Fluoride to be added to British water

[Capn_Birdseye]

We, the people of Britain, have no say in the matter, fluoride will be added to our water supply, regardless of whether we want it or not - so much for democracy! Would this be tolerated in the US?

Some say Fluoride is a poison:

http://www.lovethetruth.com/truth_about_fluoride.htm

Fluoride to be added to all Britain's tap water to tackle tooth decay

By DANIEL MARTIN - 3rd February 2008
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/10/tapwater_228x228.jpg
All tap water will have fluoride added

All British water should be treated with fluoride to help beat tooth decay, ministers are set to announce.

Health secretary Alan Johnson will tell MPs that fluoridation is an "effective and relatively easy way" to help poorer children by preventing dental problems in later life.

But the plan will face vociferous opposition from campaigners, who claim it is an unwanted piece of "nanny state" interference which could actually harm people's teeth.

Currently only two areas in England - the north east and the West Midlands - have fluoride automatically added to tap water.

Both the Department of Health and the British Dental Association say there is overwhelming evidence to show that adding fluoride to water helps fight against tooth decay.

Children in non-fluoridated Manchester are twice as likely to have tooth decay as youngsters in Birmingham, where fluoride has been added for over 40 years.

And a study by York University study in 2000 found water fluoridation increased the number of children without tooth decay by 15 per cent.
Today Mr Johnson said: "I want the NHS to do much more to prevent rather than just treat disease.
Fluoridation is an effective and relatively easy way to help address health inequalities, giving children from poorer backgrounds a dental health boost that can last a lifetime.
We have a duty to help the areas with the worst record on tooth decay to discuss this issue and take the necessary steps to improve their dental health."

The British Dental Association, which said it would dramatically improve oral health among the needy.

"It's tragic that, in the 21st century, there are still children as young as five having most or even all of their teeth removed under general anaesthetic as the result of tooth decay," said a spokeswoman.
"Water fluoridation is a positive step in narrowing the health inequalities that currently exist."

The Government will not force water companies to add fluoride to their water but encourage them to do so.

But Mr Johnson in a speech on Tuesday is likely to make grants available for companies to undertake consultation exercises, which are needed before any decision can be taken.

In 2003 ministers passed legislation to make it easier for water companies to fluoridise their water - but few have done so, fearing legal action from anti-fluoride campaigners.

Yesterday the National Pure Water Association, which campaigns against the fluoridation of tap water, claimed studies had linked the practice to brittle bone disease in the elderly and bone cancer in young boys.

They also say it can cause fluorosis, where teeth become stained and the enamel becomes pitted.

A spokesman said: "By presenting fluoridation as a means of preventing tooth decay, health secretary Alan Johnson confirms the practice is medication.
Fluoridation is carried out by water companies in violation of their customers" human right to refuse consent to any medical intervention."

The fluoridation of water is just the latest public health measure being pushed by the Government.

Last May, the Food Standards Council announced that folic acid would be added to flour to prevent birth defects.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512051&in_page_id=1770

[Alonzo-ny]

Would this be tolerated in the US?


Supposedly flying innocent people to foreign countries and torturing them is apparently tolerated, why use the US as an example for peoples freedom and rights?

[Capn_Birdseye]

Supposedly flying innocent people to foreign countries and torturing them is apparently tolerated, why use the US as an example for peoples freedom and rights?
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
Didn't the British torture and imprison without trial people in the North of Ireland, didn't they construct the first concentration camps in the Boer War. Come on Alonzo, get back on topic for goodness sake!
Sorry moderators, I'm not trying to do your job.

[lofter1]

Capn: The US has been adding flouride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation) to the public water supply for generations.



In the United States, 66% of residents on public water supplies have fluoridated water as of the year 2000 ...

... community water fluoridation in the United States owes its origin in part to the research of Dr. Frederick McKay ... in 1909 ...

The classic epidemiological study to attempt to determine the optimal level of fluoride in water was led by Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental officer of the U.S. Public Health Service, in 1934 ...

The issue of whether or not to fluoridate water supplies occasionally arises in local governments. For example, on November 8, 2005, citizens of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan voted 63% to 37% in favor of reinstating fluoridation in public drinking water after a 2004 ballot initiative ceased water fluoridation in the city.


We also add chlorine (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6D7123DF932A35754C0A9649582 60) to the water.

[BenL]

Apparently it's all a commie plot to impurify our precious bodily fluids...

[Jasonik]

Though declines in tooth decay are commonly attributed to fluoridated water, similar declines have also occurred in Western countries without the additive.

See this (http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html) for graphs and data.

There are those that suspect nefarious purposes behind adding fluoride such as creating a docile populace (http://www.sonic.net/~kryptox/editors/moolen.htm). Considering the countries involved with the practice; Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States, - it doesn't seem so farfetched.

[lofter1]

Docile? Absolutely.

We're the most peace-loving and least-likely-to-kill of all citizens on the planet :cool:

[Alonzo-ny]

Your suggesting the US as an example of a country that stands up for the freedom of its citizens and would never possibly do anything against the will of its people, Im providing one of many things that could suggest otherwise. I was challenging your statement, a dumb example that you're using to try and back up your useless UK bashing.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Apparently it's all a commie plot to impurify our precious bodily fluids...
... Dr Strangelove?:)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=950s0Gs3Yv0

[Meerkat]

All British water should be treated with fluoride to help beat tooth decay, ministers are set to announce.


Is this a cheaper alternative to employing dentists?

[Capn_Birdseye]

Is this a cheaper alternative to employing dentists?
Since the government has ensured that the vast majority of dentists no longer want to work in the NHS, this is probably their next move to safeguard the nation's teeth! And, as you say Meerkat, its cheaper!

What concerns me is that Fluoride is a poison!
http://www.lovethetruth.com/truth_about_fluoride.htm

Chlorine is also a poison and was used during WW1 - yet both are deemed safe enough to be put in our water.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/poison_gas_and_world_war_one.htm

In about 40 years time a bunch of scientists will be proving that these additions are the cause of .... (name the disease/medical condition) and express amazement that a government could be so stupid as to allow such behaviour!

[Ninjahedge]

Water is a poison when introduced in large doses OR when directly applied to animal cells (makes them explode).

Lesson is, try to keep the chlorine levels low enough so that it eliminates the main problem (organics in the water supply) and does not cause any problems. The biggest problem is not health, but customer satisfaction. Chlorine also tastes bad and smells worse in higher concentrations. You put too much in there, long before it becomes hazardous, your people will simply stop using it.

Kind of defeats the purpose.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Water is a poison
I don't think you can compare water with fluoride or chlorine in terms of harmful effects!
What you're basically saying is that a little bit of poison won't hurt us, (trust us say the government scientists) - well I'd simply like a choice of not having to ingest it thank you.

Thalidomide was a drug that medical scientists reckoned was safe. It was prescribed to millions between 1957-1961 across 50 countries under around 40 different brand names. It was given to pregnant women to combat morning sickness - the result - it caused catastrophic birth defects in babies. You can even still some examples of its terrible effects in some adults today.

[Meerkat]

Health secretary Alan Johnson will tell MPs that fluoridation is an "effective and relatively easy way" to help poorer children by preventing dental problems in later life.



Surely encouraging people to regularly brush their teeth would be more effective and easy????? Or am i just being stupid:confused:.

The fact is the health secretary (and his predecessor patricia Hewitt) don't know their ar*e from their elbow.

[Ninjahedge]

Pardon me and my stereotypes here, but are Englishmen the BEST people to be talking about dental care and hygene? ;)


I thought Flouride was a way to make it so that spy satilites could pick us up from space.... :crosseyed:

[Capn_Birdseye]

Pardon me and my stereotypes here, but are Englishmen the BEST people to be talking about dental care and hygene? ;)

Why do Americans have SUCH a thing about teeth??
It never fails to amaze me the perfect sets of gleaming white teeth on view when I visit the US ..... and braces on young people ... WHY, WHY??
There seems to be an obsession with teeth over and beyond normal care and attention.

I reckon I can usually pick out Americans from a group, without hearing the accents, simply by looking at their teeth!

Yes, I will admit us Brits don't care too much as long as they don't ache, we can chew on steak, and they look reasonably OK (although probably not OK in American eyes!)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Long ago, we decided to eliminate Bad Teeth from the National Joke List.

We left that one available for the Brits.

My favorite is our obsession with big breasts.

[Capn_Birdseye]

My favorite is our obsession with big breasts.
Now that one I understand and share but they have to be natural, not silicone enhanced. :)

[voodoochild]

Next they will be allowing men to kill women that disgrace their families and women will have to cover up entirely. Are you sure you guys are still allowed to vote?? Geeeeez. What's going on over there?

[Capn_Birdseye]

Next they will be allowing men to kill women that disgrace their families and women will have to cover up entirely. Are you sure you guys are still allowed to vote?? Geeeeez. What's going on over there?
Its all happening and the government is doing NOTHING about it, in fact its facilitating it! You really have to live here to believe it.

[voodoochild]

Its all happening and the government is doing NOTHING about it, in fact its facilitating it! You really have to live here to believe it.
I can't believe what's going on!!! This is unbelievable. Is anyone fighting for their rights over there??? I can't believe in this day and age bullsh*t like this exists in modernized countries.

[Ninjahedge]

Next they will be allowing men to kill women that disgrace their families and women will have to cover up entirely. Are you sure you guys are still allowed to vote?? Geeeeez. What's going on over there?

Um, why are you extending it?

How is poligamy related to the forcing of other things into law.

Just to be fair, if they allow poligamy, EVERYONE should be allowed regardless of their religious affiliation.

Also Poly-(husband?)-y should be allowed.

If enough people demand it, so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others, why are people so scared of it?

Because it is different?

I am not into the concept of treating women as cattle, but the paranoia about a muslim invasion is getting to be a little too much.

[voodoochild]

Um, why are you extending it?

How is poligamy related to the forcing of other things into law.

Just to be fair, if they allow poligamy, EVERYONE should be allowed regardless of their religious affiliation.

Also Poly-(husband?)-y should be allowed.

If enough people demand it, so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others, why are people so scared of it?

Because it is different?

I am not into the concept of treating women as cattle, but the paranoia about a muslim invasion is getting to be a little too much.
I never said a word about Poligamy in my post. but there is also a thread about Britain giving extra tax breaks to multi wife families now that you mention it.(which I disagree on because why should the tax payers have to pay for their tax breaks? They chose to have multiple wives) FYI...I am against Poligamy because a lot of them prey on young girls before they have even hit puberty. If a man wants to have 5 wives and the women agree, fine, but once children get involved, I'm sorry that's disgusting.
Have you ever watched documentaries on escapees of their compounds? Women have sat and spoke of the treatment and wrong doings that went on when they were there. I have and it is sick.

[voodoochild]

Do you think it is healthy for a child to grow up having 6 or 7 mothers and 20 1/2 siblings. It is degrating to women all over. The women that marry into this were braught up this way and know no other way. They usually have limmited education and no self esteem. It is sad. In poligamy the man has the rights and the women obey his wishes. I want to know why there aren't women out there with 5 husbands. I wouldn't condone that either but that would be a very weird situation.

[Ninjahedge]

I never said a word about Poligamy in my post. but there is also a thread about Britain giving extra tax breaks to multi wife families now that you mention it.(which I disagree on because why should the tax payers have to pay for their tax breaks? They chose to have multiple wives)

THAT is different. In the US you actually get penalized for being married. (The rules were written when women earned substantially less, so the "extra" ammounts that are included in the tax and benefit brackets are lower than what they would be for two single people living together).

You have multiple wives? Fine, you pay the same taxes. No "breaks" for that. You have problems? You have two wives, only one "needs" to stay home. Giving additional breaks for this is, akin to what I object to, pandering and aiding at the expense of others.


FYI...I am against Poligamy because a lot of them prey on young girls before they have even hit puberty.

Now you are mixing arguments. Keep them seperate. You cannot argue against poligamy for its propensity, in other nations, for almost pedophilial leanings. Treat them as seperate entities or your argument will get mashed.


If a man wants to have 5 wives and the women agree, fine, but once children get involved, I'm sorry that's disgusting.

That is where the line is drawn, and THAT is where you should object to it. Does this new law allow men to marry 12 year olds? If it does, voice your concern over that and do not call it Poligamy. Call it what it is.


Have you ever watched documentaries on escapees of their compounds? Women have sat and spoke of the treatment and wrong doings that went on when they were there. I have and it is sick.

Yes, but again, you are mixing things. Noone said that they would allow these other thnigs to happen, and no it is not "just a matter of time" before it happens. Again, that is getting paranoid. That is grouping all the attrocities you have seen onto one particular covenent and then applying it to a religion/group. Keep them seperate or you will just end up spewing hate indeterminately at a whole slew of people, most of which havnig little or nothing to do with what you are so ardently opposing.

[voodoochild]

THAT is different. In the US you actually get penalized for being married. (The rules were written when women earned substantially less, so the "extra" ammounts that are included in the tax and benefit brackets are lower than what they would be for two single people living together).

You have multiple wives? Fine, you pay the same taxes. No "breaks" for that. You have problems? You have two wives, only one "needs" to stay home. Giving additional breaks for this is, akin to what I object to, pandering and aiding at the expense of others.



Now you are mixing arguments. Keep them seperate. You cannot argue against poligamy for its propensity, in other nations, for almost pedophilial leanings. Treat them as seperate entities or your argument will get mashed.



That is where the line is drawn, and THAT is where you should object to it. Does this new law allow men to marry 12 year olds? If it does, voice your concern over that and do not call it Poligamy. Call it what it is.



Yes, but again, you are mixing things. Noone said that they would allow these other thnigs to happen, and no it is not "just a matter of time" before it happens. Again, that is getting paranoid. That is grouping all the attrocities you have seen onto one particular covenent and then applying it to a religion/group. Keep them seperate or you will just end up spewing hate indeterminately at a whole slew of people, most of which havnig little or nothing to do with what you are so ardently opposing.

You were the one that said I spoke of Poligamy in my first post when indeed I did not. Now you have made me state a belif. I never use the word hate when I speak of any group. I am not ignorant and I do understand that not all people in groups are alike. I was responing to the thread on tax breaks that I thought you may have read and confused with this one.

[Ninjahedge]

Do you think it is healthy for a child to grow up having 6 or 7 mothers and 20 1/2 siblings.

Are you saying that these people are freaks? That somehow our system is better? I am sure we have had none that have done bad being raised in a traditional monogamous relationship... :rolleyes:


It is degrating to women all over.

Depends on how you see it. This is where the change comes in. You do not treat women like cattle. You make the road two-way and allow women to do the same if they so chose. You also eliminate the direct association of this with any particular group or religion.

Lastly, you expose these kids to the world outside. this is the one thing that has been giving moany countries that seek to oppress the biggest problems. Knowledge of the outside world.


The women that marry into this were braught up this way and know no other way. They usually have limmited education and no self esteem. It is sad. In poligamy the man has the rights and the women obey his wishes. I want to know why there aren't women out there with 5 husbands. I wouldn't condone that either but that would be a very weird situation.

