Fluoridation is a violation of the individual's right to informed consent to medication. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. The chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies are largely hazardous by-products of the fertilizer industry. Once fluoride is added to water, there is no way to control who gets the drug or how much is ingested. Certain subgroups are particularly affected by fluoridation.
People vary considerably in their sensitivity to any toxic substance, including fluoride. Infants, the elderly, diabetics, those with poor nutrition (e.g. low calcium and low iodine), and those with kidney disease are especially vulnerable to specific adverse effects of fluoride.

petition: stop water fluoridation on thepetitionsite
thepetitionsite.com/294/987/043/stop-water-fluoridation/

You could say very similar things about chlorination of water supplies. Both are used to control public health risks. You can't just ignore public health issues just because some misguided cretin who thinks he knows everything comes forward and talks about the hazards of fluorine, chlorine, vaccination etc.

Of course fluoridation and chlorination carry risks of their own. Just about everything we do carries risk, but the risks that these measures  address are far greater than the risks that they present. 

When was the last cholera epidemic in Australia? A long time ago, perhaps? That's a consequence of the use of oxidizing biocides in public drinking water.

When was the last Polio case or smallpox case in Australia?

What about dental health statistics? How many people have died as a consequence of poor dental health? How many people have been saved as a result of fluoridation of public water supplies? Why does the vast majority of dentists and health professionals support fluoridation? (The bastards - obviously on the take. They just become doctors so that they can get rich )

How many people have actually died as a result of fluoridation? (Use a reliable source)

While we're talking about freedom, you are perfectly free to use rainwater, or buy one of these marvellous devices called water filters, water vitalisers etc. For just $49.99 (and you get a free set of steak knives) you too can remove all the contaminants from drinking water. Just think - you'd be able to drink pure drinking water - free of chlorine, fluorine..... and of course minerals.  I understand that the flowers in your garden will personally thank you if you install one.

Of course, such water filters are totally without risk themselves.....are they not? Google Nosocomial Pseudomonas pickettii. (and that's just the tip of the iceberg.) 

Now it's wonderful that you take such an interest in public health. Here is an excellent course that you can take. There are also a few prerequisites for entry, but I'm sure you'll wing it.

http://www.monash.edu.au/study/coursefinder/course/0046/

Quote:


Ok, off you go. When you have studied long and hard, and have completed your Masters in Public Health, please come back here and tell us the truth. It's far more satisfying to know the facts in depth as opposed to being an instant expert who learned everything he knows from Facebook (etc).

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Should public health issues be decided by democracy? Now there's a topic for you. It's like anything else - you have to have consultation, but in the end government needs to draw on all sources - public consultation and expert opinion.  The day we stop listening to  expert opinion will be the beginning of the end.

I remember attending a public meeting on the redesign of a street.  Some people in the public meeting would have designed something that would have caused accidents. We have standards in things like road design for a good reason.  This is a similar issue.

this is the same argument that some of the yuppy hippies in Byron Bay use to avoid immunisation ... Whooping cough was vitually wiped out in Australia until some drug buggered hippies in Byron decided they wouldn't immunise because there was a 1 / 100000000000000000000000000 chance that they might have side effects. Whopping cough is now approaching record numbers in northern NSW and SE Queensland ... My 2 yr old boy caught it last year despite being immunised, and thankfully he is fine,doctors say that the fact that he was immunised reduced the symptoms, but it could have turned out worse. Now I have a one week old baby, and I'm praying that this year is skips past us ... he is too young for immunisation shots ... with these sort of issues I think the public good has to come ahead of the individuals rights. If those hippies had been immunised, there is a good chance whooping cough in Australia would have ceased to exist, now we run the risk of spreading it around again.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 10:05am:


Rubbish, some vacines need topping up every 10 years.

I know whooping cough and tooth decay are different, but the priciple is the same, the good of the community over the rights of an individual ..... that doesn't mean I agree one way or the other that flouride in water is good for the community, that I'll leave for the experts to debate.

