June 26



 26  JUNE  2016 Ref: 625


This is the third of four weekly editions of the pilot series for the UKFFFA 

Resources and Features


This week the ‘Resource’ section  of the News comprises a variety of items that hopefully will answer a little of what you have always wanted to know about  fluoridation.

Does fluoridation affect social inequalities?

Who is supplying the UK with fluoridating chemicals?

And what has Ciprofloxacin to do with fluoride?





The claim that  fluoridation reduces inequalities is made so frequently that it might be worthwhile  putting together some  well-established or authoritative contributions to the topic.

First, this is the answer on the SWIS website, question 13 of ‘Twenty frequently unanswered questions’

For all ‘unanswered questions’ follow tab on the top of this page or go to  http://safewaterinformation.org/page-1/151-2/


What is the best evidence that fluoridation does, or does not, contribute to reducing inequalities in health?

 The following was the result of the 2003 U.S. National Survey of Children’s Teeth looking specifically for evidence that fluoridation removes inequalities.  

 The  graph of the 2003 national US survey shows the  % of low income residents with good teeth, and that of higher income with good teeth, are both exactly the same in areas with 100% fluoridation and those with none.

equalityThe graph  shows clearly that fluoridation does nothing for removing inequalities


1.2.  The York Review

 A statement from the York Centre for  Reviews and  Dissemination  in 2003 and available on their York University site corrected misrepresentations of the review and states

The evidence about reducing inequalities of health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.

Professor Sheldon had quoted the same source . Here are some extracts  from the published review itself.  (I have their report on file and their permission to reproduce it, which I did to the Portsmouth panel that then voted against a feasibility study.)

 Section 6:Determination of whether fluoridation results in a reduction of caries across social groups and between geographical locations bringing equity begins:

 No level A studies, and very few level B studies for Objective 3 were identified by the search.  Because the issue of social class effects of water fluoridation was considered highly important, studies of any level that were conducted in the UK were included.

 Detailed sections demonstrated that regardless of the extent of fluoride in the water, children in areas of  social deprecation, or of lower class (Class IV  compared with Class I and II) had more caries (dmft/ DMFT)  and the number of caries-free children  was less. There were very varied results and their report again stresses

All except two of the studies investigating the association between caries experience, water fluoridation and social class were of evidence level C

 And was not consistent among age groups

( from 6.2)         …data from 5-year-old children suggest that water fluoridation is leading to a decrease in dmft across the social classes and reducing the inequalities in dental health between the social classes.  However this trend is not seen in the other age groups.  It may be a finding peculiar to the younger age group or it may be because only a very small number of studies were included in the older age groups

… 6.4 final paragraph p.33 The small quantity of studies, differences between these studies, and their low quality rating, suggest caution in interpreting these results.  There appears to be some evidence that water fluoridation reduces the inequalities in dental health across social classes in five and 12 year-olds, using the dmft/DMFT measure.  This effect was not seen in the proportion of caries-free children among five year-olds.  There were not sufficient data for the effects in children of other ages to be investigated fully.


From Doug Cross as part of his comments on the statistics  used in the Torque and Kennedy report comparing social derivation and fluoridation as factors in differing decay rates. ( see SWIS News, April)

As far as calling bad teeth an inequality, that’s correct. But inequalities exist everywhere, until we get around to hitching up our priorities to deal with them. But there’s another aspect of fluoridation that is of far  more ethical concern.

We can actively do something to try to reduce the inequality of having bad teeth, by adding fluoride to the water. (No comment!) But as a direct causative result, more people will get another condition that causes them grief and embarrassment  – yep, ‘dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern’.

So by fluoridating water supplies to protect a few disadvantaged kids amongst us we actually create a new inequality for a greater number (York said an average of one in eight) within the entire population, whether they be deprived or not.

And that consequence is no longer an inequality – it becomes an inequity – a lack of justice – that only happened because we did something to cause it. And causing harm – negligently or otherwise – by what we do is a completely different concern to some kids having naturally bad teeth


2   Where is it all coming from?


Joy Warren reports

From 1st January, a UK-based company, Industrial Chemicals Group Ltd, is supposed to have started to supply the acid H2SiF6 to the five English fluoridating water companies for the next five years.

I say “supposed” because in a few parts of the West Midlands, the levels of fluoride have dropped to background levels.

Now, it could be that ICGL is sourcing the acid from China or some other part of the World and it could be that this acid does not comply with BSEN 12175.  In which case, it cannot be delivered to the water companies since they do not have the facilities to alter the composition of the acid in order to bring the contaminants down to below max. allowable.  It could also be the case that the water companies are using to exhaustion the acid provided by YARA UK before they take delivery of ICGL’s acid.  It could also be possible that ICGL has not yet taken delivery of any acid from its suppliers.

The company operates out of Grays in Essex but also has 4 other plants throughout England: West Thurrock on the banks of the River Thames, Selby in North Yorkshire, Widnes near Liverpool and Newcastle. There is also a plant in Louisiana.

