Anti-fluoridation campaigners snubbed (From This is Hampshire)

When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF, and I for have not mandated them to represent my views. Their mandate and their weight is themselves only and no more.
What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.

This only confirms Quango's total arrogance and bad manners.

They took no notice of overwhelming majority that objected to fluoridation of water, and now could not even show common curtsey of receiving the petitioners with some respect shown to those who travelled to deliver the document.

Government should demand curbing of disrespect to members of public by those who are paid handsomely out of our taxes.

The Wickham Man wrote:
When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF, and I for have not mandated them to represent my views. Their mandate and their weight is themselves only and no more. What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.

And what interest is this matter to Wickham Man of Fareham when the areas intended for fluoridation are Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams?

The Wickham Man wrote:
When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF, and I for have not mandated them to represent my views. Their mandate and their weight is themselves only and no more. What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.

Yes from your point of view this is a well argued case. But I hope you will also consider that there are laid down procedures regarding how these so called ‘experts’ should make their decisions. Consulting the people before adding fluoride to their drinking water was the requirement; their own survey showed that 72% of people do not want to drink fluoride. Ignoring that is their arrogance.
As I have written before I am not a scientist, so I can’t argue my opposition on that basis. But my main worry is accidents, which do tend to happen and in fact only recently over safe limits fluoride got added by accident both in Australia and also even in the UK.
Even these so called ‘experts’ or ‘quangocrats’ can’t guarantee that accidents won’t happen and they also accept that limits for this substance are extremely fine. Although the better than me informed opponent do seem to challenge even those limits is a separate point, But as opponents are more easily approachable and not arrogant I am convinced that their side of the argument is stronger. Just because all of them are not quangocrats does not mean they have not done their research.

'' lowly receptionist ''

Seems a bit insulting for a working person.

How dare the Echo refer to the post of receptionist a "lowly".
All workers are worthy of respect and it is insulting to all receptionists that the person receiving the letter should be spoken of in this way.
It is quite possible that the person would be capable of being a better journalist/reporter than some employed by the Echo.

The Wickham Man wrote:
When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF, and I for have not mandated them to represent my views. Their mandate and their weight is themselves only and no more.
What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.

yes agreed on googling up facts, to often the info on the internet is wrong where some one ups there own info on a matter and dont correct the errors in the info. then some one else comes along and see it copys it adds there own info and again dont correct the info and so forth. this is where librarys are best to get your info from. even lo books are proof check and info check some info still can be wrong most so in science and history where they have found out new things so the history has change some times a lot some times a little.
has with this fluoride we need to know what type of fluoride it is and where it comes from. and another thing they should go thing what the majority says. and not what they say. like you said.

Wickham Man where are your brains - in your pocket? No doubt SHA did not pluck out of the air knowledge of Fluoride - surely they got their information from top drawer chemists. Do you not realise our representitives ALSO sought the best. May I say receptionists appear to be the lowest of the low in your unflattering blog - has it ever occurred to you they may be brighter than you are! Or are you a student, silly boy.

goard

i would have some respect for the 'Wickham Man's' views if he had done the chemistry and research work to understand that the scientific case against fluoride is extremely strong. It is arrogant to assume that the people objecting have not investigated this and fully understand the science.

The majority of scientists in the world are actually opposed to water fluoridaiton. A Nobel Prizewinner wrote in to object to the Southampton fluoridation proposal, as did many scientists from the UK and around the worold. There is a petition signed by over 2500 top scientists opposing water fluoridation. So Wickham Man, if you want to pontificate about science, please get your facts right and do not make silly assumptions about ignorance on one side of the debate.

Greenj wrote:
i would have some respect for the 'Wickham Man's' views if he had done the chemistry and research work to understand that the scientific case against fluoride is extremely strong. It is arrogant to assume that the people objecting have not investigated this and fully understand the science.

The majority of scientists in the world are actually opposed to water fluoridaiton. A Nobel Prizewinner wrote in to object to the Southampton fluoridation proposal, as did many scientists from the UK and around the worold. There is a petition signed by over 2500 top scientists opposing water fluoridation. So Wickham Man, if you want to pontificate about science, please get your facts right and do not make silly assumptions about ignorance on one side of the debate.

It is funny Greenj that the closer you try to get the sun the dumber you actually become. I mean that the more carefully you try and structure a poor argument the more ridiculous some of your assumptions have to become to compensate. I am a "professional scientist" as a matter of fact though it is a silly phrase, (and I'm not connected to fluoridation) and for you to dismiss the views of the Government's own chief medical officer and all - not just some - of the NHS policy making boards not to mention the constant belittling of he only serious academic studies in this country on the actual efficiacy of fluoride - means that you must assume that there is a huge government conspiracy involving thousands of civil servants - to try and poison its own citizens. If you spend your time reading books like Soylent Green you might subscibe to this view but everyone else would be entitled to regard you as a crank and a weirdo. All jwillie and others do is point to the views of individuals - and I can tell you there are some pretty peculiar scientist individuals particularly in the USA - many of whom think the earth was created in 7 days and fossils were put in the ground to test our faith! Beware the testimony of any individual - I thought the MMR scandal would have shown you that but no..........

Totton Tim wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF, and I for have not mandated them to represent my views. Their mandate and their weight is themselves only and no more. What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.

And what interest is this matter to Wickham Man of Fareham when the areas intended for fluoridation are Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams?

Your point would have some consistency had you said the same thing previously to the weird americans who infest these threads, but you didn't say a dicky bird did you? I'd say that I have more geographical legitimacy than them wouldn't you? Especially when you consider that "Wickham" might be a pun of "Wykeham" or perhaps might not even refer to where I live at all. I'd butt out of the parochial fascism if I were you, or you might end up smelling like a hypocrite.

Perhaps if our local MPs weren't sitting on the fence over this matter they would have had a voice?

The HAF campaign is led by John Spottiswoode: John Spottiswoode,
BSc, BA, PMP, SNHS (Nut.; Ad. Nut.; Herb.; Anatomy & Physiology)
Don't be fooled by all those letters. His 'health' qualifications are exclusively in homeopathy. Last week the chairman of the Commons committee appointed to look into homeopathy reported back. He said: "...prescribing homeopathy as placebos on the NHS amounted to encouraging doctors to participate in "active deception" of their patients.

Serious illnesses could be missed while people were on homeopathy.

The potions were "basically sugar pills or Smarties" and patients could be mislead into thinking they were getting better on them, he added.

He continued: "If homeopathy works then the whole of chemistry and physics would have to be overturned." John Spottiswoode, who claims to know all about fluoride, believes strongly in homeopathy and has qualifications in it. I leave you to decide whether his views, and those of his followers, are worth listening to.

@Totton Tim - why on earth shouldn't someone have a viewpoint, whether or not they live in the affected area? What nonsense. However, just so you know, I live in central Southampton and would welcome fluoridation.

Condor Man wrote:
Perhaps if our local MPs weren't sitting on the fence over this matter they would have had a voice?

Chris Huhne, Julian Lewis and Sandra Gidley (a chemist by training), being local MP's, have all come out against fluoridation.
In view of your political views I'm sure you will take great pleasure in pointing out the 2 MP's who seem to be firmly impaled on the fence - and on this occasion I am 100% with you.
I won't make this a habit though.

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
The HAF campaign is led by John Spottiswoode: John Spottiswoode,
BSc, BA, PMP, SNHS (Nut.; Ad. Nut.; Herb.; Anatomy & Physiology)
Don't be fooled by all those letters. His 'health' qualifications are exclusively in homeopathy. Last week the chairman of the Commons committee appointed to look into homeopathy reported back. He said: "...prescribing homeopathy as placebos on the NHS amounted to encouraging doctors to participate in "active deception" of their patients.

Serious illnesses could be missed while people were on homeopathy.

The potions were "basically sugar pills or Smarties" and patients could be mislead into thinking they were getting better on them, he added.

He continued: "If homeopathy works then the whole of chemistry and physics would have to be overturned." John Spottiswoode, who claims to know all about fluoride, believes strongly in homeopathy and has qualifications in it. I leave you to decide whether his views, and those of his followers, are worth listening to.