Someone is misguided, but it's not me, neither dentists (like some in Cairns) who admit:

-that fluoride must have an effect on thyroid and iodine.
-that for adults fluoride has no benefit, none or wharsoever, since if your teeth are bad, you will have
tooth decay by the age of 20, after that, you won't get it anymore.
- that the single cause of tooth decay is refined sugar. If you don't eat or drink sugar you won't get tooth decay.
- that since fluoride has been introduced, dentists don't see  much change in kids' tooth decay, because  kids who have regular dental care don't need fluoride anyway as those kids do take care of their teeth, by eating healthy, brushing regularly etc.
The ones who do need the fluoride are those kids who eat unhealthy, and who's parents are irresponsible.
It's cheaper for the Gov to put fluoride in the water, than to get FREE dental treatment for these people.

These are not my words, but of a reputable dentist.
There are also many studies which prove that fluoride has no benefit.
These by the way are no secret, they well known facts.
Only misguided ignorant people wouldn't understand this.

Also it is true that Just about everything we do carries risk as mentioned by muso, however it doesn't justify to add an extra one to it.
Comparing cholera and polio to tooth decay is pathetic.

I can't post the picture (yet) sent by General Manager Water & Waste Cairns of the actual sodium fluoride bag, the one they put into our water supply. But if you wish to have a look you at it, you can pm me.

mysstic wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:


Fluoride is a poison if you drink it at a high enough concentration. All these effects will be manifested at high concentrations. That's why they add it at extremely low concentrations (around 1 part per million), and that's why there is no evidence of increased thyroid disorders in areas that have fluoridation. I'd like to see some of the cases of hyperthyroidism from Australia that you claim to be caused by fluoridation. It's usually quite obvious if somebody was exposed to high concentrations of fluoride. They have a distinctive mottling of the teeth. In the absence of that, it's obvious that it must have been from other causes.

The area around Eldoret in Kenya is a case in point. The natural level of fluoride  in the water is approximately one hundred  times that of the concentration in drinking water in Australia. All the crops contain fluoride from natural deposits  Hyperthyroidism is reasonably common in Eldoret, in common with  many other areas where cassava(manioc)  is a staple food crop, however the latest evidence shows that the main cause of that is the cyanide content of the cassava, which metabolises to thiocyanate and which causes hyperthyroidism. Although that has clear links with hypothyroidism, it doesn't cause mottling of the teeth, and that's how it's possible to distinguish between the two. 

So who exactly are the members of this illustrious band of Cairns dentists who all claim to be specialists in thyroid ailments? They are clearly quite multi-talented individuals and it would be nice to meet them.

Quote:


All true. It doesn't benefit absolutely everybody, especially if you're an adult whose teeth have fallen out,  and it doesn't harm anyone either. It's perfectly good logic, but it's about as informative as saying that a person who has both feet amputated will have no benefit whatsoever from a  pedicure.

If you can persuade the entire population to stop eating sweet foods and drinks, and to brush their teeth regularly, perhaps fluoride would not be required.   


Quote:


True.  They wouldn't see any difference in those people who actually go to the dentist.  The main impact is for the large section of the population who neither take care of their teeth nor bother going to a dentist.  The complications are what costs the public money and causes the health problems. They don't see the benefit because they don't see the people who don't visit them. Makes complete sense.

Quote:


True,  but even if you offer it free, a large number will not take it up.  Hence the advantage of fluoridation.

On your point about mass medication, what do you classify as mass medication? If you add chlorine to drinking water because it kills bacteria, is that mass medication?

Actually chlorine is another good example of a poison. Drink straight domestos and it will more than likely kill you. Chlorine at about the 1ppm level in drinking water on the other hand will cause little or no harm. The exposure standards and the working concentrations of Fluoride and hypochlorite are about the same. Fluoride is slightly lower toxicity than chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) and they are both used at about the same working concentration. 

Sodium Hypochlorite:
- Acute oral toxicity:  IV; LD50, 192 mg/kg (ACGIH)

Sodium Fluoride
Oral, rabbit: LD50 = 200 mg/kg; (ACGIH)


Back to "mass medication" If you give somebody antibiotics to kill the same bacteria,now  that would count as medication.

What about the compulsory addition of vitamins to cereals? Is that mass medication too? 

In summary, fluoridation of water supplies has not been linked to any fatalities and up to a 60% reduction in dental caries.

- and dental caries has a significant affect on longevity.

If your campaign were to be  successful worldwide, it would kill millions of people. Maybe you should stick to what you know.

http://fluorideinfo.org/

Quote:


Also

Quote:


What affects Life expectancy? Interesting reading:
http://www.aihw.gov.au/what-affects-life-expectancy/
Quote:


Dental caries can kill people in the long run:

Quote:


By the way, even hyperthyroidism (which is not caused by fluoridation) is rarely fatal if treated, and is reversible.

extremely low concentrations (around 1 part per million):
the concentration of fluoride is set under legislation at 0.7 milligrams per litre.
(source: General Manager Water & Waste Cairns Regional Council)

There is an overwhelming information about effect of fluoride on thyroid, it is not a claim by a single dentist but many many health organisations: just one example:
According to the American Thyroid Association, iodine deficiency is the most common cause of hypothyroidism
You can google it up yourself.

"It doesn't benefit absolutely everybody, especially if you're an adult whose teeth have fallen out,  and it doesn't harm anyone either. It's perfectly good logic, but it's about as informative as saying that a person who has both feet amputated will have no benefit whatsoever from a  pedicure. "

Fluoride has no effect on adult teeth, not because they've been fallen out, but because the fluoride only has effect on forming teeth. For more info google it up.

"If you can persuade the entire population to stop eating sweet foods and drinks, and to brush their teeth regularly, perhaps fluoride would not be required.  "

Yes, well at least we agree on that. If you notice, there are more and more products on the market with "no added sugar", less fat, etc. Fortunately more and more people realise that eating healthy would benefit them in the long run. So yes, promoting healthy lifestyle, instead of medicating a small group, (fortunately it is not a large section ) would benefit us all.

"True,  but even if you offer it free, a large number will not take it up.  Hence the advantage of fluoridation."

Agree on that too. But it would be sort of like putting detox products in our water because some group of our population don't get it that alcohol is bad. Instead this group should be dealt with health professionals by promoting the healthy lifestyle, etc. OP course it is a lot more work than just dumping that chinese poo into the water. Because something is cheaper and easier, it doesn't justify it means.

Chlorine is certainly not very good either, but there is no comparison about the toxicity. google it up.

Every state has a different level of how much fluoride they putting in the water as per legislation.
Nth QLD has the least. I'm not sure about NSW, could be 1mg/L . This is not a small amount.
There is also fluoride in many many products, what do you think they spray the fruits with?

"Drink straight domestos and it will more than likely kill you."
Fluoride doesn't kill you, no one said that. But it is accumulating in your body over the years. Some people are more sensitive that others and some will develop symptoms. (like thyroid)

"What about the compulsory addition of vitamins to cereals? Is that mass medication too?

No, it's not mass medication. You are free to chose not to buy cereals, or to buy organic or something which doesn't have additional vitamins in it.
But when it come to water, people should not be forced to spend extra money on bottled water, filters, etc.

REGARDING MASS MEDICATION PLS READ THE Queensland Government Position Statement on Water Fluoridation
copy/paste this link into the browser:
lgsa.org.au/resources/documents/qld_policy_281105.pdf

You didn't mention anything about studies which prove fluoride to be inefficient.

By the way, chlorine falls into Toxicity Category I and sodium fluoride falls into Category II, which is less toxic.

In terms of the Australian Poisons Schedule, Chlorine is a schedule 7  "Dangerous Poison", and Sodium Fluoride (and sodium silicofluoride) is a Schedule 6  "Poison". 

Water supplies usually have a free chlorine of not less than 0.3ppm, but a typical total chlorine of up to 2ppm. As far as swimming pools are concerned, let's not go there.

The usual standard for fluoridation is 0.7ppm in Australia.

It's a question of social acceptance as much as anything. If you asked people if they would object to 2ppm of cyanide in their water, there would be a mass revolution, but chlorine is ok, yet chlorine is slightly more toxic than cyanide.

If you really want to look into it, chlorine is the main reason that we have pancreatic cancer in Western Countries. It's due to the waste products of chlorination. However, if you think we should go to ozone treament or no water treatment, I don't think you really want to go there because the risks are much higher.

In life, it doesn't matter what you do, there are risks. It's really a question of minimising those risks as much as possible. Compared to voluntary risks (like smoking), they are insignificant.

So vaccinate your kids, insist on fluoridated and chlorinated water, but please continue to question everything and anything. Don't take anything for gospel. If you find internet sites where people are talking like headless chooks about any issue, the chances are usually (not always) that the information is not very good.  

mysstic wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 1:41pm:

If you don't understand the reason for that, I'm wasting my time.

Let's say the claim is made that fluoridation will reduce tooth decay by 60%, then there is still the remaining 40% for whom it doesn't reduce tooth decay. You might be one of  that 40% for all I know.

Some parts of Europe do fluoridate salt, and of course, fluoride toothpaste is widely available.
Fluoride is not the only agent that can reduce tooth decay. It depends on many other factors. 
Maybe brushing your teeth is more widely practiced in the parts of Europe where that applied.

You can't compare apples and pears.

I'll reply to your other points when I have time. 

Yes, most definitely. Icing on bakery products for ex. Europeans wound't even touch it. Not only because is so unhealthy but also taste disgusting (for EU)

mysstic wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:


Which part of Europe are you from? I know it's true for Italy and France for example.

here is a good video explaining the deception of fluoride
copy/paste link:

tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=42652E035A1B1BAAAE1F340B54694975

no it doesn't. But the point is that the report shows that urban U.S. children, with more exposure to fluoridated water and dental care, have just as many cavities as less fluoridation-exposed rural children, as per Table 2: Rural-Urban Comparisons of dental health and health care.

Please check also the video link (in previous post) and would like to know more about the thyroid issue.

Ok, you made your point.
So I think I can very briefly summaries this discussion by:

Whether diseases or cavity rates increase or decrease with fluoridation, the issue is freedom. If someone feels the need for their family to drink fluoride, they are free to drink fluoride. When the government adds fluoride to drinking water, none of us are free not to have fluoride in our water.

Fluoride is readily available in shops. Those who support adding fluoride to public water supply are basically saying that this is the best way to support those families who's kids are abusing sugar, consume excessively sweets, soft drink such as coke, and are too lazy to brush their teeth and don't want to spend a few $ every week for toothpaste / mouthwash.

• 
  
  • [highlight]Those who support adding fluoride are also saying that they don't give a damn about our environment.
    Spilling that toxic waste into rivers, oceans etc are illegal, in fact are considered an act of terrorism. By adding it to public water supplies however is legal.

Most of European countries has banned fluoridation a long time ago. And their teeth are just as healthy as countries / states where fluoride is added to public water supplies. Even China where this toxic rubbish is coming from has banned it.[/highlight]

These people are also supporting in an indirect way obesity by suggesting that you can eat as much sugar, sweets, coke, etc. as you like, don't worry about it, your teeth won't get rotten because our dumbo gov has taken care of it.

"nobody classifies fluoridation as mass medication, including Queensland. "
that's wrong, pls check the position statement of the QLD gov, I think I posted the link somewhere, if not, I can send it again or u can google it up.

mysstic wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:


It's an issue of freedom. Freedom to be properly  informed about lies perpetrated by advocacy groups that have no sound basis. 

Quote:

Incorrect. Fluoridation is just one of a number of strategies used worldwide to reduce dental decay.

