their results.

And particularly this little doozie that the Qld gov conviently ignores when praising the success of fluoridation in NSW.

Appendix A

In 1996 the New South Wales Health Department (NSW Health), through the school dental
service, implemented the Save Our Kids Smiles (SOKS) program, incorporating three main
components””oral health education, risk assessment and clinical care. A major change
accompanying the program was the move from clinic-based examinations to oral
assessments in school classrooms as the primary environment for data collection. In the clinic
better lighting and the availability of other facilities such as compressed air optimise
conditions for assessing oral health.

Between 1995 and 1996, at the time the SOKS program was introduced, there was an
apparent substantial improvement in the oral health of children in New South Wales. There
was, for example, a 44% reduction in 5–6-year-old average decay, a 57% reduction in 12-yearold
average decay, and a 12% increase in the percentage of 5–6-year-old children free of
decay experience (dmft = 0) in their deciduous teeth.

In 2000, New South Wales Health commenced a wide-ranging review of SOKS, with one
aspect being a quality assurance project aimed at assessing the reliability and validity of data
collected under SOKS assessment conditions. The technical report (New South Wales Health
Department, 2000) found that, while there were no statistically significant differences in the
reporting of missing and filled teeth between a field SOKS-style assessment and a clinical
examination, there was a persistent and statistically significant under-reporting of the
number of decayed teeth in non-clinical conditions. In deciduous teeth, the average number
of decayed teeth for the SOKS assessment was 36% lower than that collected in the clinic,
while the average number of decayed permanent teeth was 41% lower. This underestimation
of decay also resulted in a significant underestimation in the dmft and DMFT indices.

From 2001 child dental services in New South Wales were targeted towards designated
‘disadvantaged’ primary and secondary schools under the School Assessment Program
(SAP). Children were prioritised for treatment using a Child Priority Oral Health Program
questionnaire, resulting in much smaller numbers of children being seen by the school dental
service. Rather than collecting information from all children enrolled in a school dental
service, or from screening exams as had been done previously, oral health information on
children in 2002 was only captured at the point of examination of prioritised children with
designated treatment needs at school dental service clinics. This represents a serious and
considerable bias to the results of the data collection in New South Wales in 2002 given that
data was predominantly only available on children with immediate treatment needs from
targeted ‘disadvantaged’ schools.

Because of the lack of representativeness of the New South Wales results in 2002 to the state
child population for this year, data from New South Wales are not included in the Child
Dental Health Survey, Australia 2002. The implications of this change to national child oral
health statistics are significant. Given that the estimated resident population (ERP) of
children in New South Wales makes up approximately one-third of the Australian child ERP,
variations in child oral health in New South Wales have appreciable influence on national
estimates.

The changes in data collection in New South Wales from 1996 to 2000 under SOKS and then
from 2001 onwards under SAP present a challenge when interpreting time series for
Australia.

Click to expand...

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf