Sep 29

Local Authorities    Amount billed for Water
Fluoridation revenue costs

                 (£ incl. VAT)

Bedford Borough Council 47,556.00

Birmingham City Council 189,420.89

Cheshire East Council 48,247.39

County Durham 54,349.92

Coventry City Council 138,684.31

Derbyshire County Council 9,582.91

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 117,349.30

Gateshead Council 64,454.32

Lincolnshire County Council 230,767.63

Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council 97,456.70

North East Lincolnshire Council 17,819.50

North Lincolnshire Council 92,129.88

North Tyneside Council 40,311.64

Northumberland Council 79,684.85

Nottinghamshire County Council 58,441.00

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council 107,331.16

Shropshire Council  7,752.00

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 37,714.81

Staffordshire County Council 178,566.25

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council 96,335.34

Warwickshire County Council 147,271.40

Wolverhampton City Council 76,433.75

Worcestershire County Council 179,596.66

 How fluoridation wastes money, See UK: National


26 September


Latest in the saga:

Public Health England challenged on fluoride policy,

A director for Public Health England (PHE) has said the adding of fluoride to the public water supply is now in the hands of local authorities.

Dr Graham Bickler was responding to a question from Hampshire County Council leader Roy Perry about PHE’s plans.

But centre director Dr Bickler told the South East Strategic Leaders meeting in London he would seek clarification specifically on Hampshire’s situation.

NHS chiefs agreed in 2009 to fluoridate water supplies in the Southampton area.

After an unsuccessful High Court challenge in 2011 and the abolition of the Strategic Health Authority, which was replaced by PHE in 2013, the plans are still to be implemented.

Following the takeover, PHE said it was committed to starting fluoridation in 2014, but in a new statement it said: “PHE continues to give full and careful consideration to all the relevant factors relating to water fluoridation in Southampton and South West Hampshire.

“No decision has yet been taken and PHE is committed to working constructively with both local authorities.

“Southampton City and Hampshire County councils have a central role in any progress with the scheme and Public Health England is engaged in discussions with both.”

Following Thursday’s meeting, Mr Perry said: “For months now, Hampshire has been trying to get a clear statement out of PHE to that effect and, to date, they have singularly failed to answer our questions.

“It is not just the city of Southampton that is affected by the fluoride proposal. Hampshire communities all around the city could be impacted and I know the residents of Nursling and Rownhams that I represent do not consider they have been properly consulted.

“I hope my question to PHE will now get an answer and, indeed, the formal response will say it is up to the local authorities to determine whether or not fluoride should be added.”

About six million people – 10% of the country – live in areas with fluoridated water supplies.

Opponents say the policy amounts to medicating the population without consent.

in full from BBC  news Hampshire (

 Southampton public debate

The public debate will be held on Saturday, October 4, c/o Southampton Solent University, A letter to the local Echo wandered if  PHE as successors to the SHA, will dare to send a representative.


26 September

A letter writer to the Andover Advertiser  asks:

Is the link between fluoridation, the NHS and TTIP farfetched?  You decide.

Jennifer Godschall Johnson, Balksbury Hill, Upper Clatford




Throwing taxpayers money down the drain.

Joy Warren asked the PHE about the costs of fluoridation and the authorities involved.

She comments:

“So we finally know how much the revenue costs are for England for 2013-2014 in order to keep £5½ million people fluoridated: £2,117,257. If 80% of this represents the cost of the fluoridating acid and if 99% goes down the drain without being swallowed by the target group (disadvantaged tiny tots), then £1,677,000 approx. is wasted money and only the acid purchased for £17,000 approx. reaches the target group – if we assume that tiny children drink adulterated tap water, that is.

Quite scandalous!”


1.   Please provide the names of the local authorities to whom you applied for reimbursement for fluoridation costs for FY 2103-2104 together with   the amounts requested of each local authority.  Please provide the information in tabular form showing the amounts each local authority was charged.

In accordance with regulation 5(1) I can confirm that PHE does hold some of the  information as specified in this request.  The information is in the table on the following page.

 2.   Please advise why PHE is not interested in learning the tonnage of the          fluoridating acid purchased by each fluoridating water company.

This is not a valid request for information under statutory access legislation as it  does not ask for information held.  PHE has no requirement for the information you have specified and the regulations only require a public authority to confirm or deny if  it holds information and if it does to communicate it.

 3.   Please advise why you have not asked the fluoridating water companies          to provide a breakdown of fluoridating

This is  not a valid request for information under statutory access legislation as it  does not ask for information held.  A public authority is not obliged to obtain information from other organisations in order to respond to a request for information.

 If you have any queries regarding the information that has been supplied to you,  please refer them to me in the first instance.  Under Regulation 11 of the EIR you have the right to make representations to PHE in respect of this response. Requests  for internal reviews should be submitted within 40 working days of the date of receipt of the response to your original request and should be addressed to the above  address, alternatively contact us by email

Please note that you have the right to an independent review by the Information Commissioner’s Office if a complaint cannot be resolved through the PHE  complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner’s Office can be contacted by writing to Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,  Cheshire SK9 5AF.

 Yours sincerely

 Freedom of Information Officer



A debate in the Oxford Mail with a well-known contributor.

Should fluoride be put in water to prevent tooth decay?

Should fluoride be put in water to prevent tooth decay?

24 September

YES says Iffley dentist Manuel Perez-Padron


I AM honoured to give my professional opinion to win the debate in favour for water fluoridation.

Fluoridation would reinforce the current successful strategies already in place in this country such as the Oral Health school nurseries promotion campaign.

This, alongside partnership work, is helping to improve NHS dental services both in quality and quantity and offer help to everyone in our country.

A very careful investigation and review of the strong evidence available shows and exposes an extremely serious health disease already impacting on our county’s children health and quality of life.

As a public health expert scientist and researcher my opinion has been based on the best clínical medical and dental evidence.

Therefore I ought to confirm that although the most common side effect of water fluoridation is little or mild dental fluorosis, it is in most cases not considered to be of aesthetic or public concern for those populations – especially in USA – where the vast majority of water fluoridation research has been taking place.

In addition, all studies show no clear evidence of other adverse effects and those available are of low quality research.

In conclusion my opinion is, without a shadow of doubt, that we need to encourage every single decision maker to vote for yes and to accept the overwhelming evidence to support water fluoridation.

This will help us eradicate our children’s unnecessary suffering.

Fluoridation can help to prevent tooth decay and solve such health problems and future concerns that (tooth decay) could have got even worse by the time the next dental survey takes place.

Therefore I am campaigning and advocating for the investment of the latest generation of water fluoridation technology.

This should also always be according to the minimum doses necessary to be efficient and cost effective. This is the 0.5 mg/litre suggested by the World Health Organisation.

Also, the people who drink more public water are always going to be the most deprived families.

Therefore, by fluoridating our water we will target those high risk children with worst levels of oral hygiene, higher sugar intake and poor regular dentistry attendance due to lack of family support to book appointments and attend to them as best way of prevention.



NO says Elizabeth McDonagh, spokeswoman for the National Pure Water Association.

FUORIDE is not an essential nutrient. If we do not need to ingest fluoride, there is absolutely no reason to add it to our water supplies.

The toxicity of fluoride compounds lies between that of lead and arsenic.

Earlier this year a review of developmental neurotoxins in The Lancet Neurology identified fluoride as one of a number of chemicals that could cause developmental disabilities.

Fluoride’s toxicity and the fact it’s not an essential nutrient probably explains why its level in human breast milk is extremely low.

This means that a baby drinking formula feed reconstituted with fluoridated water will be drinking up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby, significantly increasing the risk of dental fluorosis later in childhood.

Dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic fluoride toxicity and results in permanent mottling and discolouring of teeth.

A 2010 Fluoride Journal paper showed that 25 per cent of us in the UK are already getting more fluoride (from all sources) than is safe.

This figure rises to 67 per cent in fluoridated areas.

Fluoridation proponents have never shown that those at high risk of developing tooth decay in a community are receiving less fluoride compared to those at lower risk.

The authors of a 2009 Journal of Public Health Dentistry study considered the ‘optimal’ fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes.

They stated: “These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.”

Despite fluoridation having started in 1945, nearly 70 years later there is not one high-quality scientific study that shows the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water supplies to be effective in reducing tooth decay.

A high-quality scientific study would be an individual, randomised controlled trial (RCT) using coded bottled water.

A call for just this type of study came in a recent letter to the British Dental Journal.

The authors refute an earlier claim in the journal that Hospital Episode Statistics-reported rates of extraction under general anaesthesia are a useful indicator of the efficacy of fluoridation.

The Department of Health presents the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water supplies as having the properties to prevent tooth decay, which fulfils the European Union’s definition of a medicinal product for human use – “any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings” – Directive 2004/27/EC.

Water companies which administer industrial grade fluorosilicic acid to their customers are, in effect, medicating them without their individual, informed consent.

The National Pure Water Association is pleased to note that in his report to Oxfordshire County Council’s joint health overview and scrutiny committee, the Director of Public Health does not recommend fluoridation.

He outlines existing measures targeting resources towards those at high risk of tooth decay.

In full from :




Sep. 26

Last Monday morning’s Cork County Council meeting was adjourned before the issue arose, but Councillors on behalf of their constituents continue to seek the cessation of water fluoridation in Ireland.

In recent times throughout the country, public opposition has been greatest in West Cork and indeed the wider county. Since 2012 every West Cork Town Council including Bandon, Skibbereen, Clonakilty, Bantry, Macroom and Kinsale before being abolished, passed motions calling for an end to the practice, the latter 3 having done so in 2014. History was also made last March when Cork County Council, the largest in the country, unanimously passed a motion calling for the immediate cessation of water fluoridation in Ireland. Though sometime ago, Cork City Council also passed a motion back in 2001.




Martha’s Vineyard. Massachusetts

Sep 24

A largely pro-fluoridation article here

 Oak Bluffs board of health weighs ending fluoridation

 A report of the meeting itself:

Fluoridation Question Provokes Heated Debate in Oak Bluffs

 September 26

  • The question of whether Oak Bluffs should continue to fluoridate its water supply was the subject of heated debate Thursday before the Oak Bluffs board of health, with emotions running high on both sides of the issue.The question remains unresolved after Thursday’s meeting; the board did not vote and board members said they would take the issue under advisement and discuss it at the next few board of health meetings. At least one board of health member said he thought the matter should be decided by a town meeting vote.John Leite was critical of fluoride.Oak Bluffs has been adding fluoride to the water supply since 1992, and it is now the only town on the Island to do so. The discussion about eliminating fluoride began last spring. Board of health member Dr. John Campbell said he had received calls from people concerned about fluoride. The water district also advocated for removal, saying it costs the town about $15,000 a year.A June hearing about the issue was sparsely attended. But about 40 residents gathered in the Oak Bluffs library meeting room Thursday for a second hearing, with many offering comments. Some members of the public said they were concerned about risks associated with fluoride and the lack of control over what goes in the drinking water. Others, including several Island dentists, said concerns were based on misinformation and fluoride is important for public health.Mr. Campbell, the board of health member, spoke at length early in the meeting about the history of fluoride use in the United States, and argued that fluoridating the public water supply denied people the right to choose.“It’s about the relative safety or lack thereof of chlorides in our drinking water and the choices that we have on how we are or are not to be medicated,” he said.

    Board of health member John Campbell, a chiropractor, said he was concerned about the safety of fluoride and the lack of consent.

    Some in attendance made heated remarks saying that it was inappropriate for a board member to present opinion as fact during a public meeting.

    Clarissa Stead, 22, of Oak Bluffs, said she believed people should be able to decide the matter for themselves, adding that bottled drinks, toothpaste and mouthwash contain fluoride. “So if you are for fluoride, you have the option to have fluoride when you want it,” she said. Her remarks were followed by applause.

    Scott Pieringer of Oak Bluffs spoke about the health risks of fluoride, which he said is more toxic than lead and only “slightly less toxic than arsenic.”

    Those in favor of fluoridation said that major health organizations, including the American Dental Association and the World Health Organization, support fluoride in drinking water.

    Jennifer Kingsley, a biologist, cited the Center for Disease Control, which says that fluoridation is one of the top 10 advancements in public health over the last 100 years.

    Ms. Kingsley was interrupted by those who oppose fluoridation. Tensions were high throughout the meeting, and board chairman William White reminded the crowd to be civil.

    Endodontist Karen Gear said fluoride is especially important to those without access to dental care.

    Garrett Orazem, a dentist with a practice in Vineyard Haven, said he has seen a clear change in his patients’ dental health with fluoride added to the water, especially among children. “The decay rate is remarkably low,” he said. “They are still getting cavities,” he added. “But the cavities are small. They are easy to fix. They don’t make me do things that may cause trouble later.”