While I agree with you on homeopathy, this is rather irrelevant. Just as you, rightly, defend Wickham Man for being able to contribute despite where he may reside, even homoeopathist are entitled to express their opinions - and campaign on them as well.

Fluoride in my tap water?

NO THANKS !

@freefinker

Of course I agree with you that everyone has the right to express an opinion. But my point is not irrelevant: someone who purports to understand the science behind why fluoride is 'dangerous' and is the figurehead of a supposedly science-based campaign is also steeped in the pseudo-science that is homeopathy. His credentials are suspect and so therefore are his arguments. This is not an ad-hominem argument, it's based on the pertinent fact that some who believes in homeopathy is in no position to tell others what is and isn't good for them from a scientific/medical perspective. No?

I am not a scientist, or a doctor, but I do know that flouride is a medication. I, and everyone else, has the right to refuse medication.
If they put flouride in my drinking water, then they are medicating me against my will.
I understand the arguement about children's bad teeth, but when I was young we cleaned our teeth properly and we didn't eat many sweets, or fizzy drinks, which are full of sugar. Also, we had a better diet. We didn't have bad teeth as they do now.
So instead of floridating everyone that doesn't want it, would it not be better to educate children and their parents to clean their teeth and not eat sweets and drink fizzy drinks.

"More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States." -
Dean Burk, PhD, National Cancer Institute
____________________
_
Please take 5 minutes and watch this video by Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist in Washington State, USA, with 30 years of experience. He explains in a very simple and clear manner why we should oppose fluoridation.
In this video, dentist Bill Osmunson explains why he is now concerned about fluoride and water fluoridation.
(http://articles.mer
cola.com/sites/artic
les/archive/2009/04/
07/Warning-Never-Swa
llow-Regular-Toothpa
ste.aspx)

@WalkingOnAWire
Take you point but it’s not quite as simple as that. You have no doubt been on the HAF website to find out his qualifications, where it also says “He has worked for much of the last ten years in the Department of Health and in the NHS. John was shocked by the level of evidence of the harm of fluoride when he first became involved twelve years ago, and since then has researched extensively”
While I agree his previous training in homeopathy is of no use to this debate, he also has a BSc and a BA. So, he’s no fool, as I can personally testify having been very loosely acquainted with him for well over 10 years.
The scientific evidence, for and against, is out there and anyone with a slightly better than average knowledge of the sciences should be able to form a meaningful opinion on the subject. There are advantages and disadvantages to fluoridation, with the scientific and dental communities divided on its merits. Personally, having looked at what both sides are putting forward, I think we should not add fluoride to our water supply for a number of valid scientific reasons – not to mention the precautionary principle.

@freefinker
Firstly, can I say it's nice to have a debate on these boards which is respectful and civilised. I have no problem with people who make a decision on fluoride based on a balanced reading of the evidence - I disagree with your conclusion, but I accept that it is based on more than a cursory acquaintance with the facts, and the precautionary argument is perhaps the strongest of those against. I cannot agree with you about Spottiswoode because anyone who fully understands the scientific method cannot possibly hold that homeopathy is valid, and irrespective of his other qualifications - who on earth holds a bachelor degree in both arts and sciences? that is certainly rather strange in itself - he cannot be considered to have authority in this.
I do object, though, to the rampantly tabloid approach the Echo takes to this and to many other issues, presenting heavily-skewed 'facts' and opinions to a largely ignorant public and thereby furthering the lack of properly informed debate.

@WalkingOnAWire
I also dislike the Echo’s approach to most important issues – but then it IS a tabloid rag, so what on earth do we expect? And nice to have a good discussion with you, despite the Echo and some of the other posters
I know from a previous story we have commented extensively on that we share an opinion on the perversity of religion. Yet you will agree, I hope, that there are many otherwise perfectly sane and rational individuals who it just so happens have a belief mythical entities – yes, even a very few scientists “have religion”. I assume you would not disregard the opinions of all religious people, however well qualified, just because of this one, admittedly puzzling, idiosyncrasy? I certainly don’t.
Now homeopathy is nonsense in my book, but not quite as ridiculous as religion. It DOES work as an effective placebo in many individuals, as the report you referred to pointed out. Agreed, not worth the money the NHS spends on it, as a sugar pill would probably be just as effective. But what I’m trying to get across is that you can’t dismiss John Spottiswoode’s opinions and research just because he also trained many years ago homeopathy. He does not practice this “therapy”, either privately or within the NHS. He is a very well educated individual and certainly not alone in having both a BSc and BA.

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
@freefinker
Firstly, can I say it's nice to have a debate on these boards which is respectful and civilised. I have no problem with people who make a decision on fluoride based on a balanced reading of the evidence - I disagree with your conclusion, but I accept that it is based on more than a cursory acquaintance with the facts, and the precautionary argument is perhaps the strongest of those against. I cannot agree with you about Spottiswoode because anyone who fully understands the scientific method cannot possibly hold that homeopathy is valid, and irrespective of his other qualifications - who on earth holds a bachelor degree in both arts and sciences? that is certainly rather strange in itself - he cannot be considered to have authority in this.
I do object, though, to the rampantly tabloid approach the Echo takes to this and to many other issues, presenting heavily-skewed 'facts' and opinions to a largely ignorant public and thereby furthering the lack of properly informed debate.

I can assure you that Spottiswoode does NOT hold that homeopathy is valid. I don't know where you got that one from!

interesting just sitting back and reading what you 2 have debating carry on will you.

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
The HAF campaign is led by John Spottiswoode: John Spottiswoode,
BSc, BA, PMP, SNHS (Nut.; Ad. Nut.; Herb.; Anatomy & Physiology)
Don't be fooled by all those letters. His 'health' qualifications are exclusively in homeopathy. Last week the chairman of the Commons committee appointed to look into homeopathy reported back. He said: "...prescribing homeopathy as placebos on the NHS amounted to encouraging doctors to participate in "active deception" of their patients.

Serious illnesses could be missed while people were on homeopathy.

The potions were "basically sugar pills or Smarties" and patients could be mislead into thinking they were getting better on them, he added.

He continued: "If homeopathy works then the whole of chemistry and physics would have to be overturned." John Spottiswoode, who claims to know all about fluoride, believes strongly in homeopathy and has qualifications in it. I leave you to decide whether his views, and those of his followers, are worth listening to.

Qualifications in Nutrition, Herbalism and Anatomy and Physiology are NOT anything to do with homeopathy. Please get your scientific facts right. Spottiswoode only takes well researched evidence based science when talking about scientific matters.

southy wrote:
interesting just sitting back and reading what you 2 have debating carry on will you.

You can join in as well, southy

jwillie6 wrote:
"More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States." -
Dean Burk, PhD, National Cancer Institute
____________________

_
Please take 5 minutes and watch this video by Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist in Washington State, USA, with 30 years of experience. He explains in a very simple and clear manner why we should oppose fluoridation.
In this video, dentist Bill Osmunson explains why he is now concerned about fluoride and water fluoridation.
(http://articles.mer

cola.com/sites/artic

les/archive/2009/04/

07/Warning-Never-Swa

llow-Regular-Toothpa

ste.aspx)

You see back comes jwillie with individuals offering personal opinions not national medical officers offering consensus opinions. The comment about fluoride related deaths is not only incorrect it is so crazy as to pretty much discount anything else said because it is plainly and undisputably untrue. There are other individuals who hold contrary views which he ignores, so do you want your information pre-filtered by a crank creationist american who would prefer to let poor people die in his country rather than sign up to what Obama is trying to do for them? He doesn't believe in free healththcare but I do and so do most of you. Fluoridation for all the people is a socialist ideal - I can't understand why socialists on this thread are so against it.

@ Greenj and WalkingOnAWire
From the website of the School of Natural Health Sciences - “Your qualifications will entitle you to work as a therapist and use the letters S.N.H.S. (followed by the therapy you have studied) ..”
.
While I see courses on homeopathy are available, it would seem from the initials shown after SNHS for Mr Spottiswoode that he is NOT a homoeopath.
Apologies from me for assuming WalkingOnAWire had researched it thoroughly. While I agree many of the courses available from this school are at the nuttier end of “alternative therapies”, there are also some quite useful topics being covered.
Just goes to show we should all thoroughly research issues before entering the debate.

The Wickham Man, thanks for putting down the American nutter, saved me the bother.
But, you may recall that "national medical officers offering consensus opinions" has not always served us well. Dare I mention nvCJD.
Can still remember Gummer forcing the beef burger into his daughter’s mouth and the unequivocal reassurances from the government’s scientists that “beef if perfectly safe”. It wasn't, was it?

The Wickham Man wrote:

jwillie6 wrote:
"More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States." -
Dean Burk, PhD, National Cancer Institute
____________________


_
Please take 5 minutes and watch this video by Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist in Washington State, USA, with 30 years of experience. He explains in a very simple and clear manner why we should oppose fluoridation.
In this video, dentist Bill Osmunson explains why he is now concerned about fluoride and water fluoridation.
(http://articles.mer


cola.com/sites/artic


les/archive/2009/04/


07/Warning-Never-Swa


llow-Regular-Toothpa


ste.aspx)

You see back comes jwillie with individuals offering personal opinions not national medical officers offering consensus opinions. The comment about fluoride related deaths is not only incorrect it is so crazy as to pretty much discount anything else said because it is plainly and undisputably untrue. There are other individuals who hold contrary views which he ignores, so do you want your information pre-filtered by a crank creationist american who would prefer to let poor people die in his country rather than sign up to what Obama is trying to do for them? He doesn't believe in free healththcare but I do and so do most of you. Fluoridation for all the people is a socialist ideal - I can't understand why socialists on this thread are so against it.

i can answer that for you. fluoridation is not a socialist ideal. it comes from the capitalist of away to get rid of there surplus stocks. and theres been a very big kick back on the subject world wide, so much that the capitalist are using at a propaganda and pushing the blame on the socialists.
there is very big mistrust over this for the simple reason they will not name what type of fluoride it is or where its coming from, some fluoride are very toxic and will cause cancer others are less harmfull and take years to effect the body. recommedation is never to swallow any type of fluoride all ways rinse your mouth with it and spit it out. advice on toothpaste is not to comsum toothpaste but again to spit it out.

Wickham Man is uncomfortable when I present the truth about the dangers and ineffectiveness of fluoridation. While I definitely advise against swallowing any fluoride, even the industrial waste fluoride dumped in the water system, so far it is a legal drug. So, instead of mass medicating all citizens in drinking water, why not give away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them. It would be far cheaper and the rest of us would not be consuming that poison every day of our lives. After all, even the dentists claim benefits only to children whose teeth are being formed. No one claims benefits to adults, and many research studies show the increased cancer and broken hips caused by brittle bones. The ADA, the CDC and others warn not to give it to infants under 2 years old because of tooth enamel damage. The National Kidney Foundation warns anyone with kidney problems (e. g. diabetics and pre-diabetics) not to drink fluoridated water. Maybe Wickham Man knows better that all the experts, but I doubt it.

jwillie6 wrote:
Wickham Man is uncomfortable when I present the truth about the dangers and ineffectiveness of fluoridation. While I definitely advise against swallowing any fluoride, even the industrial waste fluoride dumped in the water system, so far it is a legal drug. So, instead of mass medicating all citizens in drinking water, why not give away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them. It would be far cheaper and the rest of us would not be consuming that poison every day of our lives. After all, even the dentists claim benefits only to children whose teeth are being formed. No one claims benefits to adults, and many research studies show the increased cancer and broken hips caused by brittle bones. The ADA, the CDC and others warn not to give it to infants under 2 years old because of tooth enamel damage. The National Kidney Foundation warns anyone with kidney problems (e. g. diabetics and pre-diabetics) not to drink fluoridated water. Maybe Wickham Man knows better that all the experts, but I doubt it.

If anyone wanted expert opinion they would be wise to avoid getting it filtered by an obsessive freak like you who sits on the internet all day scanning the world's websites in order to spread the good ol'd USA's right wing missionary doctrinaire. Why do you do it - Did L Ron Hubbard tell you or just your local baptist ministry meddling in things it doesn't understand? You language shows that you are a disturbed obsessive, because whereas this is a simple debate on whether or not medication via this method is ethical, you go to extremes to try and show that fluoride is not only a mass killer but that Governments are deliberately dumping it on their own citizens for whatever purpose only your fevered imagination can invent. Been watching the X files and eating cheese before bedtime have we? You are obviously not a scientist and you are not normal otherwise you wouldn't be on here. QED. It's quite easy spoiling your party because your behaviour is abnormal and obsessive, not mine. I see a kind of amusement that a rabid right winger such as yourself and our own militant socialists on these pages are supporting each other without sensing the irony.
FInally as you are still promoting your fluoride tablets tell us how the children of the underclass sho need them most - will persuade their parents to use them. If you haven;t got an answer to that question yuou'd best not mention your "idea" again because it won't work.

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

jwillie6 wrote:
"More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States." -
Dean Burk, PhD, National Cancer Institute
____________________



_
Please take 5 minutes and watch this video by Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist in Washington State, USA, with 30 years of experience. He explains in a very simple and clear manner why we should oppose fluoridation.
In this video, dentist Bill Osmunson explains why he is now concerned about fluoride and water fluoridation.
(http://articles.mer



cola.com/sites/artic



les/archive/2009/04/



07/Warning-Never-Swa



llow-Regular-Toothpa



ste.aspx)

You see back comes jwillie with individuals offering personal opinions not national medical officers offering consensus opinions. The comment about fluoride related deaths is not only incorrect it is so crazy as to pretty much discount anything else said because it is plainly and undisputably untrue. There are other individuals who hold contrary views which he ignores, so do you want your information pre-filtered by a crank creationist american who would prefer to let poor people die in his country rather than sign up to what Obama is trying to do for them? He doesn't believe in free healththcare but I do and so do most of you. Fluoridation for all the people is a socialist ideal - I can't understand why socialists on this thread are so against it.

i can answer that for you. fluoridation is not a socialist ideal. it comes from the capitalist of away to get rid of there surplus stocks. and theres been a very big kick back on the subject world wide, so much that the capitalist are using at a propaganda and pushing the blame on the socialists.
there is very big mistrust over this for the simple reason they will not name what type of fluoride it is or where its coming from, some fluoride are very toxic and will cause cancer others are less harmfull and take years to effect the body. recommedation is never to swallow any type of fluoride all ways rinse your mouth with it and spit it out. advice on toothpaste is not to comsum toothpaste but again to spit it out.

That is such a stupid ill thought infantile post that all your recent improvements have come crashing back down again. So here is Southy believing that "capitalists" (probably wearing top hats and lighting cigars with fivers in his mind) plotting that the best way to get a few lorry loads of a chemical by products is not to dispose of it the way hundreds of thousands of waste are disposed of every day, but for Lord ICI to ask Lord Beaverbrook to arrange for a decade of intensive misinformation so that Lord ICI gets permission to spend millions on plant that will drip feed it into rivers a few grams a daya with a massive campaign of completely fictitious medical propaganda. Yes that's perfectly plausible Southy. And of course "they" (the capitalists) won't even name the fluoride which proves this is all true! But.....is it that because nobody has asked "them" or is it because some imbecile on the internet is not privy to the extensive research into the most efficacious compound who assumes that is some secret conspiracy. Well it's great to see you and your new best ultra right wing friend jwillie agreeing on everything. What's next on your agenda - birching moslems?

The Wickham Man wrote:

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

jwillie6 wrote:
"More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States." -
Dean Burk, PhD, National Cancer Institute
____________________




_
Please take 5 minutes and watch this video by Dr. Bill Osmunson, a dentist in Washington State, USA, with 30 years of experience. He explains in a very simple and clear manner why we should oppose fluoridation.
In this video, dentist Bill Osmunson explains why he is now concerned about fluoride and water fluoridation.
(http://articles.mer




cola.com/sites/artic




les/archive/2009/04/




07/Warning-Never-Swa




llow-Regular-Toothpa




ste.aspx)

You see back comes jwillie with individuals offering personal opinions not national medical officers offering consensus opinions. The comment about fluoride related deaths is not only incorrect it is so crazy as to pretty much discount anything else said because it is plainly and undisputably untrue. There are other individuals who hold contrary views which he ignores, so do you want your information pre-filtered by a crank creationist american who would prefer to let poor people die in his country rather than sign up to what Obama is trying to do for them? He doesn't believe in free healththcare but I do and so do most of you. Fluoridation for all the people is a socialist ideal - I can't understand why socialists on this thread are so against it.

i can answer that for you. fluoridation is not a socialist ideal. it comes from the capitalist of away to get rid of there surplus stocks. and theres been a very big kick back on the subject world wide, so much that the capitalist are using at a propaganda and pushing the blame on the socialists.
there is very big mistrust over this for the simple reason they will not name what type of fluoride it is or where its coming from, some fluoride are very toxic and will cause cancer others are less harmfull and take years to effect the body. recommedation is never to swallow any type of fluoride all ways rinse your mouth with it and spit it out. advice on toothpaste is not to comsum toothpaste but again to spit it out.

That is such a stupid ill thought infantile post that all your recent improvements have come crashing back down again. So here is Southy believing that "capitalists" (probably wearing top hats and lighting cigars with fivers in his mind) plotting that the best way to get a few lorry loads of a chemical by products is not to dispose of it the way hundreds of thousands of waste are disposed of every day, but for Lord ICI to ask Lord Beaverbrook to arrange for a decade of intensive misinformation so that Lord ICI gets permission to spend millions on plant that will drip feed it into rivers a few grams a daya with a massive campaign of completely fictitious medical propaganda. Yes that's perfectly plausible Southy. And of course "they" (the capitalists) won't even name the fluoride which proves this is all true! But.....is it that because nobody has asked "them" or is it because some imbecile on the internet is not privy to the extensive research into the most efficacious compound who assumes that is some secret conspiracy. Well it's great to see you and your new best ultra right wing friend jwillie agreeing on everything. What's next on your agenda - birching moslems?

your way out, its happen before by the capitalist and it will happen again, and has for not asking they have been asked to many times but refuses to answer or dont know them selfs, and if they dont know them selfs they should of found out by now its nearly a year when this question was first ask at a meeting. and they been ask this question ever since at every public meeting and public consultion ever since and still no answer.
and you putting the blame on the socialist and you cant under stand why the socialist are against it, it is because it is not a socialist ideal its a capitalist one.

"The capitalists"??? Only someone with the mentality of a child could believe in such a concept as you imply above . Bu there's no point in explaining it to you - you don't even understand why you end up as an embarrassment to every cause you try and support.

The Wickham Man wrote:
"The capitalists"??? Only someone with the mentality of a child could believe in such a concept as you imply above . Bu there's no point in explaining it to you - you don't even understand why you end up as an embarrassment to every cause you try and support.

the problem is wickham is you need to go to meetings and find out what really going on, like i do i all ready lost count the number of meetings i gone to this year, so i know what questions are being asked and what questions are not and the answers to those questions if when there is any.
capitalist/right wing both are the same has one another. well who owns this fluoride i sure its not the ordinary people now is it, its a company and 99% of companys are capitalist are they not. how big of a capitalist will very. your not very bright if you cant under stand this simple concept

@freefinker et ak
re: Spottiswoode's qualifications. I stand corrected by you. His specific qualifications from the 'SNHS' (School of Natural Health Sciences) appear to be in herbalism and nutrition, not homeopathy. I accept and acknowledge this error. However, the august institution of from which he holds these certificates also offers courses in the following: dowsing, crystal therapy, homeopathy, hopi ear candling, reiki, reflexology, and 'past life therapy', among others. ALL of these are pseudo-scientific nonsense: ear candling is positively dangerous. In addition, he used to run foodcures.net. Looking through archived web pages yields the following: "Those in favour of fluoridation either:

* have not looked at the ‘non-teeth’ research, as they are dentists and are not toxicologists;
* or they claim it is not scientifically proven;
* or they claim that the effects are not proven to be linked to fluoridation.

This denial is all very disingenuous. Fluorine is the most electronegative element in the Periodic Table, highly reactive, combining easily with a wide range of other elements and tending to displace others in the halogen group (especially iodine). By the laws of chemistry we already KNOW that fluoride will be reacting in the body in the ways discovered above, and more. Either those in favour of fluoridation have to accept the laws of chemistry and these dangerous effects of fluorine in the body, or they need to re-write the chemistry books. They cannot continue to deny the glaringly obvious, what is biochemically bound to happen." This is absolute and utter nonsense and shows a complete lack of a grasp of chemistry basics. It is akin to saying "chlorine is a nasty reactive element that causes damage. Salt is sodium chloride (NaCl) and therefore we shouldn't have any salt in our diet because it's got chlorine in it and that will cause untold damage to our bodies." I accept it when you tell me he is an intelligent individual, because I have no evidence to doubt it, but at the same time I stand by my assertion that his grasp of science is at best tenuous and, unlike (say) a properly qualified biochemist or medical practitioner, his pronouncements on fluoride can carry no weight.

Sorry...'et al'. Typo, not illiteracy!

Wickham man certainly has a sharp tongue. Sadly his research seems very lacking. I think he is actually taking out some aggression issues here and cares little if any about fluoridation up or down. He is a waste of time to respond to with his refusal to actually cite current peer reviewed data on this question of science. Many others do.
Remember the opposition within the EPA unions of scientists frist started in 1985. They have asked mangement and congress to halt fluoridation many times in ever growing numbers. They are the true experts that determine effects of toxins when given the chance. This rarely reported revolt began in 1985 and by 2005 was 11 EPA unions of (7000 professionals) asking congress to moratorium based on cancer data and little benefit. 29 Feb 2008 it grew to 19 unions. That is lots of whistle blowing to not be noticed or mentioned by management.
Go to http://www.fluoridea
lert.org and watch the videos by top experts including EPA top scientists. Carton, Hirzy and Dr Osmunson and remember Hardy Limeback DDS from Canada and a top researcher. Not loons and wack jobs as the health services like to claim of opposition. Your pure water group is one of the best also.

JimSchultz wrote:
Wickham man certainly has a sharp tongue. Sadly his research seems very lacking. I think he is actually taking out some aggression issues here and cares little if any about fluoridation up or down. He is a waste of time to respond to with his refusal to actually cite current peer reviewed data on this question of science. Many others do.
Remember the opposition within the EPA unions of scientists frist started in 1985. They have asked mangement and congress to halt fluoridation many times in ever growing numbers. They are the true experts that determine effects of toxins when given the chance. This rarely reported revolt began in 1985 and by 2005 was 11 EPA unions of (7000 professionals) asking congress to moratorium based on cancer data and little benefit. 29 Feb 2008 it grew to 19 unions. That is lots of whistle blowing to not be noticed or mentioned by management.
Go to http://www.fluoridea

lert.org and watch the videos by top experts including EPA top scientists. Carton, Hirzy and Dr Osmunson and remember Hardy Limeback DDS from Canada and a top researcher. Not loons and wack jobs as the health services like to claim of opposition. Your pure water group is one of the best also.

Why don't you post British research? Don't you think it is valid? Don't you think we are up to it, so we need the help of a retired lardbutt freak in XXXXXL tartan shorts to help us out? You and that other moron jwillie have never explained what is your motivation for constantly appearing on the pages of a provincial British newspaper covering a region you know nothing about. Do your kids live here? Do your family live here? Have you ever even been here? In fact you know nothing about the social , economic or demographic structure of this area at all - could you even find it on a map without the internet? Explain why you are here and what your real motivation is for constantly appearing. You've clearly got a golbal alert set up on your desktop every time the word fluoride appears on any story anywhere which suggests an unhealthy obsession, so explain what it is that drives you Otherwise you can take all your weird new age garbage and shove it up your big fat lardy american 4ss.

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
"The capitalists"??? Only someone with the mentality of a child could believe in such a concept as you imply above . Bu there's no point in explaining it to you - you don't even understand why you end up as an embarrassment to every cause you try and support.

the problem is wickham is you need to go to meetings and find out what really going on, like i do i all ready lost count the number of meetings i gone to this year, so i know what questions are being asked and what questions are not and the answers to those questions if when there is any.
capitalist/right wing both are the same has one another. well who owns this fluoride i sure its not the ordinary people now is it, its a company and 99% of companys are capitalist are they not. how big of a capitalist will very. your not very bright if you cant under stand this simple concept

I don't need to go to meetings because unlike you I work for large companies - I deal with executives and you don't so instead of going to meetings and listening to ageing DAve Sparts with chips on their shoulders you could ask people like me who actually make up these companies. There are literally tens of thousands of us, so what's stopping you? Are we all part of this conspiracy of yours?

The Wickham Man wrote:

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
"The capitalists"??? Only someone with the mentality of a child could believe in such a concept as you imply above . Bu there's no point in explaining it to you - you don't even understand why you end up as an embarrassment to every cause you try and support.

the problem is wickham is you need to go to meetings and find out what really going on, like i do i all ready lost count the number of meetings i gone to this year, so i know what questions are being asked and what questions are not and the answers to those questions if when there is any.
capitalist/right wing both are the same has one another. well who owns this fluoride i sure its not the ordinary people now is it, its a company and 99% of companys are capitalist are they not. how big of a capitalist will very. your not very bright if you cant under stand this simple concept

I don't need to go to meetings because unlike you I work for large companies - I deal with executives and you don't so instead of going to meetings and listening to ageing DAve Sparts with chips on their shoulders you could ask people like me who actually make up these companies. There are literally tens of thousands of us, so what's stopping you? Are we all part of this conspiracy of yours?

i use to deal with the biggest of corperations and know to well the people up at the top will split up information so no dept will never know what is really going on. and know the full facts. and you only find out about when its to late, and yes you really do need to go to meetings then you can find out if some one is hiding some thing. i take it your unable to answer those 2 simple questions what type and where is it coming from. tens of thousands world wide maybe but not in the uk maybe only a 1,000 if that, i dont belive in any conspiracy only hiden fact that they are not willing to release out to the public. its not even in there interest to even tell you.

The UK york Review in 2000 is commonly cited as proof of both benefit and safety. The facts in the report were very the opposite.. They commented a lack of quality data existed to make any judgement. They did observe that before fluoridation 15% had dental fluorisis and 48% after with 12.5% severe enough to require cosmetic repairs. Would any claim this a benefit as other studies have shown dental fluorisis predicts bone fluorosis and increased fracture problems.
The Chair of the Review Professor Shelton felt compelled to set straight the record and in a full page debunks the very false claims of data proving sagfety and benefit being very small or ZERO but the data so poor as to prove nothing.
In three state courts fluoridation was proven to increase risks with cancer and bone problems tops. The federal courts overturned on jurisdiction alone not touching the findings. Police state power for a greater good trumped science and no proof of benefit required just the claim was enough.
In civil court Quack Watch Stephen Barrtet was insulted when challenged on his claim of 200 studies proving fluoridaion of benefit. In court he was unable to present a single study proving benefit. Case was thrown out.
Your British Pure Water groups are a bright as any and your health services would be fools to debate their superiors. Same here as they only win when they ban the opposition or make a statement and run. Rubber chickens fill the chairs for promoters to smart to show up for a real science debate. Science is science in any country or language and humans pretty much the same but the 1993 US tox profile show some unusually susceptable to fluorides. Like seniors over 50 but they forgot to tell the public.

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
"The capitalists"??? Only someone with the mentality of a child could believe in such a concept as you imply above . Bu there's no point in explaining it to you - you don't even understand why you end up as an embarrassment to every cause you try and support.

the problem is wickham is you need to go to meetings and find out what really going on, like i do i all ready lost count the number of meetings i gone to this year, so i know what questions are being asked and what questions are not and the answers to those questions if when there is any.
capitalist/right wing both are the same has one another. well who owns this fluoride i sure its not the ordinary people now is it, its a company and 99% of companys are capitalist are they not. how big of a capitalist will very. your not very bright if you cant under stand this simple concept

I don't need to go to meetings because unlike you I work for large companies - I deal with executives and you don't so instead of going to meetings and listening to ageing DAve Sparts with chips on their shoulders you could ask people like me who actually make up these companies. There are literally tens of thousands of us, so what's stopping you? Are we all part of this conspiracy of yours?

i use to deal with the biggest of corperations and know to well the people up at the top will split up information so no dept will never know what is really going on. and know the full facts. and you only find out about when its to late, and yes you really do need to go to meetings then you can find out if some one is hiding some thing. i take it your unable to answer those 2 simple questions what type and where is it coming from. tens of thousands world wide maybe but not in the uk maybe only a 1,000 if that, i dont belive in any conspiracy only hiden fact that they are not willing to release out to the public. its not even in there interest to even tell you.

"Dealt with the largest corporations?" Well I suppose if you shop at Tesco that could be true. But as I've pointed out before you someone like you will only ever be aware of the operational arm of any company and not the strategic or policy making part which is why you assume it is engaged in some kind of conspiracy. It isn't. Many people reading this will know full well that it is far more mundane. Anyway this fixation of yours with compounds. Why does it matter to you - you aren't a chemist - you haven't a clue whether one compound might be more efficacious than another in a water with a high calcium content (and neither would any of the obsessed right wing americans because they don't even know where England is let alone Hampshire). You constantly avoid answering direct questions from other posters in other posts but to deal with your "2 simple questions" - they illustrate what a tiny brain is at work behind your illiterate mispelled nonsense. First the plant hasn't even been ordered, let alone installed - so the last thing on anyone's mind is procuring the chemical - that would be monumentally stupid thing to do wouldn't it? So if you have no need to procure for another 2 years or so why not make the decision closer to the time? Nothing sinister, just simple sense. Biochemical development goes on continually, suppliers change, prices change, technology changes. That is the answer. No conspiracy - and anyway if you tried writing to a chief executive he's assume he was talking to a child or a half wit seeing as your "questions" show no insight intelligence or understanding whatsoever.
And don't dispute the 10,000s figure sunshine - why not listen and learn? Like I said I work in industry one level below executive officers as do many others - you sit in a flat in Redbridge on benefits and on the internet. It's not hard to see why.

wickham man doubt the tourist boards will be getting more visitors to come enjoy local chit chat from you. But then one on one you might be most enjoyable when not trying to prove yourself superior and having the last word. Possible but not likely. Cut back on the meds and go for a long walk and find a different form of enjoyment for your own well being.

JimSchultz wrote:
wickham man doubt the tourist boards will be getting more visitors to come enjoy local chit chat from you. But then one on one you might be most enjoyable when not trying to prove yourself superior and having the last word. Possible but not likely. Cut back on the meds and go for a long walk and find a different form of enjoyment for your own well being.

Jim you are unwell. Even your own wife said you are obsessed to an unhealthy degree. You have self diagnosed your illness and concluded fluoride as the cause in a very unscientific manner and spent your time ever since on a one man campaign. Is it healthy to stand on street corners with placards? It is not the behavior of a normal man. Your health concerns in Ormond Beach are yours not ours, and it would be appreciated if you would recognise that the converse also applies. Fluoridation may be controversial but constructive argument should vary between many shades of grey. When extremists such as yourself get involved the whole thing disintegrates into just black or white - and useless hyperbolic arguments that have no basis in reality.
There are whole bunch of confused and frightened people here who just love being terrified by imagined horrors whether it's mobile phones, fluoride, asbestos or visiting submarines. You really aren't helping them.

Totton Tim wrote:
It doesn't matter whether you live in the US, Fareham or Timbuktu -the fact is that you don't live in the area intended for fluoridation, the area that you are commenting on. When you do, your points can be considered.

Pillock!

What is happening is Southampton is the starter point for introducing Fluoridation in ALL other areas of the UK.
Much the same as the National ID card is being tested in Manchester as optional before they introduce the compulsory one in ALL areas.
David Crausby MP, and a few of his pals have been campaigning against fluoridation up here which they are looking at at the moment. He has been informed that there will not be a consideration for consultation here until the decision in Southampton has been made. He believes the consultation will be a farce, especially as he has directly been accused of wanting children to suffer/and abusing them when ever they subject has been raised amongst them.
SO, outsiders of Southampton have a very very real interest in fluoridation inside of the place as it will be the "beacon" for everywhere else to give the go ahead.
AND, the york review which was what these people looked at to make their decision, excluded ALL animal testing despite the fact you cant have a shampoo without it being tested thoroughly on all creatures great and small, but equally as bad is the way the review is interpreted.
The scientist STATED "There is NOT enough EVIDENCE to prove that fluoride is safe and therefore it should not yet be considered an option"
The southampton consulation reported this as "there is no evidence that fluoride is dangerous"
If they have nothing to hide, WTF are they being so deceptive with their info?
password rule-many

Wickham Man ,At least you read one article but maybe the focus should be on fluoridation instead of me if this is intended to be a debate of fluoridation. If it is to be about personal attack when you have really nothing worth saying you are on point as usual.
For many of us it is about a bigger issue. Notice you never discuss the reason 11 EPA unions asked for an immediate moratorium and this started in 1985 after discovering fraud by altered documents. Rewritten findings that changed the results by 180 degrees. Yes I do focus on things of importance. Those that actually read the data are able to figure it out. Others just shoot their mouths off for best effect.

now in the north wrote:

Totton Tim wrote:
It doesn't matter whether you live in the US, Fareham or Timbuktu -the fact is that you don't live in the area intended for fluoridation, the area that you are commenting on. When you do, your points can be considered.

Pillock!

What is happening is Southampton is the starter point for introducing Fluoridation in ALL other areas of the UK.
Much the same as the National ID card is being tested in Manchester as optional before they introduce the compulsory one in ALL areas.
David Crausby MP, and a few of his pals have been campaigning against fluoridation up here which they are looking at at the moment. He has been informed that there will not be a consideration for consultation here until the decision in Southampton has been made. He believes the consultation will be a farce, especially as he has directly been accused of wanting children to suffer/and abusing them when ever they subject has been raised amongst them.
SO, outsiders of Southampton have a very very real interest in fluoridation inside of the place as it will be the "beacon" for everywhere else to give the go ahead.
AND, the york review which was what these people looked at to make their decision, excluded ALL animal testing despite the fact you cant have a shampoo without it being tested thoroughly on all creatures great and small, but equally as bad is the way the review is interpreted.
The scientist STATED "There is NOT enough EVIDENCE to prove that fluoride is safe and therefore it should not yet be considered an option"
The southampton consulation reported this as "there is no evidence that fluoride is dangerous"
If they have nothing to hide, WTF are they being so deceptive with their info?
password rule-many

You are either lying, or you are just quoting some other fools ministerpretation because any scientist or mathematician knows that you canot prove a negative. No professional scientist would ever say "There is NOT enough EVIDENCE to prove that fluoride is safe....." let alone use capitals like some hysteric, because any scientist would know that it is impossible. You cannot prove that anything is "safe", only that there is no evidence that it is harmful. You cannot prove you will not murder your children tonight. You cannot prove you will still be alive when you finish reading this any more than I will be alive after each word I begin. This is why a serious debate like this is impossible, because it is invaded by fools like you who think they can google up a reasoned argument when all you are doing is propagating the very garbage you so eagerly set out to find.
To you and all the other idiot non chemists especially Southy - consider common salt, sodium chloride. Sodium is a toxic metal, chlorine is a poison gas, and chloride is a chlorine ion, yet you put salt on your children's food, You let them swim in the sea, you buy them crisps - why do you do all these things to your own children them? Answer because we are familiar and over the course of a few years even massive doses do little harm. So why come on hear bleating about the so called toxic effects of "fluoride" when it is in minute doses and has no evidence of causing heart disease high blood pressure and cardiac arrest, unlike salt? You aren't chemists yet you refuse to lunderstand chemistry to make an informed assessment of risk. You prefer to just read "facts", endless "facts" that tell you nothing and teach you nothing, but are traded on these blogs like currency. Total mindless scaremongering idiocy, purveyed by idiots to idiots.

Chris Bryson BBC reporter did a in depth review of fluoridation using a new treasure trove of early secret documents released in 1996. Half of the book shows the proof of altered and crafted data all to hide fluorines toxic damage to many in Manhatten bomb project and uranium enrichment plants. Millions of pounds of fluorides are needed to produce enough for a bomb. The majority of the uranium and fluoride escaped into the environment putting many at risk and causing negative physical and mental effects. Extreme efforts were made to hide this damage and never release documentation. They even altered reports and data to make them prove safety that did not exist. The intent was to protect the top secret project not the workers. The Fluoride Deception is half old documents to show the motives. The AEC toxicologists were the ones that designed and did the first fluoridation experments and processed the tissue samples. The public was never informed of this dual role and severe conflict of interest. It is a well written book and puts things in perspective as why this could happen.

All you are doing is proving my point Jim. I just illustrated that an ion of a toxin (chlorine) in one instance (sodium chloride) - is harmless and you come on trying to equate fluorines and fluorides as though they are all one and the same thing. Everything I said about the dangers of uncomprehending fools trading facts rather than knowledge are perfectly encapsulated in what you have posted. You are motivated by negativity - why did you not use your leisure time to get a chemistry degree - you would have learned a lot more and leaned to develop objective understanding rather be than allowing yourself to compound the misunderstandings of others. How many driving the anti-fluoride campaigning in this country are properly qualified in natural sciences? None. The best that the entire placard waving mob can manage is quack qualifications in candle burning and sensual massage dressed up as "alternative medicine". It is laughable and a little scary that others on here so openly show themselves to be so willing to blindly follow unqualified hysterical ignorance. Still, I suppose there's plenty of examples of that in history.
I suspect you can go back to bed now - everyone else has gone away. But you have never explained the obsession that drives you to trawl the world when there are other things for you to wory about - every time you come back I'll ridicule your obsession to the point of uselessness so you are just wasting your time.

The Wickham Man wrote:

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
"The capitalists"??? Only someone with the mentality of a child could believe in such a concept as you imply above . Bu there's no point in explaining it to you - you don't even understand why you end up as an embarrassment to every cause you try and support.

the problem is wickham is you need to go to meetings and find out what really going on, like i do i all ready lost count the number of meetings i gone to this year, so i know what questions are being asked and what questions are not and the answers to those questions if when there is any.
capitalist/right wing both are the same has one another. well who owns this fluoride i sure its not the ordinary people now is it, its a company and 99% of companys are capitalist are they not. how big of a capitalist will very. your not very bright if you cant under stand this simple concept

I don't need to go to meetings because unlike you I work for large companies - I deal with executives and you don't so instead of going to meetings and listening to ageing DAve Sparts with chips on their shoulders you could ask people like me who actually make up these companies. There are literally tens of thousands of us, so what's stopping you? Are we all part of this conspiracy of yours?

i use to deal with the biggest of corperations and know to well the people up at the top will split up information so no dept will never know what is really going on. and know the full facts. and you only find out about when its to late, and yes you really do need to go to meetings then you can find out if some one is hiding some thing. i take it your unable to answer those 2 simple questions what type and where is it coming from. tens of thousands world wide maybe but not in the uk maybe only a 1,000 if that, i dont belive in any conspiracy only hiden fact that they are not willing to release out to the public. its not even in there interest to even tell you.

"Dealt with the largest corporations?" Well I suppose if you shop at Tesco that could be true. But as I've pointed out before you someone like you will only ever be aware of the operational arm of any company and not the strategic or policy making part which is why you assume it is engaged in some kind of conspiracy. It isn't. Many people reading this will know full well that it is far more mundane. Anyway this fixation of yours with compounds. Why does it matter to you - you aren't a chemist - you haven't a clue whether one compound might be more efficacious than another in a water with a high calcium content (and neither would any of the obsessed right wing americans because they don't even know where England is let alone Hampshire). You constantly avoid answering direct questions from other posters in other posts but to deal with your "2 simple questions" - they illustrate what a tiny brain is at work behind your illiterate mispelled nonsense. First the plant hasn't even been ordered, let alone installed - so the last thing on anyone's mind is procuring the chemical - that would be monumentally stupid thing to do wouldn't it? So if you have no need to procure for another 2 years or so why not make the decision closer to the time? Nothing sinister, just simple sense. Biochemical development goes on continually, suppliers change, prices change, technology changes. That is the answer. No conspiracy - and anyway if you tried writing to a chief executive he's assume he was talking to a child or a half wit seeing as your "questions" show no insight intelligence or understanding whatsoever.
And don't dispute the 10,000s figure sunshine - why not listen and learn? Like I said I work in industry one level below executive officers as do many others - you sit in a flat in Redbridge on benefits and on the internet. It's not hard to see why.

your wrong wickham, i have dealt with companys 10 times bigger than tesco. a company the size of tesco might be more of your league, but its only small fry to me. there is no 10,000s in the uk you be lucky just to get to the first 10,000 let alone going more than that.
""before you someone like you will only ever be aware of the operational arm of any company and not the strategic ""
you can try again i have sat on boards like this before, and only know to well you only get part of the info. the info that they want you to have.

Southy you are practically illiterate- if you think that being wheeled in as a shop steward or some equivalent to talk to the HR Director gives you insight or privilege you are much mistaken. Like I said, I work as a management consultant to several large companies and have to report to executive officer level. You sit in a flat all day in Redbridge on benefits and think you know more than I do. Ever seen Billy Liar? i am one of the tens of thousands - you display your ignorance every time you post - you are just one of these individuals who assume that because they know nothing nobody else does either. You are a truly pathetic little man, fabricating your own self importance to the point you start to believe it yourself.

The Wickham Man wrote:

now in the north wrote:

Totton Tim wrote:
It doesn't matter whether you live in the US, Fareham or Timbuktu -the fact is that you don't live in the area intended for fluoridation, the area that you are commenting on. When you do, your points can be considered.

Pillock!

What is happening is Southampton is the starter point for introducing Fluoridation in ALL other areas of the UK.
Much the same as the National ID card is being tested in Manchester as optional before they introduce the compulsory one in ALL areas.
David Crausby MP, and a few of his pals have been campaigning against fluoridation up here which they are looking at at the moment. He has been informed that there will not be a consideration for consultation here until the decision in Southampton has been made. He believes the consultation will be a farce, especially as he has directly been accused of wanting children to suffer/and abusing them when ever they subject has been raised amongst them.
SO, outsiders of Southampton have a very very real interest in fluoridation inside of the place as it will be the "beacon" for everywhere else to give the go ahead.
AND, the york review which was what these people looked at to make their decision, excluded ALL animal testing despite the fact you cant have a shampoo without it being tested thoroughly on all creatures great and small, but equally as bad is the way the review is interpreted.
The scientist STATED "There is NOT enough EVIDENCE to prove that fluoride is safe and therefore it should not yet be considered an option"
The southampton consulation reported this as "there is no evidence that fluoride is dangerous"
If they have nothing to hide, WTF are they being so deceptive with their info?
password rule-many

You are either lying, or you are just quoting some other fools ministerpretation because any scientist or mathematician knows that you canot prove a negative. No professional scientist would ever say "There is NOT enough EVIDENCE to prove that fluoride is safe....." let alone use capitals like some hysteric, because any scientist would know that it is impossible. You cannot prove that anything is "safe", only that there is no evidence that it is harmful. You cannot prove you will not murder your children tonight. You cannot prove you will still be alive when you finish reading this any more than I will be alive after each word I begin. This is why a serious debate like this is impossible, because it is invaded by fools like you who think they can google up a reasoned argument when all you are doing is propagating the very garbage you so eagerly set out to find.
To you and all the other idiot non chemists especially Southy - consider common salt, sodium chloride. Sodium is a toxic metal, chlorine is a poison gas, and chloride is a chlorine ion, yet you put salt on your children's food, You let them swim in the sea, you buy them crisps - why do you do all these things to your own children them? Answer because we are familiar and over the course of a few years even massive doses do little harm. So why come on hear bleating about the so called toxic effects of "fluoride" when it is in minute doses and has no evidence of causing heart disease high blood pressure and cardiac arrest, unlike salt? You aren't chemists yet you refuse to lunderstand chemistry to make an informed assessment of risk. You prefer to just read "facts", endless "facts" that tell you nothing and teach you nothing, but are traded on these blogs like currency. Total mindless scaremongering idiocy, purveyed by idiots to idiots.

Ahh but if you only had any idea of what you are talking about....you would know that the water is not having sodium fluoride added to it, but sodium hexafluorosilic acid!

It is a "dirty product" and its full name is avoided due to the silicic element of its make up.

Yes we can all be pedantic about the phraseology of "it should not be used" statement, but the fact remains the conclusion of the york report which you can find online.

If you try hard enough, you can find it, AND other studies where test results from mammalian experiments prove that its far from safe. But, Im sure for the attention, you will dispute that.

You point out how the statement is phrased incorrectly and all the double negatives you want as that is the only thing you can prove!

I remain uncorrected, you are a pillock!

keyword - care-when

I made no reference to sodium fluoride - I was pointing out that the ignorance of people who cite "fluoride" as a toxin but use other apparent toxins such as sodium chloride) every day with no ill effects. A salt molecule is one little ion away from being deadly and it does us no harm at all. Of course you can't explain the reasons at all - all you can do is carry little "facts" around which you lob randomly like tiny grenades as though it informs your case or gives you greater legitimacy (it doesn't). To those such as yourself who don't actually have a natural sciences background (you evidently couldn't even read my post properly) you just google up "facts" but have no idea what to do with them.
What is so laughable about your end game is that you either think you know something that professional scientists don't, or you believe the Government is deliberately trying to kill its own citizens. I expect you believe everything David Icke says as well. Being called a pillock by someone like you carries no weight at all. If you were properly educated it might count, but look at yourself - no qualifications, out of your depth, out of sight of land, and floundering in a sea of your own sophistry and irrationality.

Rants of an unhealthy mind impress many i am sure. Wickham man might wish to remark on the 19 EPA unions of professionals well documented able to review the data and asking for an immediate halt to fluoridation. The iaomt.org site also has a facts based policy for professionals with toxicology understanding that could be commented on. The nteu280.org site is the fishbowl and has 8 position and history papers of the EPA union in fighting the fraud of fluoridation. Dr. Robert Carton then president back in 1985 clearly called it fraud and was the expert on analysis of toxic risk. Please use your superior knowledge to set him straight. Stay in the shallow end and attack those used to you. You do poorly enough at that wickham Man.
Did you wish to comment on The Fluoride deception by Bryson. So many documents seem to cast doubt there ever was a goal of benefit. The early H.T. Dean 21 city study the foundation of all fluoridation was admitted in court by Dean in 1957 to be invalid by his own standards. Unmentioned in the study were the 272 cities that showed no correlation of fluoride to benefit and no other minerals were tracked like calcium ,magnesium which do have a positive effect. Warren Levy Iowa 2008 did admit the optimal dose was not based upon science and the term should not be used. Same for Burt Eklund in the new dental textbook saying the term is not valid. Optimal dose is the foundation of fluoridation safety claims with no real solid foundation.

Jim, I am healthier than possibly any of my ancestors in history. I will be on earth for around 80 years or so You are lucky enough to be born into the most prosperous society in history. You enjoy a lifestyle with luxuries even the Roman Emperors could barely conceive, and what do you do? You obsess your life away on a "poison" on which medical opinion is at best, divided. Whether or not it prevents you enjoying your life it sure as hell hasn't impacted the millions of citizens around you has it? So you carry on wasting your days in a futile campaign that alienates you from your family while I go on enjoying days with mine. And to think you are telling me I have an unhealthy mind! You've never even been to this part of the world, you are crashing someone else's private party. You are the boring guy nobody wants to talk to any more. Hasn't your wife ever told you what you are doing to yourself? You can't blame fluoride for mental illness Jim - you need help.

Wickham Man, I agree entirely with your frustrations with other posts but instead of sticking to cool debate and analysis you get nasty - which is a shame. I'm puzzled because whats the point of your posts? Read them. If you really cared about communicating the science you would be patient, instead you get nasty with individuals and come across like an arse - you are pushing people away from the science! You appear educated, rational and eloquent but then just a big dissapointment cos you seem pretty unpleasant. I already know you dont give a hoot what I say.

Wickham man, to others it might appear you are unable to mount a cogent argument to the questions I ask so shoot the messenger is your only choice. If that is the best you can do just be satisfied with it. You are a sad case at best based upon your performance on this site. Sort of a feather in your cap maybe?
The questions about the EPa unions The Fluoride Deception still stand if you are up to it. Or you could just rant instead in personal attack.