Why are there no 5 husband groups? Because the places that have poligamy are usually male dominated where the male earns the money. the more money you make, the more family you can support. When you start introducing this to Westren society, however, it can get a little tangled up.

You also know of the sexual nature of men and women. That by "instinct", to put it nicely, men will wander. Women will too, but I saw somethnig interesting about this when they were studying a tribe in Africa. They found that men did indeed roam, but women were much sneakier about it.

I will not go into that, being as it may or may not upset some people, but suffice to say, as a species we do get around.

Anyway, the key to adopting poligamy in western society WITHOUT regressingto the same conditions that exist in some countries is the continuing education of ALL youth, and the support for equal rights of all. If wife #3 wants a divorce, she should be allowed, and that will come as time moves on. As these women learn more and earn more, they should be allowed as many men as they can support, but with the same rules.

Will this mean you will se an equality? Probably not. Just by our own biology we will do things differently, but hating poligamy is different than disagreeing with it.

You have to stay logical and, as I have said before, seperate the root from its possible extensions.

Hate just makes he pendulum swing faster.

[voodoochild]

Are you saying that these people are freaks? That somehow our system is better? I am sure we have had none that have done bad being raised in a traditional monogamous relationship... :rolleyes:



Depends on how you see it. This is where the change comes in. You do not treat women like cattle. You make the road two-way and allow women to do the same if they so chose. You also eliminate the direct association of this with any particular group or religion.

Lastly, you expose these kids to the world outside. this is the one thing that has been giving moany countries that seek to oppress the biggest problems. Knowledge of the outside world.



Why are there no 5 husband groups? Because the places that have poligamy are usually male dominated where the male earns the money. the more money you make, the more family you can support. When you start introducing this to Westren society, however, it can get a little tangled up.

You also know of the sexual nature of men and women. That by "instinct", to put it nicely, men will wander. Women will too, but I saw somethnig interesting about this when they were studying a tribe in Africa. They found that men did indeed roam, but women were much sneakier about it.

I will not go into that, being as it may or may not upset some people, but suffice to say, as a species we do get around.

Anyway, the key to adopting poligamy in western society WITHOUT regressingto the same conditions that exist in some countries is the continuing education of ALL youth, and the support for equal rights of all. If wife #3 wants a divorce, she should be allowed, and that will come as time moves on. As these women learn more and earn more, they should be allowed as many men as they can support, but with the same rules.

Will this mean you will se an equality? Probably not. Just by our own biology we will do things differently, but hating poligamy is different than disagreeing with it.

You have to stay logical and, as I have said before, seperate the root from its possible extensions.

Hate just makes he pendulum swing faster.

Like I said before, I NEVER used the word hate. Just because people state their negative opinions on an issue does not mean that they HATE the issue or group they are speaking of. I stated my OPINION and backed up why I felt that way. I did not say I do not believe and Poligamy without giving my reasons for being against it. There was Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Mary, and Sara. Just like you have your opinion, I have mine and so on and so on.

[Ninjahedge]

You were the one that said I spoke of Poligamy in my first post when indeed I did not. Now you have made me state a belif. I never use the word hate when I speak of any group. I am not ignorant and I do understand that not all people in groups are alike. I was responing to the thread on tax breaks that I thought you may have read and confused with this one.


What you said as this:


Next they will be allowing men to kill women that disgrace their families and women will have to cover up entirely. Are you sure you guys are still allowed to vote?? Geeeeez. What's going on over there?

and this:


I can't believe what's going on!!! This is unbelievable. Is anyone fighting for their rights over there??? I can't believe in this day and age bullsh*t like this exists in modernized countries.

After Captain Logical over here started spouting about all the evils of the Muslims that were bring brought into the UK.

You were taking the ruling of legalization of Poligamy on another thread. Sorry if I got the two crossed, but it is rather easy to confuse one hateful anti-UK thread from CB with another.

>sigh<

Can you see where I got the "hate" from?

[Capn_Birdseye]

After Captain Logical over here started spouting about all the evils of the Muslims that were bring brought into the UK.
Correction Ninja, I have no "hate" in my heart for anyone. I never spoke of "the evils of the Muslims" in the UK. If you cared to read my postings carefully you'll see I simply was highlighting some media reports about special privileges that were being demanded and the problems of assimulation within established British communities. What is wrong with the expression of free speech in a free country?

[voodoochild]

Geez, can't we all just get along?:p
Bottom line...Liberalization in Britain took place years ago. A democracy is what everyone wants in this world. Sometimes some countries and regions seem to take a step back and it's citizens become upset.
Tha End

[ZippyTheChimp]

I thought this thread was about fluoridation and picket-fence smiles.

[Ninjahedge]

It's all a conspiracy I tell you!!!


First Flouride, next ID chips!!!! :eek:

[Jasonik]

Is fluoride safe?
It's been linked to cot death, eczema and cancer – but now the Government wants to put it in our tap water. This mass medication can't be right, says Zac Goldsmith

Tuesday, 12 February 2008 (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/features/is-fluoride-safe-780948.html)

When is it right for a government to mass-medicate the public? It's hard to imagine a scenario. If we faced the spread of a new and lethal plague, most people would probably accept draconian intervention. But it would have to be serious.

Today, however, we're told by the Government's Alan Johnson that he intends to pursue a policy of mass medication of the British public. Not to prevent smallpox or the bubonic plague, but to tackle tooth decay. Well, tooth decay is bad news, but it's hardly the stuff of nightmares. However, fluoride, the medicine he's chosen, may well be.

We don't know if fluoride works. In the United States, where 65 per cent of people are routinely subjected to the chemical, the worst tooth decay occurs in poor neighbourhoods of the largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades. When fluoridation was halted in parts of Finland, East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay actually decreased.

One of the reasons for this is that fluoride is believed to work best when applied directly, for example to the tooth. Drinking fluoride to prevent cavities is like swallowing bandages to cure a broken arm. Another reason is that a policy of mass medication through the water supply assumes that we are all the same age, size and weight, and therefore require the same dose.

What we do know is that fluoride is toxic – so toxic, in fact, that in 1984, the makers of Colgate, Procter & Gamble, reportedly admitted that a small tube of their toothpaste "theoretically at least contains enough fluoride to kill a small child".

Fluoride has been linked to cot death, eczema and Alzheimer's. It has been shown, at low doses, to cause genetic damage. And it has been linked by doctors from the National Cancer Institute and the National Health Federation to cancer.

Because fluoride causes collagen, an essential structural component in skin, muscle, ligaments and bone, to disintegrate, big question-marks are being raised over its possible contribution to arthritis, a problem that has increased by 63 per cent since 1997, and which now affects 70 million Americans.

Other reports are appearing that link the accumulation of fluoride in bones to an increase in hip fractures among the elderly. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported recently that "with increasing dose of fluoride in the drinking water, the hip fracture ratio increases," a view echoed by The Lancet, The Annals of Epidemiology and other science journals.

Further studies have linked fluoride use to hyperthyroidism (underactive thyroid glands), one of the most widespread medical problems in the US, affecting more than 20 million people and leading to fatigue, weight gain, depression and heart disease. That's scarcely surprising, given that fluoride used to be prescribed by European doctors to depress thyroid activity.

Alan Johnson's principal concern is for the poorest in society. But studies as far back as the Fifties, by the American Dental Association and the Canadian National Research Council, have shown that people with poor diets are more susceptible to the health risks of long-term ingestion of fluoride.

What is extraordinary is that fluoride was ever considered for mass medication. It has always been contentious. Indeed, the first ever lawsuits against the US 's atomic bomb programme, the Manhattan Project, concerned fluoride, not radiation. What's more, the first health tests for fluoride were designed to establish how much industry could afford to release into the environment without damaging human health.