 YARA UK, the previous supplier, did not have its contract renewed. The fluoridating acid is not listed on the company’s website as being a deliverable, that may suggest that the company  does not have any experience of handling H2SiF6

 However, checking the ICG websithttp://www.icgl.co.uk/  shows ‘water treatment ‘ as an activity but  HFSA is not in their product list  and does not come up if you enter ‘fluoride ‘ in their search box. Presumably this means that it is a new venture for them. Or perhaps, like YARA, they have some other reason for not listing it.


Snippet forwarded by Ann Wills from Daily Mail

May 17.  Within 4 days of being prescribed Ciprofloxacin antibiotic, hospital pharmacist Jane Allen found that every joint, muscle & bone felt like they were on fire.  One of the side-effects listed is neuropathy (nerve-pain.)  Other side-effects include eyesight problems.  She developed pins & needles & numbness in her hands & couldn’t hold a cup.  It is one of a family of antibiotics, known as fluoroquinolones (which contain fluoride.)  –

 Edward Priestley comments:

All the 100’s of prescribed drugs which contain fluoride are extra dangerous, because the fluoride increases the potency of other chemicals in the drugs, such as benzene, Typically fluoride increases the potency of drugs by about 10 times, so only about one tenth of the drug is needed to have a given effect. This is all documented in books on pharmacology by Oxford University etc & has been for many years.


Finally a question from Fluoride Free Water in  Ireland answered by Ann Wills should be of general interest

I have been asked if there are any test results for the levels of toxic-fluoride (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid H2SiF6), in Irish products and drinks made up with fluoridated water in Ireland. ” If any country exports products made with fluoridated water, to  worldwide consumers and to countries which ban fluoridated water, is there  a risk of consumers in those countries which don’t fluoridate drinking water, getting doses of toxicity from the fluoride-compounds in the artificially treated water in the products,  (either the sodium-fluoride, or the hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6)  which is currently used in Ireland,  which contains, lead, arsenic and mercury?”

Yes, that’s a very good question, because if some people want to avoid drinking fluoridated water, they may also be concerned about whether a processed food product is made up using fluoridated water.   Many manufactured foods contain added water, such as soups, bread, beer etc.  Ireland was concerned about whether the fact that their country is fluoridated would hinder their exports of dairy products etc.   Below is an item from 2014 which I think Doug Cross provided facts about, which never seemed to be mentioned by the authorities etc. Here’s an extract of a letter at that time.  Ann.

EC Regulation 1925/2006  lists all the chemicals that are authorised to be used to add a ‘mineral’ to any food.  This Regulation allowed them to continue to use chemicals other than sodium & potassium fluoride to add the so-called ‘mineral’ fluoride to foods until 19th January 2014.    After that, all further use of any unregistered substance – including fluorosilicic acid – was absolutely prohibited.   Since our government failed to apply for derogation before the January 2010 deadline, they missed the boat.    The legal & commercial implications are enormous.   Any EC Member State can now refuse to allow the import of any food that has been prepared – or even just washed – with fluoridated water during its processing.  This includes a potential ban on any foods from outside the EC – Australia, New Zealand, USA & any other countries that allow the contamination of public water supplies with this illegal ingredient.  Details on: www.ukcaf.org    It would damage our food industry & economy if our foods cannot be exported to the EU because they are processed with fluoridated water.



And  a Useful resource of you-tube videos




Windsor, Ontario

June 17

The following contribution is part of the current battle to reverse the process of abandoning fluoridation ion Canada. Below is the first part of a long artricle full of good reasoning. Its publication  is  followed by another battle with the trolls. As always,the full article is available from SWIS if you have any trouble following the links.



by Dr. James Winter


The Ontario government may soon require municipalities to fluoridate water — a contentious move that would reverse a direction Windsor took three years ago.

This would move decision-making away from local voters, and overturn many recent municipal government decisions to keep fluoride out of the water.

What happens if one examines this issue, not with the eyes of someone with an undergraduate degree in medicine (MD), or as a dentist who profits from applying topical fluoride treatments, but as someone trained as a social scientist, to conduct, evaluate, and teach research, with a research doctorate?

Since 2010, more than 150 North American communities have rejected water fluoridation, as many western European countries did much earlier.

Earlier this month, the city of Wakefield, England, banned fluoride. Last month it was Cornwall, Ontario.

Mainstream media and the usual powers-that-be, such as Health Departments, continue to tell us that fluoride prevents cavities and is safe to use.

They’re so committed to this idea that they’ve been medicating us with fluoride for decades, by adding it to our drinking and bathing water without our permission.

As a social scientist, it’s unclear to me what their motivations are, given the research that exists, which I have carefully examined.

Below, I will review some recent studies into the effects of fluoridation. What is very clear is that numerous studies document the serious, harmful effects of fluoride, for anyone with an open mind to see and weigh for themselves. Not all studies indicate harmful effects, but this is the way of scientific research. We base our recommendations upon the bulk of evidence.

What politicians need to know is that fluoride harms people, and as such, it is foolish and dangerous to add it to our drinking and bathing water. ….

