Cartoon from Ed Maxxey of the Fluoride Open Research Group
#fluoridation. US cuts levels and Bedford fights. Comments and international news in April
U.S. Cuts recommended fluoride level
On Monday Aprril 21st, U.S. Federal health officials Monday changed the recommended amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time since 1962, cutting by almost half the maximum amount of fluoride that should be added to drinking supplies. The Department of Health and Human Services recommended 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per litre of water instead of the long-standing range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams.
This is significant, be4cause it is the first time there has been any official recognition that fluoride causes damage, even at the so called ‘optimum’ level of one part per million. It is also the first acknowledgement that fluoride from sources other than water have to be considered in calculating safe levels for human consumption. At the same time it makes a nonsense of the ‘one in a million’ slogan from the British Fluoridation Society.
According to Dr. Boris Lushniak, the deputy surgeon general, ‘The new recommended level will maintain the protective decay prevention benefits of water fluoridation and reduce the occurrence of dental fluorosis,”
Best immediate comment : from Dr. Philippe Grandjean at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who referred to the evidence that over-exposure to fluoride might lower IQs. “Due to the importance of having the best possible brains in the future, I think that that would suggest that we be careful about the amount of fluoride that we deliver to the population in drinking water
Most predictable: a dentist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The only documented risk of water fluoridation is fluorosis, and it is primarily a cosmetic risk. Fluorosis in the milder form is not a health risk.”
The report was taken up by dozens of publications in the U.S. and elsewhere. The Guardian determined to show its current pro-fluoride stance, explained
‘…Fluoride is a mineral in water and soil. About 70 years ago, scientists discovered that people whose drinking water naturally had more fluoride also had fewer cavities….Grand Rapid, Michigan, became the world’s first city to add fluoride to its drinking water in 1945. Six years later, a study found a dramatic decline in tooth decay among children there, and the US surgeon general endorsed water fluoridation. ‘And added, referring perhaps to the CDC recommendation to lower the levels,The change announced Monday finalizes a proposal first made four years ago. The government spent years sorting through and responding to 19,000 public comments. Elsewhere, FAN comments that of these ’10,500 were from ‘an organisation opposed to fluoridation’. One wonders just what this ‘sifting through ‘process was.
Fluoride Free Bedford releases video of their fight.
Their video documents the lengthy battle with Bedford Council. It shows the doors closed in the protesters’ faces and the inability of those representing the people of Bedford – with one or two notable exceptions- to listen. There is also a rather strange sequence filmed outside a secretive and non-functioning water treatment plant. You are left with sharing the frustration of Cynthia Bagchi and the others and admiration for their sheer dogged persistence.
Fluoride Free Bedford’s 50 min video can be seen here:
Is fluoridation an election issue? One party has a policy.
The f-word was not heard in any election broadcasts or mentioned in any publicity that I saw. You need to go back ten years to find a statement that is clear, but although not in a 2015 manifesto, there is no reason to believe it has changed. Next time, the issuemay be much more in the public eye, particularly if Alan Johnson and his friends have the sort of influence they are expecting. Will we be ready? Meanwhile, this is refreshing to read in full.
Fluoridation: A threat to your health and liberty April 2003 Contact Green Party press office, 020 7561 0282, email@example.com
1.1 Green Party candidates in this year’s elections to the National Assembly for Wales and the English local authorities are campaigning to prevent the fluoridation of Britain’s drinking water – or where the local water supply is already fluoridated, to stop this. The party will take a prominent role in combating fluoridation wherever the issue might be raised.
1.2 The Green Party believes fluoridation is unsound scientifically, medically and ethically: a. There is considerable evidence that fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. b. There is considerable concern that fluoride is linked to a wide range of medical disorders. c. Fluoridation of water supplies is enforced mass medication. It is an infringement of human rights and medical ethics.
1.3 The government claims that fluoridation is a “safe and effective” way of reducing inequality in dental health despite a large body of evidence to the contrary. Fluoride is a highly toxic cumulative poison, a dangerous environmental pollutant and there is no evidence that it improves dental health.