    Bruce Golden, an Island pediatric dentist, said he had done a Google search for fluoride. “The entire first page is anti-fluoridationists with half-truths and lies,” he said. After a few pages, he said, “you get to the science.”

    Myron Allukian, a clinical assistant professor at the Boston University school of dental medicine, joined the meeting for five minutes by phone. He said that in Boston, fluoridation has made a huge difference in the health of children. “There are still dental needs, but we have cut the extent of the disease and the amount of disease in half if not more,” he said, adding that every surgeon general since 1951 has supported fluoridation and every major reputable health organization also supports it.

    He said studies of the internet have shown “shocking” misconceptions.

    Island endodontist Karen Gear said “fluoride is extremely important” for those without access to dental care.

    At the end of the meeting, Herbert Combra said he was more confused than before the meeting began. While $15,000 was not much to spend when considering the potential benefits, he said, “I’m more confused because I don’t know who to believe.”

Posted by  Daniel G. Stockin , September 26

Former Centers for Disease Control Oral Health Manager Admits “There is a Lot of Uncertainty” Related to Kidney Patient Harm from Drinking Fluoridated Water.


September 24

In a stunning contrast to Centers for Disease Control statements assuring Americans that water fluoridation safety has been “thoroughly documented,” federal health agency documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal concerns that kidney patients may potentially be harmed by drinking fluoridated water.

The documents also highlight the issue of disproportionate harm from fluorides to blacks and hispanics.

Among the key revelations in the FOIA documents:

William Maas, the former Oral Health Director for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), admits “there is a lot of uncertainty” about how much fluoride deposits in the bones of people with impaired kidney function who drink fluoridated water.

Federal officials also chose to hide key sections of text in the FOIA documents that describe how Health and Human Services (HHS) staff responded after leading U.S. African American civil rights leaders called for a halt to water fluoridation.

For minorities, the FOIA text made invisible by federal officials is an explosive issue fueling allegations of collusion. The redacted text covers correspondence within HHS after American Dental Association officials sent a letter to U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh asking for help because the issue of fluoride harm to minorities had “the potential to gain traction.”

CDC is a division of HHS, and CDC’s own data, uncovered in the last of 23 data tables in a 2005 report, shows that blacks and hispanics have significantly more mild, moderate and severe fluoride-caused teeth disfigurement called dental fluorosis.

In addition, blacks and hispanics have elevated levels of chronic kidney disease and kidney failure, making fluoride bone harm to kidney patients in these communities an important issue.

The documents also uncover the relationship between CDC employees and the American Dental Association. In one email, CDC fluoridation engineer Kip Duchon tells ADA representative Jane McGinley,

“…since you rank as a special friend with elevated consideration, I am sharing with you (confidentially, so don’t pass on to anyone without asking me first if you can) my most recent review of this information…”

 “This is not national security. There is no reason for all the text about disproportionate fluoride harm to minorities to be redacted and kept from the press and the public,” says Daniel G. Stockin, a career public health professional known internationally on the subject of harm from ingested fluorides.

“Are they hiding improper or illegal actions? Certain specific people need to be put under oath in Fluoridegate hearings,” he says.
“I am concerned about intersecting risks: blacks and hispanics who are seniors and kidney patients,” Stockin continues. “These seniors have long term and increased accumulation of fluorides in their bones, plus all the risks to their thyroid glands and brains.”

 Fluoride harm is now a growing focus of law firms. The FOIA files were first published on the Internet at the website of a Washington D.C. law firm, Nidel Law.

Public Justice, a Washington D.C. legal organization with 3,000 affiliated attorneys, has joined with Nidel Law and the firm of Nace Paulson in arguing the first fluoride teeth disfigurement case in federal court.

Potential harm from drinking fluoridated water is being questioned from a number of angles.

A July 2014 Psychology Today blog piece, written by a gerontologist, argues on behalf of senior citizens who have no remaining natural teeth, saying that mandated fluoridation for those with no teeth evidences a “clear disregard for older adult health.” Author Mario Garrett, PhD, also points out that fluorides may help potentially harmful aluminum compounds enter the brain.

The Health Minister for Israel has also recently banned the practice of water fluoridation.