In the summer of 1943, a group of New Jersey farmers reported that something was "burning up" their peach trees, maiming their horses and cattle and killing their chickens. The source of these ills was a nearby DuPont corporation factory that was producing millions of pounds of fluoride for use in the Manhattan Project. Immediately after the war, the farmers filed suit against DuPont. At the time, the Manhattan Project's chief of fluoride toxicology studies, Professor Harold C Hodge, asked his superiors if there "would be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride through lectures on fluoride toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of fluoride in tooth health?"

The most widely cited study into the benefits of water fluoridation was conducted in New Zealand between 1954 and 1970, and it is used by fluoridation advocates to this day. But the study failed to meet the most basic criteria for scientific objectivity, not least because the decline in tooth decay that the community in question experienced was also seen in other non-fluoridated communities in the region. The then Mayor of Auckland, Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, described the so-called Hastings Experiment as a "swindle".

At best, the jury is out. Perhaps there are reams of recent studies that lay these fears to rest. If so, Johnson needs to share them with us. Mass medication is a big deal, and there should be proper debate before it is applied. Is fluoride safe? Does it even work? More importantly, is it right for a government to impose a controversial medicine on the entire population to deal with a non-life-threatening complaint?

When the Government first mooted this idea, Hazel Blears and Elliot Morley, who were then ministers at the Health and Environment departments respectively, suggested with breathtaking arrogance that "those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water". Alan Johnson, the current Health Secretary, needs to demonstrate a far greater respect for British people than that.

Zac Goldsmith is the Conservative Party parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park

[Capn_Birdseye]

Zac speaks a lot of sense - many Brits don't want fluoride added to their water but the government wants, as is their way, to impose it upon us. What happened to freedom of choice in such fundamental matters, our precious bodily fluids could be compromised for heavens sake and our human rights abused! :)

[voodoochild]

Too flouride CAN definitely cause death.

[BenL]

Just like too much chlorine but if we didn't have that, there'd be many more infections. These objections are pretty ridiculous.

[Ninjahedge]

I skimmed it.

Different pieces, such as "In the summer of 1943..." they had problems.

Does that mean they are still having problems today, or that they have not had any problems with it for 65 YEARS?

Also, they say that it can cause damage to DNA, but they do not say how. You put a drop of chlorine on a live cell and it will cause damage too, but I have yet to hear of a person dying in a pool (aside from possible allergic reaction) because of chlorine.


the worst tooth decay occurs in poor neighbourhoods of the largest cities

Does not say anything about the fact that those demographics are notorious for lack of proper oral hygene AND many do not have dental plans and so not go to the dentist.


is like swallowing bandages to cure a broken arm

Is also a bad analogy in that it is more like you are throwing adhesive bandages (with the adhesive exposed) on a persons laceration in hopes that they might stick right. But that does not emphasize the extreme contradiction that the author wants to express. Flouride is also in mouthwash and has been proven to be beneficial in use with prolonged contact with cleaned dental surfaces:

http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/25/4/207.pdf

If you want more information, read through this:

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/fluoridation.html

Which seem to say that dental decay is retarded from the use of controlled doses of flouride, but, like all things, there are risks in overexposure:


Chronic exposures to fluoride may result in dental fluorosis or skeletal fluorosis

So all these people whining and moaning about the fear of being "medicated" are just being paranoid about being forced to do something they feel should be their choice.

"If I want to stick my feet in the fire, gol-darnit I will, and NOBODY is a gonna pull them out but me!"

Pheh.


Lesson leaned: Never listen to politicians, political commentators and Pundits when it comes to medicine, science, or just about any issue OTHER than politics.

[Capn_Birdseye]

So all these people whining and moaning about the fear of being "medicated" are just being paranoid about being forced to do something they feel should be their choice.

Compulsory state medication - now what does that remind you of?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfAdQrKMZTU&eurl=http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=389