When I think about the fears I have for my own children I worry about the efect of poor diet and lack of exercise in their lifestyle - I worry about sterile processed food destroying our natural tolerance of and resistance to even the mildest of bacteria. I worry about the effect on our respiratory systems of working too long in controlled air spaces. I worry about the destruction of mankind's genuine thirst for knowledge by conspiracy theorists and new age weirdos. I worry about religious hatred and prejudice given legitimacy by cowardly governments terrified of being accused of racism. Fluoridated water does not even enter the picture. It's so insignificant it's nothing. It's symptomatic of people being scared but not knowing what to be scared of, and latching on onto the latest passing fear and inflating it beyond reason. Some posters here have clearly long forgotten that it's done for health benefit reasons, and they are now assuming it's some kind of nazi experiment in mass poisoning. Ultimately I am most scared of all that my chldren's lives will one day be run by people as stupid as this.

Wickham Man, Now we have something we can agree on. I agree pure natural foods and avoiding over processed chemical altered and modified foods are a bigger issue. A huge issue too big for me to be able to attack and hope for a change.
I see fluoridation as something added that can by a simple action of government turn a valve and stop. The data shows little if any ingested benefit and great risk of harm in many government documents. It seemed simple enough to me as I am a huge water drinker an within 3 weeks of stopping my drinking of fluoridated water my long term joint pains decreased so my pain issues were gone.
I do not want any person stupid or high IQ being given the right to control my medication, food alteration and medical care choices. I believe excercise daily and prepare most foods from scratch but not so far as to butcher my own meat. I want control over what I put in my body and fluoridation seems the opposite of that. It really is only aimed at those they believe will do nothing for themselves under any conditions. Emerson your health boss said it was only for the bottom two social classes. In the US it is really the same belief that the poor will even if given toothpaste not use it. So fluoridation is beyond their control. 80% of the cavities happen to 25% of the people mostly poor and minoritity.
The Burt 2007 Detroit study clearly shows in the poor black population in poor inner cities had almost 100% with cavities by age 5 and still 84% with untreated cavities by age 14. It is about social class issues not really race. Nutrition was the issue as f water ,soda(sweet drinks, fizzy etc) and chips(potato etc with fried refined grains and high transfats) destroyed health including tooth and bone development. Almost all major cites with poor inner cites are increasing cavities about 10-12% in the last decade but have been fluoridated for 55 plus years. Sort of the opposite of proof of benefit.
Looks to me we agree on more then disagree. I make no claim or have no belief ending fluoridation will alter the path of humankind. I do believe it will give us one less toxin with risks to deal with. H.T. Dean in the first data showed dental fluorisis risk at .1ppm but claimed only 10% would have detectable damage at 1ppm. His data and research was paid for by the biggest fluoride polluters with lots of lawsuits against them. The biggest US study every with 39,207 kids showed in 1986-87 66.4% with evidence of dental fluorosis. Most dentists in the US refuse to identify to patients what the only cause of dental fluorosis is. Many will not even discuss it unless they see a fist full of money to repair it.
I just saw some math by a Canadian Dental researcher showing for every 100 dollars invested in fluoridation dentists could reap 400 bucks in cosmetic repairs. It looks at micro abrasion, bonding, veniers depending upon the degree of damage and the fact often redos are needed every 15 years. This is the mother loads of forever income for dentists. Data shows more dentists in fluoridated cities and also data showing more income. Counter the less cavities and better teeth storyline. I do not want control of your life choices or anyone else but do not want to give them control over me either. Government has a habit of doing that sort of thing for our own good they claim. I think it is usually for their own good or lobbist money. Just my thoughts.

It is also important to mention that while the fluoridation of water is implimented by the PCT via the NHS, the NHS will not offer cosmetic treatments for fluorisis (which one of the voting board members asked "is fluorisis perminant?!
You said yourself, with regards to fluoridation, there is no proof either way. I should like to say, that we should not be taking the risk.
For your information, we do not use fluoride nor do we eat products that contain additives or have been treated and we eat the animals we rear so they are as clean as they can be too, including no chemical fertilizers on the land, on which we are the highest so no downflow from other farms either.
My teeth are awful, not from lack of fluoride but due to a dodgy dentist making a quick buck when I was pregnant. So I wouldnt trust one to throw one.
I have read Brysons book and also watched Carlsons interviews. There are several thousand scientists and a fair few nobel prize winners now that are speaking out against fluoridation.
It has to be said that in places with flurodation, they have awful teeth data, but also huge NHS financial support giving them access to dentists.
As for conspiracies, its nothing of the sort. Its corruption and dealing amongst those in power and Moral values out of the window.

Bolton, totally agree none have intent to harm but industry has intent to dispose of toxic waste and litigation in a public relations move of rendering toxic waste a benefit. eliminate pollution by dilution is a poor solution but the most common one as it at first try the cheapest. To date not a single double blind study ever showed ingested benefit in man or animal. Most dental issues are related to nutrition or behaviors or lack of dental care. Weston A Price actually searched the world for people untouched in dietary habits by modern foods. All had nearly perfect teeth and full well formed jaws as his pictures document. Diets varied greatly but all had much more mineral and healthy oil content. Many times over what is typical today. Dental health would nosedive in one generation with jelly and toast and the rest of the processed starch and sugar fare. Empty processed calories lacking proper nutrition and minerals. Now altered fats like trans fats with long shelf life that change cell wall ability to function normal. The shape of a fat molecule affects how it acts in our body. Hydrogenation increases shelf life and makes money as it is so much cheaper then natural butter. Money bought government endorsements which yield poor health. Same for HFCS which is cheaper but processes very differently then sucrose or glucose as frutose is only process by the liver and forms free floating fats not being used as energy in the cells like glucose. This promotion is for making more money not better health. Love of money leads to evil actions at times. This is not really just about fluorine or any one item. I just usually stay on topic on fluoride articles. The H1N1 was also a designed deception at gross exageration by those wishing to gain more income. The WHO should have never made it a stage 6 pandemic but changed the rules just to do it. Many with gain in mind had undue influence. Canada had data showing seasonal flu shot doubled getting H1N1 as vaccination lowers resistance to all for 3 to 5 weeks. Very few or all reported H1N1 in US actually were that and CDC full well knew this as 15% is about typical for what the shot is claimed to protect against. About 40% actually had a severe rhino virus of the 200 possible virus choices it could be.
Please look up the excellent Vitamin D information in the timesonline as low vitamin d is a far greater risk and high d a far greater protection then any vaccination for virus. Anti microbal peptides are very protective as a first line of defense for all infections virus,bacterial, yeast and you cells produce them only with high vit D.

You two illustrate above why you do not deserve to be taken seriously. Now in the North makes unfounded allegations of corruption without knowing how where or why, and without any evidence. Jim who should know better seriously suggeststhe entire exercise is just a waste disposal programme disguised as medication. I suppose chlorine is just the same then. It is a obviously thousands of times cheaper to just dispose of waste using normal means than to go through decades of consultation and delay with no certainty of an outcome. It is a profoundly stupid suggestion. I would expect the alien conspirator (jwillie) and the terminally thick and uneducated (NITN) to just swallow it blindly but I'm surprised at you Jim - I thought you were better than that. I was wrong.

Wickham man, I actually read the data like the half book of The Fluoride Deception and many transcripts from the very early days. Most knew this was a total fraud then when designing the program and even admitted they would be hung by their own words some day. Frank Bull 1951 at the 4 annual dental convention and he admitted the science did not support the claims. It was all about avoiding the actual science when making claims that were total benefit for all. At other panels like the 1983 Surgeons generals the transcripts showed huge confusion over very basic risk data with most getting it very wrong.
The first panel allowing even a single non fluoridation promoter was the 2006 NRC started in 2003. garbage in and garbage out. The basic risk data was translated incorrectly by Harold Hodge but never corrected until about 1979 but still used as the standard for years at 40-80 mg day when it should have been 10-20mg the entire time. Thus the goal was and is incorrect as the NRC 2006 voted 12-0. The EPA has not altered this yet. When the foundation is invalid the claims mean little for safety. I am still confused haw a bright guy can be such a fool knowing so little of the fact just your over sized ego. Science should be based upon data not beliefs and the number of promoters. The real world does not always do that well.