Quote:


Fluorine at a level of 0.7 ppm is well within the ANZECC Guidelines for Water Quality for fresh and marine water quality. In fact even the USEPA does not regard that as being pollution. It's below natural levels in many regions of Australia and across the world.
Quote:

Quote:



Quote:



Quote:


Strawman. I think we all know that the Queensland government has well established initiatives addressing obesity etc.

Quote:


You are mistaken. Your links stated that the Queensland Government is against mass medication.

Quote:


Source: Queensland Government- Common Fluoride Myths

mysstic wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

That statement doesn't actually imply or deny that it's mass medication. It just says that they don't support mass medication. However the link that I provided states that Queensland Health specifically do not regard fluoridation as being mass medication, and they are the competent authority in defining whether or not fluoridation is mass medication, not Local Government.   

mysstic wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 2:50pm:


I appreciate your posts too. You wouldn't guess it, but I enjoy talking to people with different views.  I hope you resolve your thyroid problem, and I hope I wasn't disrespectful in my replies. 

The water in my area isn't fluoridated thank goodness, but when my first child was born - doctors and health care workers were fanatical about mothers dosing their babies with a fluoride tablet each day. They all stated it was essential for healthy teeth.

I couldn't forget the toxic smell & taste of fluoridated water so I was reluctant to give my child this chemical regardless of it being apparently harmless. I spoke to 3 pharmacists before I made a decision. All of them were fairly non-committal about the toxicity of fluoride, but when I asked if they would give their own children these tablets - I got the same answer - definitely no.

Nothing is better for a child's teeth than a healthy diet and being taught good cleaning techniques.

We hear all the time from the "experts" that certain chemicals in reasonable doses are harmless and this gives us an assurance that we are not being poisoned. However, we should use our logic as to what poisons we ingest.

Unfortunately pharmaceutical companies, chemists and scientists do tell lies - but then they're usually paid to promote a product.

Quote:


So adding a substance to provide a health benefit ....couldn't that be called medication?  It's not really important whether queensland health calls it medication or a humbidunyuderoleranom - a rose by any other name.

That's why I hate those "mythbusting" sites - they always word them in such a way as to be technically accurate, but not address the actual "myth".

Well I'm not really interested in fighting this fight, but I was under the impression the only proven benefit of fluoride was when applied topically, making water fluoridation worthless.

... wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:


Fluoridation is something that we've tackled pretty well in Australia, especially when compared to the US. The benefits of fluoridation of the water supply have been shown time and time again. The NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) is one of the most conservative bodies in Australia, and they come out strongly in favour of water fluoridation, citing  typically 9 cavities for a 12 year old child pre fluoridation to one cavity post fluoridation. That's a pretty dramatic difference.

There are of course very pointed studies in the US by a few people, even in the medical profession who do studies on cavities or no cavities, lumping them all together with no indication of severity.

I don't entirely blame them.  There is some justification for an anti fluoride movement in the US. Some local counties stuffed up completely with 100 times the recommended concentration, and there are significant cases of pretty ugly looking dental fluorosis over there. 


In Australia, there are very low levels of natural fluorine in water compared to the US, and we seem to have got the balance right.   

And one more question. If you'd bored with all this, just ignore it.
I'm interested in the business side of this. How can a product in general can be cost effective when you're wasting more than 90% of it.
Most of the water goes for shower, washing, irrigation.
If you have a business and want to market your product, if somebody would tell you to use lets say just half of it and the rest throw it in the garbage, you'd think that person is crazy, wouldn't you?
I am not arguing that there are benefits:
the Victorian community of around $1 billion, through avoided dental costs
But is this the best way to market a product? To waste 90% of it? I never studied marketing, but wouldn't it make more sense to only use a product for what it is tend to be for?

mysstic wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Fluoride is a byproduct of the aluminum industry, something that would have traditionally been dumped but because it is so dangerous they needed to sell it somehow.
Fluoride can be absorbed through the skin also.
Fluoride also does not save dental costs and actually damages the teeth of babies leading to bigger dental problems.