1.4 Already, 10% of British people are involuntarily dosed with fluoride in their drinking water. Plans are to extend this initially to new regions and ultimately to the whole country.
1.5 This briefing sets out the reasons why fluoridation should be combated. Further information is provided in our report Truth Decay: Challenging New Labour’s propaganda on water fluoridation,
2. Fluoride is harmful to health
2.1 ‘Fluoride’ in drinking water is hexafluorosilicic acid – a toxic and corrosive industrial waste by-product. Fluorides are medically categorised as protoplasmic poisons, which is why they are used in commercial rat poisons.
2.2 Hexafluorosilicic acid is a “hazardous waste”. It is illegal to dump it at sea. The hexafluorosilicic acid used is also not a pure compound and is contaminated with other poisons such as arsenic and cancer-causing heavy metals like cadmium and even mercury.
2.3 Fluoride is more toxic than lead and only marginally less poisonous than arsenic. Scientific papers have argued that fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea, inhibits antibody formation in the blood and confuses the immune system. It is known to promote Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
2.4 A recent study found that in the fluoridated Republic of Ireland, 40% more people contracted bone cancer than in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. Fluoride also kills red blood cells and damages gastric mucosa. It is implicated in genetic disorders, low IQ levels in children, pre-senile dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, premature ageing and thyroid disorders and fluorides have been used to modify behaviour and moods of human beings.
2.5 Fluoride causes fluorosis. It has been found that there is more than double the rate of fluorosis is fluoridated communities than in those that are not fluoridated. Fluorosis affects teeth before they have erupted, so babies and young children are most at risk.
2.6 As fluoride consumption by human beings increases, so does the general cancer death rate. Calcium levels in the body decrease as fluoride levels rise. Fluoride increases the density of bones but changes their internal architecture. This makes bones more brittle and prone to fracture.
2.7 In Ireland, Europe’s most heavily fluoridated country, The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) Scientific Committee has confirmed that bottle-fed infants are receiving unsafe fluoride levels. The US Academy of General Dentistry has advised that in fluoridated areas parents use low-fluoride bottled distilled water or tap water with a reverse osmosis home water filtration system attached that removes most of the fluoride.
3. Fluoride doesn’t reduce tooth decay
3.1 It is now widely thought that the main action of fluoride on teeth is a topical one, i.e. at the surface of the teeth, and not a systemic one as previously thought. Large-scale studies of the official school dental data of tens of thousands of children in the USA, New Zealand and Canada have shown that there is no difference in the incidence of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
3.2 The Republic of Ireland has been fluoridated for about 40 years. Its DMFT level is worse than four countries which have no fluoridation and one which has only 10% fluoridation. Ireland’s DMFT level is only very marginally better than non-fluoridated France and Switzerland, where only one city is fluoridated. Most countries have experienced major declines in DMFT without fluoridation. Several have achieved sharper reductions in tooth decay without fluoridation than Ireland has achieved with fluoridation.
3.3 In India, a 30-year study involving the examination of the teeth of over 400,000 children found that tooth decay increased as fluoride intake increased.
3.4 In Britain, the National Pure Water Association (NPWA) has repeatedly asked the UK Department of Health to cite one scientific or laboratory study from anywhere in the world which proves that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in humans. They have failed to do so.
4. Fluoridation contravenes human rights and medical ethics
4.1 It is a standard medical ethic that no person should be forced to take medicine without their consent. However, the government’s Medicines Control Agency considers that fluoridated drinking water is not a medicine. But of course it is! – it’s a substance intended to promote bodily change supposedly to improve an aspect of health.
4.2 It is a matter of human rights that people should have control over their own bodies especially where harmful substances are concerned. It is possible that water fluoridation could be challenged under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 2000.
4.3 The Labour government has refused to sign the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, signed by 29 other European countries. Statements made in Article 5 are entirely incompatible with water fluoridation
. 5. The government’s scientific advisors aren’t being very scientific
5.1 The UK Department of Health insists that “Water fluoridation is safe and effective and no adverse effects have ever been found.” In view of the wealth of evidence available from around the world, this is astonishing.
5.2 The NHS lacks a facility for testing fluoride levels in blood and urine and therefore has no way to identify the effects of fluoride.
5.3 In 1998 Dr Peter Mansfield, Director of the Templegarth Trust, tested over 200 volunteers from the fluoridated West Midlands. He found that 60% of them were ingesting up to four times the amount of fluoride considered by the government to be safe. He sent the results to the very highest levels at the Department of Health – and was ignored.
5.4 Artificial fluoridation chemicals and fluoridated toothpaste have never been scrutinised by the Medicines Control Agency, and attempts to get them to do so have been rebuffed. The government has rejected the call for a full public inquiry into the effects of fluoridation. Meanwhile the government uses taxpayers’ money to fund the British Fluoridation Society Ltd. For many years this funding has been in excess of £100,000 a year.
6. Fluoridation harms the environment
6.1 Artificial water fluoridation is pollution. More than 99.5% of fluoride added to drinking water ends up going down the drain. Even in the case of a small country like Ireland, this amounts to 2000 gallons of hexafluorosilicic acid being released into the environment every day. One manufacturer has warned it should never be allowed to enter the environment.
6.2 To date, no environmental impact study of the effects of fluoride in the environment has been done. But the National Pure Water Association in Britain estimates that if Tony Blair were allowed to fluoridate 85% of UK water supplies, this would lead to 45-50,000 tonnes of hexafluorosilicic acid being poured into our environment every year. This would be a serious threat to plant and aquatic life.
6.3 Water fluoridation also threatens the organic food industry. Any crops irrigated with fluoridated water would be likely to fail the Soil Association’s tests.
7. Most countries don’t fluoridate
7.1 Most European governments oppose fluoridation. Some, like France, have never allowed it. Many others have abandoned it after increasing health concerns. Japan, which began fluoridation in 1952, ceased it in 1972. Countries from China to the Netherlands have banned fluoridation.
7.2 In North America, the home of fluoridation, there is growing opposition to it. Between July 1990 and March 2000, 77 American and Canadian cities either rejected fluoridation or abandoned existing schemes, some after several decades of fluoridation. From August 2002 Belgium went as far as banning the sale of fluoride tablets and chewing gum which contain fluoride after fears that the chemical may cause brittle bones.
7.3 In 1997, more than 1,000 members of the union working at the Environmental Protection Agency HQ in Washington DC voted unanimously in favour of banning water fluoridation. Even the Irish Republic is having doubts on fluoridation.
7.4 Fluoridation in the UK is based on the 1985 Water Fluoridation Act. The act was passed with only a quarter of MPs voting in favour of allowing fluoridation, while the vast majority abstained. Now Tony Blair wants to introduce enforced fluoridation by “encouraging” local health authorities to request it. He wants to compel water companies to fluoridate when local authorities call for it. Labour doubtless hopes to target areas piecemeal in order to avoid a general national debate on the issue.
8. Conclusion: Don’t fluoridate – educate
8.1 Tooth decay is caused by poor dental hygiene and excessive consumption of refined sugar products. Fluoridation doesn’t address this at all
8.2 The Green Party wants: a. A programme of education of children and adults regarding proper dental hygiene and healthy diet. boa ban on the fluoridation of drinking water. can health warning on all sources of fluoride intended for human consumption.
8.3 Green Party Assembly members and councillors will play a prominent role in opposing proposals to fluoridate water, or if their area is already fluoridated, will campaign for an end to fluoridation
Also in resources:
These articles, or links to them, are available from SWIS – just send a note via the comment box. Note most articles listed in ‘resources’ in the pastyear are also still available, even if links are shown that do not function. Just ask!
What dentists are taught about fluoride. More about this next month.
Dr Camilla Ellis Dc Do you Have fluoride toxicity? A personal statement of the effect s of toxicity, estimated to affect between 2 and 4% O of the population.
Why beavers don’t get tooth decay Interesting research with possibly wide implications.
April News Update
Hull’s health and wellbeing board is considering water fluoridation. Now, the health scrutiny commission at Hull City Council has called for all papers surrounding fluoridation to be considered by its councillors before plans are approved by the health and wellbeing board.
Neutral:Councillor Danny Brown, who chairs the commission at the Guildhall,
Pro: The health and wellbeing board, chaired by Councillor Colin Inglis, He and former Health Secretary Alan Johnson, ‘, have met dentists in the city to discuss the plans.’.
Neutral: Councillor John Abbott, a member of the scrutiny commission, said: ” We need to know what the risks are.”
Read more at http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/#8m6uMVWstS1iJSxv.99
This is the next stage in the process reported in an earlier SWIS update. It is particularly important given the likelihood of Mr Johnson being in a position to promote his plan for mass medication after the election. SWIS will offer the H&WBB some advice. Meanwhile, a petition still available to sign
Pre-tax profits at the firm employed by the Government to deliver the material used for the contentious fluoridation of the State’s water supply last year jumped by 56% to €1.16m. New figures show that pre-tax profits at Chemifloc Ltd increased by €416,776 from €744,548 to €1.16m in the 12 months to the end of last December.
The firm has the contract to deliver the hydrofluosilicic acid from a source in Spain that is required for the fluoridation of the State’s water supply. Between 2009 and 2013, the State spent €9.7m on supplying the hydrofluosilicic acid.
From the Fluoride Action Network
According to a relatively new report by the pro-fluoridationists, the Fluoride Action Network and fellow campaigners are dominating the online fluoridation discussion: http://www.masscoalitionfororalhealth.org/files/2009/06/CWF-Internet.pdf Their response–spend $500,000 to buy online support: http://www.ada.org/en/publications/ada-news/2014-archive/december/resolution-oks-social-media-campaign-for-fluoridation
Legislation to give local water providers control over whether to add fluoride to the water supply failed to make it out of a Senate committee Wednesday
Township, New Jersey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C55FqEoU3eI “The township will end its mass medication of the public by ending the use of fluoride in the water system,” the Mayor said in his State of the Township Address 2015. “I’ve read much data on the pros and cons of putting fluoride in our water system. I just believe it’s the time to end this.”.
(Video app 3 min in)
CARL JUNCTION, MO
Councilors in Carl Junction, Missouri voted to end fluoridation this past week after considering a number of concerns they had regarding the effectiveness and safety of the practice. The community, which is home to approximately 8,000 residents, started fluoridating the water supply in
Concord voters on Sunday flushed a plan to remove fluoride from the town’s drinking water.The fluoride ban was proposed by resident Shelley Moors, who claimed fluoride causes health problems. Her idea was presented as a “ clean water resolution” (Article 34) during Town Meeting Sunday. The measure failed to pass. Concord’s Board of Health opposed Moors’ proposal.
Here is the result of a poll attached to the report that suggests the measure should have had more support, (even allowing for the 1 vote from SWIS).
Do you agree with the decision to keep fluoride in Concord’s drinking water?
Yes 29.85% 177 votes)
No 70.15% (423 votes)
On a vote of 7-2, the City Council approved allowing residents to say whether they want the city to continue adding fluoride to Gloucester’s water system. The question, will read, “Shall the public water supply for domestic use in the city of Gloucester continue to be fluoridated?” Voters will check off “yes” or “no.”
The vote followed extensive discussion by the council on the wording of the question and whether or not it should be on the ballot at all.
Efforts by Greenwood to fluoridate its drinking water as mandated by the state are moving forward
In 2011, Arkansas legislators passed a law requiring water systems serving 5,000 or more customers to fluoridate their public water when funding became available. Like other cities, Greenwood is using a grant from the Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation to fund the fluoridation effort. The fluoridation law, Act 197, affects 34 Arkansas water systems, according to the Arkansas Department of Health. The city of Fort Smith is preparing to fluoridate its drinking water in early 2016.. City voters turned down fluoridation twice in popular votes in the 1970s and in 1992.
– The Board of Health will discuss public water fluoridation Thursday (April 9) but is unlikely to take a vote on the practice that has been in place since 1970, an official said.
The city has been fluoridating water since 1970 under Board of Health order. Fluoridation costs $30,000 a year at Holyoke Water Works, officials have said.
In a meeting with the City Council Public Safety Committee April 1, city staff attorney William Newcomb said three ways exist for the city to stop fluoridation of public water:
–The city Board of Health can be asked to lift the 1970 requirement that water be treated with fluoride to promote dental health;
— the city can seek special legislation to stop fluoridation;
–10 percent of registered voters can petition for a binding ballot question to be held, but that option is available only upon an order to increase the amount of fluoride in the water supply and the petition must be filed within 90 days of the publication of such an order.
The Public Safety Committee discussed fluoridation with health and water officials and tabled the item so councilors can study information presented that night and see what happens at the Board of Health meeting, Chairwoman Linda L. Vacon said
April 11. — A new call for Missourians to take a second look at what’s in their water has some concerned about what they’re drinking.But now, more and more Missourians are questioning why the chemical is in our water supply in the first place.
Over the past five years, seven cities and towns in the Show-Me-State have removed fluoride from their municipal water systems, and a half-dozen more have put the matter to vote.
Oak Bluffs. Martha’s Vneyard
A large majority of voters voted in favor of continuing to add fluoride to the town water supply. The vote was 281 in favor of ceasing fluoridation and 646 against; the question was non-binding. The town has been adding fluoride to the town water supply since 1991, and is the only town on the Island to do so – See more at: http://vineyardgazette.com/news/2015/04/16/oak-bluffs-says-yes-fluoride-west-tisbury-says-no-spending?k=vg553fb4cebd63c#sthash.mF0oSDna.dpuf
More than a dozen people shared their opinions during a Tuesday night public hearing on a proposed law that would fluoridate the City of Oneida water supply.
About two-thirds of the local residents who spoke opposed fluoridation. Among them was Elizabeth Carnevale of Oneida, who was a school nurse for the Oneida City School District for more than two decades. Extracts from:
A new controversy is polarizing the residents of Rifle as the city contemplates adding fluoride to their drinking water.Mayor Randy Winkler said the city has received numerous letters from people speaking out both for and against local water fluoridation. He said the public debate is so strong, the final decision may have to go to a vote on the 2016 ballot.
“Right now, it’s split right down the middle as far as our input we’re getting,” said Winkler.
Rifle is in the middle of construction of their new regional water treatment plant, and thus directed staff to to analyze the costs of adding a fluoridation process into the new facility’s plans.The mayor said the City of Rifle previously did add fluoride to their water before 2005, but when the fluoridation processes broke down at the water treatment plant, the city council at the time did not reinvest in the necessary machinery to continue the operation
Dr. William Hirzy, a professor of chemistry at American University,one of the nation’s leading activists against fluoridating public water supplies is expected to speak before the City Council on April 20 in Petaluma on a controversial county plan to add fluoride to the drinking water supply as a technique for reducing tooth decay in children.
For more than three years, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has been considering the idea of fluoridating the county’s water supply. Several cities within the county have formally opposed the concept, including Cotati, Sebastopol and Sonoma.
Anti-fluoride activists have held meetings at Aqus Café in the past week and have lobbied Petaluma Mayor David Glass and members of the City Council to join in opposition to fluoridating public water supplies.
Pew people know this, but..
If you want to see the sort of message that money can buy, here it is
Fluoride in Our Water: Facts You Need to Make a Healthy Choice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6affXnEnF4M
Posted: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:50 am Glouicester MA
|This video was developed by The Pew Charitable Trusts|
Extract from Canadian Telus World of Science
We have a growing number of health professionals taking a stand against fluoridation but we need more adding their name. Currently we have 9 Ph.Ds, 14 Dentists, 32 Doctors, 9 Chiropractors, 5 Former School Dental Nurses, 11 Nurses, 10 Naturopaths, 7 Homeopaths, & 36 Other Health Professionals.
Here is the end of a longish Canadian article, containing most of the usual stuff and few conclusions. I liked the suggestion of further reading added by the journal at the end.
Fluoridation is a sticky subject and I am still chewing over what I think about all this. Some people dislike having choices made for them about their health and people can differ in how they weigh risks and benefits when making decisions. What about you? What do you think about fluoride?
If you liked this article, you might also enjoy reading, “The Effects of Grapefruit on the Brain.“
Discussion of ceasing fluoridation of the town water supply has returned and it looks as though council is giving it serious consideration. At their April 7 meeting, Council discussed a bylaw to repeal the bylaw giving the town authorization to fluoridate the water.
Director of legislative services Monika Ralston said this was being brought forward as per council’s wishes and was not a continuation of previous discussions.
The paper is available on the government of Alberta website and can be found through google (search Alberta Health position paper community water fluoridation).
The entire paper is nine pages
Lakeshore council is worried the province is going to force them to put fluoride in the town water. Mayor Tom Bain says the majority of the town has never had it in their water, and they don’t want to add it now. Bain says the chemical could also cause problems for the town’s food processing plants.
Provincial officials have hinted regulations forcing municipalities to include fluoride in water could be coming.
Health Minister Jillian Skinner has slammed celebrity chef Pete Evans for promoting fluoride-free water, saying he is putting people’s health at risk with his extreme views on diet and lifestyle after he revealed his family also steers clear of consuming Australian tap water.
‘I’m highly disappointed that they would use a platform of cooking. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045355/NSW-health-minister-slams-celebrity-chef-Pete-Evans-know-opposing-fluoride-water.html#ixzz3YcmMapY1 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Published on 7 Apr 2015
CHANNEL 7’s FLUORIDE DEBATE was broadcast at the end of its Queensland news on Good Friday evening, 3 April. It included thjis intelligent exchange:
Wellings: “…Queensland is the most anti-fluoride. Twenty-four councils have recently voted to reject it from their town’s water supply. “
Foley: “There will always be conspiracy theory fringe groups. There will always be people opposed to water fluoridation, vaccinations, people who believe in fake moon landings.” Woman dentist: “I think it’s unfair for people who oppose fluoride to be, or fluoridated water, not necessarily fluoride, to be labelled as nutters because we’re far from that.”
New South Wales
Protesters blockade a new fluoride station near Corndale.
A ROSEBANK anti-fluoride activist has promised more protests and blockades similar to yesterday’s action at the entrance to the Corndale fluoride dosing plant.
About 20 people protested at the Arthur Rd site during the arrival of heavy equipment to finish construction of the plant.
Corndale is one of four being built which will complete the fluoridation of all of Ballina, Lismore and Richmond Valley councils’ water supplies.
includes short videoFluoridation is poor public health policy
I would think that the small group of protesters against the water fluoridation plant at Corndale represent many thousands in the community. Most people cannot take the time to go way out bush and spend a day trying to blockade machinery.
In all my years of working in community health services I came to know what makes a good health promotion program. Water fluoridation is the exact opposite of sensible policy.
Good policy educates and empowers people to make better choices for their own health. Fluoridation simply dumps a chemical into the tap water of everybody. It does nothing for anyone’s health awareness.
In fact fluoridation of your water imposes a great burden upon all of those water consumers who are chemically sensitive to that type of material, and those who wish to have the cleanest water possible for their bathing, drinking and cooking
Lismore, New South Wales
Up to 20 protesters held placards and rallied outside the office of Rous Water in Lismore against what they see as the “mass medication” of the region now that Rous Water is set to add fluoride to the mains water supply sometime after July. Protesters also argue that their right to clean and healthy drinking water have been taken away.
Kyme Lavelle general manager with Rous Water met with the protesters. “We are complying with a direction issued by the state government,” he said.
But protesters take heart from Queensland where 24 councils have rejected putting fluoride in their water after the state government gave the power over water supplies back to local authorities in 2013.
Fluoride Free Auckland will again be active at the Auckland Go Green Event on the 18th & 19th of April at the ASB Showgrounds, Greenlane. Fluoride Free Auckland volunteers will be joined by Dentist Dr Lawrie Brett to continue the campaign to End Fluoridation in Auckland and New Zealand. Dr Brett will be speaking at 1pm on Saturday and Sunday 2:30pm at the event. Come along and bring your questions.
Fluoride Free Auckland will be at the Auckland Go Green Event this weekend at the ASB Showgrounds, Greenlane. Dentist Dr Lawrie Brett will be speaking at 1pm on Saturday and 2.30pm on Sunday. Lawrie is one of many NZ Health Professionals Against Fluoridation.
This is nn intersting, probably incomplete, list reported by FF New Zealand of media articles that reported on Kent University Thyroid Study.
‘This story has swept the media in other fluoridating countries in the first two days, but only one report on the fluoridation-thyroid study was reported in New Zealand. Its headline is in stark contrast to the headlines around the world.
Radio New Zealand Scientists dismiss fluoride fears’ –
The Yorkshire Post, Fluoride in water increases risk of thyroid illness ‘by 30 per cent -Boots WebMD (Boots is the largest pharmacy in the UK), Scientists call for rethink on fluoride in water
Energy and Environment Magazine
As a post-script we can add
Dreadful example of one line of (sort-of) news, and the rest propoganda. Strange that the recommended amount of water varies from town to town. I wonder if the cirtizens know: ?http://news.asiaone.com/news/mailbox/review-water-fluoridation-policy
Added to the many reports of the changes in US permitted levels, FF New Zealand sieze the opportunity to issue a press release: which ends:
New Zealand has similar rates with the Ministry of Health’s 2009 Oral Health Survey also finding 40% in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. New Zealand studies that looked specifically at dental fluorosis found around 15% in nonfluoridated areas and 30% in fluoridated areas, a clear sign that fluoridation itself is causing 15% of children in fluoridated areas to develop dental fluorosis.
… “Fluoride is a toxic substance and there is absolutely no bodily requirement for it. What we are seeing is that fluoride is damaging teeth not protecting them. The question also becomes what it is doing to the rest of the body? ” says Ms Byrne….“Fluoridation is following smoking, leaded petrol, asbestos and 245T. We are one of only a handful of countries that still have fluoridation, let’s not earn the embarrassing status of being the last”
Singapore adopted fluoridation of our drinking water in 1954, as part of public health intervention to lower tooth decay for our children . It is time for the Ministry of Health to review the appropriate and safe level of fluoride in our water supply, and to reconsider if Singapore should continue with its water fluoridation. When fluoride is supplied via drinking water, there is no control over the amount of fluoride actually consumed, which might lead to excessive consumption. – See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/mailbox/review-water-fluoridation-policy#sthash.tlLe6RwM.dpuf
China rejects tea from Kenya over high fluoride levels
By Staff | Business Daily, Kenya
16 April 2015
The Chinese government has rejected most of Kenya’s tea leaves over high fluoride content, erecting yet another road block on Kenya’s bid to grow its earnings from tea exports.
Officials at Kenya’s tea directorate say the rigorous checks introduced by Chinese regulators seeking to curb entry of high fluoride content tea into their market has significantly cut exports to the Asian nation.
“We have not yet “We are pursuing the matter with the relevant authorities so that we can sort out the issue soon since China provides a huge market for our tea,” Ms Kimenyi told the Senate committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries that visited the Mombasa tea auction on Tuesday.
China is regarded as a potential high-volumes market for Kenya’s tea. In 2009, Kenya exported 918,140 kilogrammes to the populous Asian market, rising over the years to 1,305,781 kgs by 2012.
These exports have since plunged to 922,828 kgs in 2013 and 935,600 kgs in 2014, following the introduction of the new standards, said Ms Kimenyi.