In full from: ( )

1. CDC statement that water fluoridation safety is “thoroughly documented” — see Potential Adverse Health Effects, last paragraph:
2. At Nidel Law website, Maas quote: “There is a lot of uncertainty.” See page 655 in “FOIA CDC” at bottom of page here:
3. At Nidel Law website, redacted sections of FOIA concerning harm to minorities: scroll to large numbers of redactions at “FOIA HHS Civil Rights” at bottom of page:
4. ADA letter to HHS Asst. Secretary for Health Howard Koh, concerning fluoride minority harm “potential to gain traction” – see second paragraph in letter:
5. CDC data showing disproportionate fluoride harm to blacks and hispanics: see the very last table, Table 23, concerning enamel fluorosis:
6. Blacks and Hispanics having more kidney disease:
7. ADA rep a “special friend” to CDC fluoridation engineer: see page 1846 at:
8. Fluoride harm case in federal court:
9. Psychology Today fluoridation article by gerontologist:
10. Israel health minister bans water fluoridation:

Daniel G. Stockin, MPH
The Lillie Center for Energy & Health Studies, Ellijay, GA

 Topsfield Continued:

Town meeting on September 30th to decide whethre to continiue fluoridation

 Loveland, Colorado

Sep 24

Discussion on whether to incrfease the level of fluoridation or discontinuie it. Seeminglky a small town, with no positive reporting or comments.

Loveland’s Utilities Commission will take a look Tuesday at an issue that has been pretty low on the city’s radar for the past 60 years: fluoridation of city water.


VALPARAISO North West Indiana, 

September 24

Valpo board sends fluoride recommendation to council

 VALPARAISO | The city’s Utilities Board on Tuesday voted to send to the council its recommendation to continue fluoridation of the city’s water supply.

The action follows the recommendation of the seven-person fluoride commission, which met six times between May 21 and Aug. 7 to hear information and comments for and against fluoridation before voting on its recommendation The final vote of the commission was 5 to 2 in favor of continuing the use of fluoride


Casper, Wyoming

Sep 23

The subject is the campaign to end fluoridation in Sheridan. This is the article in the local Star and Tribune

Editorial board: In defense of pro-fluoridation extremism

Sep 25

And this is the responding  sanity from the Anti-fluoridation Association of Mildura

 September 25, 2014 by afamilduraLeave a comment

The latest round of pro-fluoridation garbage:

Let’s take a closer look, shall we…

When an idea earns acclaim as one of the 10 greatest achievements of its time and is subsequently endorsed by legions of professionals and confirmed by one study after another, the general public can scarcely contain its enthusiasm for said idea, right?

“Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published. Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science” (1). As for the studies supposedly supporting fluoridation, we only need to take into consideration the conclusions of the York Review to see that this notion is severely flawed. The Review’s authors categorically stated, “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” (2).

Well, no, apparently not. The city of Sheridan’s attempt to fluoridate the municipal water supply is being stonewalled by Clean Water Sheridan, a determined group of holdouts who base their claim on a vote held more than half a century ago.

Clean Water Sheridan is certainly not alone. They are joined by most of the Western world (3) and many other communities in the US (4). Hence, many of the great cities of the world do not fluoridate their drinking water (5).

It pains us to have to rebut the utter fiction that Clean Water Sheridan espouses. Because we must, however, we will start with the notion that fluoride poisons drinking water. Then we will address the specific case of Sheridan.

You may think you are rebutting the claims, but you are doing a very poor job so far.

The very name of the group insinuates that adding fluoride makes water unclean, which is an absolutely baseless assertion. This renewed push for fluoridation in Sheridan reopens the annals of Cold War history and hysteria. In the decades since the absurd alarmism of the Red Scare and the John Birch Society, the anti-fluoride conspiracies have become no less outlandish.

There is certainly nothing “clean” about the chemicals used to fluoridate water (6), and as for the history of hysteria from non-credible whackos, this may be true of small segments, but it is only dug up when pro-fluoridationists cannot counter the arguments presented by the growing movement of well-informed citizens and professionals against fluoridation (7)(8). In fact, some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were highly credible biochemists (9), and for very good reasons that are becoming more evident over time (10)(11).

In certain quarters, fluoridation is viewed with deep-rooted suspicion. It is even paired with the similarly disproved allegations of “chemtrails” to feed the fantasy that the government is deviously plotting to poison the citizenry.

It is common for the extremists of the pro-fluoridation movement to associate informed fluoride opposition with conspiracy theories, so they don’t have to properly address the key arguments against fluoridation (12).

We could understand the susceptibility to such quackery if we lived in an unscientific society with no understanding of the realities of public health. But in a country that has an unmatched infrastructure for providing sound medical information from coast to coast, fluoridation should need no defender. Its benefits ought to speak for themselves.

Perhaps the benefits should speak for themselves, if we all lived in the fantasy world of pro-fluoridation whackoism – but in reality – the evidence of “benefit” is shoddy at best (13)(14)(15).

Fluoride is an ion of fluorine. In its elemental form, fluorine is indeed highly toxic. Soluble fluorides have some toxicity as well. Yet in appropriate doses, fluoride strengthens teeth and wards off tooth decay in human beings. That’s why fluoride is added to toothpaste.

Fluoride added to toothpaste is applied topically and then discarded, not swallowed, as happens when fluoride is added to drinking water. Pro-fluoridation extremists take great pleasure from confusing the issues of topical vs systemic fluoride (16)(17).

The widespread introduction of fluoridated water beginning in the late 1940s is now hailed as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century.

“Not a day goes by without someone in the world citing the CDC’s statement that fluoridation is “One of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century”. Those that cite this probably have no idea how incredibly poor the analysis was that supported this statement. The report was not externally peer reviewed, was six years out of date on health studies and the graphical evidence it offered to support the effectiveness of fluoridation was laughable and easily refuted” (18). It is always comical when this “10 greatest” crap (19) is extracted from the intellectual fluoridation sludge by butt-sniffing reporters and editors, desperate to appease their fluoridation puppet masters.

Among the great contradictions in medicine is the fact that a substance can be both poisonous and beneficial. Some toxins that are potent enough to kill are also potent enough to heal. The difference is in the dosage. When administered by qualified professionals, the proper dose of an otherwise terrible poison can seemingly work miracles.

This is true. Take Warfarin for example (20). However, when fluoride chemicals are added to drinking water to treat the human body, they are not being administered and overseen by qualified medical professionals, and no one is controlling the direct dose via drinking water (21), nor the total daily exposure (22)(23).

Tooth decay is one of the most common chronic illnesses in the world, and it can prove a major hindrance to childhood development. Youngsters who spend schooldays suffering through the pain of cavities and dental abscesses are hardly in optimal physical condition to learn and succeed in the classroom. For a minuscule cost, fluoridation offers families of all social and economic circumstances the gift of healthy teeth.

Actually, “the evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health [is] of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” (24).

Sheridan started fluoridating its water in 1950, making it one of the first cities in the country to do so. But in 1953, a referendum was held, and voters said no to fluoridation by a ratio of almost 3-to-1, to the detriment of their own teeth. After abandoning its fluoridation program following that election, Sheridan now wants to revive it.

Food for thought: “Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s… Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause” (25).

The city says the 1953 ballot measure was merely an advisory vote that did not obligate Sheridan to end fluoridation. Clean Water Sheridan doesn’t see it that way. Even if that position has merit, we think that an election result from the time of the Eisenhower administration has been rendered obsolete. The voters in that distant election were the voice of 1953 Sheridan, not 2014 Sheridan. Times and circumstances have changed.

Yes, that’s correct. We now have the benefit of hindsight to put the fluoridation fraud in its proper historical context (26).

Clean Water Sheridan has dropped its plans to sue, opting for a signature drive instead. “We’re treading water right now,” group member Erin Adams said. What an apt choice of expressions. We hope this idea is sunk, never to resurface again.

In your dreams! (27)(28).

In full



Peel City, Ontario

Sep 25

Woman goes to court over fluoridation

BRAMPTON, Ont. – A woman has launched a lawsuit against the province of Ontario and Peel Region, challenging the constitutionality of adding fluoride to municipal drinking water.

In a statement of claim filed Thursday in Brampton, Ont., Liesa Cianchino claims risks posed by water fluoridation greatly exceed its benefits.

Cianchino further claims that water fluoridation violates both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act.

A longtime resident of Mississauga, Ont., Cianchino is chairwoman of Concerned Residents of Peel to End Water Fluoridation.

Her claims argues that fluoride works topically on the teeth and that nothing is gained by ingesting it through drinking water.

Cianchino’s claims have not been tested in court, and representatives for Peel Region and Ontario could not be reached for comment.

“We can’t continue to allow outdated science to contaminate our drinking water,” Cianchino said.

“Our health and our environment are at risk. We deserve safe drinking water.”

The claim states more than 70 per cent Ontario residents drink fluoridated water, compared to just three per cent of the population in western Europe.

Lawsuits against fluoridating water supplies have been filed in several cities across North America in recent years.

By The Canadian Press

In full\:


Prince George, B.C.

Sep 23

The latest on the legal action against fhe St George Council

A lawsuit against the city over its practice of fluoridating the water supply is no longer a class action but rather a negligence claim and a constitutional challenge.Kootenay resident Kevin Millership, who first launched the action in March, made the changes in an amended notice of claim filed at the Prince George courthouse on Thursday.he city had attempted to get the matter dismissed because a class-action lawsuit requires formal legal representation.

Millership, a landscaper who lives in Slocan, had until Friday to secure a lawyer and, instead, amended the claim.Millership is continuing to contend the fluoride to the city water is the cause of the degenerative tooth disease dental fluorosis.

 Millership maintains one in 10 people in Prince George has “objectionable” dental fluorosis, a mottling of the tooth enamel that, in the mild form, causes paper white spots or streaks on tooth enamel, worsening to orange and brown stained teeth with pitted and eroded sections that are more prone to decay in the more severe cases.

He also claims most dental plans do not cover the cost of treatment that can range from $1,000 to $100,000 per person with treatment ongoing for a lifetime in some cases, in addition to the psychological damage sufferers face.Millership also argues the city violated legislation by starting the practice in September 1955 without taking the issue to a referendum.

He said the city stopped fluoridating its water for a time in 1998 until the provincial government granted it an exemption from holding a referendum.And Millership asserts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been violated because no referendum was held.He is seeking a court order to end fluoridation as well as costs and further relief as the court sees fit.

According to Northern Health dental program manager Brenda Matsen, studies show an increase in dental decay rates in communities where water fluoridation is removed and the practice is especially important for those who cannot afford dental care.”Tooth decay is an epidemic,” Matsen said. “It is the number one chronic disease in children and adolescents in North America. It is five times more common than asthma and seven times more common than hay fever.”

Just five other B.C. communities still add fluoride to their water – Prince Rupert, Fort St. John, Sparwood and Terrace. Williams Lake ended the practice in 2011 as did Kamloops in 2001 following referendums.A referendum on the issue will be held in Prince George during this year’s civic elections, set for Nov. 15.

 In full from



Sep. 22

 City council still can’t make up its mind on whether to add fluoride to our drinking water.






Any further comments on this rather strange case by FAN-NZ. or FFNZ will be included as they appear.

 Fluoride Ad ‘unjustifiably played on fear’

25 Sep

An anti-fluoridation website ad has been removed after it was found to have “unjustifiably played on fear”.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint about an advertisement on the Fluoride Free New Zealand website that stated doctors and dentists believed fluoride caused harm.

The advertisement said “informed doctors and dentists say keep fluoride out” and claimed swallowing fluoride was unsafe for babies, did not protect teeth and “can cause harm”.

The complainant said the advertisement offered no differentiation between fact and opinion, and was misleading.

“The advertisement shows a disregard for public awareness and plays on fear, in a scaremongering manner to urge people to stop using fluoridated products.”

The complainant also said the statement “keep fluoride out” denigrated those in the medical or dental profession who were pro-fluoridation.

In response, the advertiser referred to a previous ASA decision about the Ministry of Health’s Fluoride Facts website.

In that case, the complainant had argued the ministry had presented its findings about fluoride as fact, when the complainant believed it was “disputed opinion”.

However, the ASA found the website presented evidence-based research and no further action was required.

Fluoride Free New Zealand said the previous decision meant there was no case to answer “if we are applying the same rules to everyone”.

But in its written decision, released today, the ASA found the Fluoride Free New Zealand advertisement was likely to be misleading.

It said the claims were presented as facts but were not substantiated, and the advertisement “unjustifiably played on fear”.

The ASA ordered the ad to removed from the website.

By Nikki Papatsoumas of APNZ

In full

Also here



Sep 28

This is not new news, but it is a good reminder and puts the facts of the research clearly. Interesting to wonder why it is appearing on the Nation in Sri Lanka.

Harvard Research finds link between fluoridated water, ADHD and mental disorders






Leave a Reply

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