It is apparent even from this small sample of the evidence I’ve studied that it is foolhardy and irresponsible to add hexafluorosilicic acid to the water we drink.

Dr. James Winter is a professor at the University of Windsor, who has taught research methods to graduate students, and has published many scholarly articles and books.

For more information on fluoride, see:  http://www.fluoridealert.org/

For a lengthy and extensive overview, see the article by Dr. Gary Null, “Fluoride, Killing Us Softly,” here:http://www.globalresearch.ca/fluoride-killing-us-softly/5360397

Also see: Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY

Watch a new 20-minute film on fluoridation and its effects, here:


by Dr. James Winter

 from the Windsor Independent: 



tennessee sign

Jonesborough, Tennessee

Jun 13


Article followed by a lengthy string of comments dominated by two trolls.

In preparation for the upcoming public hearing on water fluoridation, the Jonesborough Board of Mayor and Aldermen sent a survey to town residents to get more feedback from the community.

The survey, which filed into Jonesborough mailboxes last week, inform readers about the status of the board’s discussion on the matter and the upcoming public hearing. It contains a narrative signed by Mayor Kelly Wolfe that includes Jonesborough’s history with water fluoridation and encourages residents to do their own research on the matter.

Since the board brought up the possibility of discontinuing the addition of fluoride to the water supply in April, Wolfe said he and the aldermen have been receiving calls, emails and letters from concerned residents on both sides of the issue. A petition began circulating encouraging the discontinuation of water fluoridation shortly after the debate began, and some local dentists cautioned that the benefits of fluoridation shouldn’t be discredited.

Wolfe’s letter said that in light of the massive outpouring of concern from the community, residents will have another venue to express their concerns in the form of the enclosed survey in addition to the public hearing next month.

The public hearing will take place July 18 beginning at 6:30 p.m. at the Jonesborough Visitor Center.



Port Angeles, Washington

June 18

More on this bizarre story

A ballot measure to make Port Angeles a second-class city would go before voters in November 2017, according to state statute, unless the City Council votes to put it on the upcoming general election ballot, City Attorney Bill Bloor said Thursday.

Bloor, who is reviewing the legality of the Our Water, Our Choice! petition for an election, said he hopes to determine the legality of the petition and offer options regarding a possible ballot measure to City Council members by their June 28 meeting.

…The deadline for filing resolutions for the fall general election ballot is Aug. 2.

…The petition was prompted by the City Council’s 4-3 decision Dec. 15 to continue fluoridation of city water until June 2026 “in order to elect a full new City Council,” according to the petition wording.

…Our Water, Our Choice! expects that, if voters approve a ballot measure based on the petition, all council members, including those elected in November 2017, would undergo an extra election outside the regular schedule set by state law.

Petition organizer Eloise Kailin of Sequim, who is president of Our Water, Our Choice!, said Thursday that the group prefers a Nov. 8 election rather than waiting until 2017.

“The faster we get this behind us, the better everyone will be,” Kailin said.“The Fluoride Four is not wanting to ask me for my advice.”

…No city in the state has changed from a code city to a second-class city, according to the MRSC, which said the city would lose home-rule charter powers if the change is adopted.

Opponents say fluoridation of city water contributes to bone and other health problems and should be administered as a matter of choice, while proponents see fluoridation as an effective public health measure against tooth decay.
from :


Jun 17

The Amercan Dental association publicises its  collection of videos, starting with ‘ Why fluoride in your tap water  is a good thing’

Just thought you’d like to know..




New Zealand


An example of an attack that completely fails to address the question – in this case why children should limit their intake of fluoride.

Fluoride Information Group Questions ‘Dentist Group’

Monday, 13 June 2016, 12:06 pm
Press Release: Making Sense of Fluoride

Fluoride Information Group Questions ‘Dentist Group’

Recent calls for children to use full strength fluoride toothpaste have been criticised by a fringe group calling itself the Fluoride Information Network for Dentists.

Making Sense of Fluoride president Daniel Ryan says media and the public need to be aware the so-called network run by anti-fluoride dentist Stan Litras has a minimal membership and does not represent the overwhelming scientific consensus on fluoride nor the position of the vast majority of his New Zealand colleagues.

The New Zealand Dental Association has a clear position supporting water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste, and while the Dental Council allows individuals to express their own opinions, its code of ethics requires practitioners to clearly state when their opinion is contrary to that of their colleagues.

“Litras is associated with Fluoride Free New Zealand and encourages media and the public to accept his dubious statements,” says Ryan, who urges news editors to use reliable sources on fluoride rather than publicising Litras’s claims.

Ryan reiterates that the call for full strength toothpaste for children is based on sound evidence that follows Ministry of Health guidelines, which in turn echo a recent move by the American Dental Health Association to urge parents to use full-strength fluoride toothpaste as soon as their babies’ teeth come through to help prevent tooth decay.

“Tooth decay is the most prevalent health disease affecting children,’ says Ryan. “And yet it’s totally preventable when kids and their parents get reliable dental health information – including advice to brush with full strength fluoride toothpaste,“ he adds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *