Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 1:34 pm Post Subject: FLUORIDE
Hi everyone,
Our local council is taking submissions on the management of water treatment. As you may or may not know fluoride is injected into the water supplies of many of our towns and cities. Me and my girlfriend are submitting this letter to the council along with several pieces of supporting data I have gleaned from the internet.
To the Manawatu District Council
As long time residents of Feilding we propose a debate be held regarding the toxic chemical Fluoride, which is being administered arbitrarily to all residents of Feilding through their drinking water.
This proposal is based on recent scientific data which highlights serious health risk from the long-term ingestion of Fluoride.
Fluoride is more acutely poisonous than lead and accumulates in the brain, the bones and the kidneys with serious consequences.
There is no longer an argument for the dental benefits as studies show that the benefits come from applying Fluoride to the exterior surface of the teeth not from ingestion.
Many countries do not advocate the addition of potentially harmful Fluoride to their drinking water supply, nor should New Zealand.
We enclose documents which we urge all Councillors to read before deciding to continue this unnecessary and dangerous practice.
Go for it and all the best of luck to you and your girlfriend. We here in Whangarei are fortunate enough not to be having our water supply poisoned by this toxic chemical "fluoride, (at least).
Yes, keep sending letters to the Council. Over 50 years ago, my parents, who were living in Browns Bay and on tank water, were ardently against fluoridation of the water. We are also on tank water here in West Auckland but still support the antifluoridation issue. There is no sound reason for water to be poisoned by fluoride - it is contained in toothpaste and as your letter says it is only for the surface of the teeth and not for ingestion.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 1:39 am Post Subject:
Likewise Deano, we wish you all the best with this. I think possibly more people are beginning to become aware of the debate about fluoride and perhaps, are less willing to go along with the official line without their own investigation. I do hope you can mobilise support in your community and can build some numbers to ensure that the issue gets a fair hearing.
I did read a document in the public library some time back and remember something I found very interesting. I believe there is some proviso in the law, where fluoridation of water supplies is concerned, which states that in any community where fluoride is added to the water, there must be provision made for locals to obtain unadulterated water - something to do with Iwi/Maori and the recognition of the sacredness of the land, and hence water. This was a document that wasn't available for permanent lending, or I would have borrowed it. But as I remember it was a fairly lengthy report on the fluoride issue in New Zealand. It might be worthwhile trying to track down. Next time I'm at the library in question, I'll have another look.
From the reading I have done, it seems that the certainty many dentists bring to the issue isn't borne out by the facts, statistics and studies around the world. In fact, from memory, some of the studies show that in areas where the water is fluoridated, certain aspects of health or wellbeing have been compromised. I would have to check the facts again...
One thing I read that I felt was interesting and significant in this debate. It is rumoured that fluoride is a kind of pacifier of some sort (apparently fluoride is a main ingredient of Prozac and Sarin Nerve Gas). Possibly speculation - I don't know for sure. But, I understand, that in some of the Nazi concentration camps in World War Two, fluoride was added to the water. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't have thought that the Nazis were that concerned about the dental hygiene of the inmates...
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Location: Levin, New Zealand
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 1:07 pm Post Subject:
Melody Anderson wrote:
But, I understand, that in some of the Nazi concentration camps in World War Two, fluoride was added to the water. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't have thought that the Nazis were that concerned about the dental hygiene of the inmates...
First, I'll comment on the above quote Melody - I think the reason the Nazis administered any 'medical treatment' to their poor captives, was for experimentation. I think (I am open to correction) they even performed surgery on some poor souls!
Now the fluoride debate:
I was a School Dental Nurse, I graduated in 1971, so of course we were taught the benefits of fluoridation of water supplies. We were well aware of the opposition to it also.
We saw children who had grown up with and without fluoride. I saw children in 'non-fluoride' areas who had fluoride applied and who had benefitted from that. At that time it was not available in toothpaste.
It is topical fluoride which is beneficial.
That has always been known, but the argument used in favour of adding to water supplies, is that people won't use fluoride regularly or reliably!
To my mind, a weak argument - children whose oral hygiene and diet is poor are not going to benefit greatly. Many of those kiddies go to bed with sweets, or having just consumed sugary drinks.
Today, with very effective fluoride toothpastes available, I can see no compelling reason for adding fluoride to water supplies. Topical fluoride can be applied by dentists and hygienists, so it is available and effective.
Deano, take your argument to the Council - I'd also be pointing out that the toothpaste manufacturers would not be making fluoride toothpaste if the water supply was doing the job!
I wonder if Colgate could assist with some statistics - do they sell more f/paste in non-fluoride areas? I doubt they do!
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Location: Levin, New Zealand
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 6:16 pm Post Subject:
Yes Melody,
Topical fluoride is applied directly to the tooth surface - it used to be done with a cotton bud type process - but these days there are more modern little applicators employed.
I mentioned 'topical application' by professional, as opposed to fluoride in a toothpaste (which is also a topical application). Both options are available as alternatives to fluoridating an entire communities water supply :)
Have you had any further developments with your letter to the Council?
Quote:
Me and my girlfriend are submitting this letter to the council along with several pieces of supporting data I have gleaned from the internet.
I stopped buying fluoridated toothpaste a few years ago. Just having a look around some NZ sites I found this comment:
Quote:
In 2003 the NZ Dental Association promotes advertisements telling children not to spit out all their toothpaste but "chew it" onto the surfaces of the molars, then leave it there, resulting in swallowing!
I remember our son saying a while ago that the dental nurse had told him not to rinse his mouth after brushing - he was quite adamant about continuing to do it as well.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:31 pm Post Subject:
Quote:
I remember our son saying a while ago that the dental nurse had told him not to rinse his mouth after brushing - he was quite adamant about continuing to do it as well.
Do you mean adamant about continuing not to rinse Carus?
Submissions close Friday 10th june. I just hope that it doesnt end up in the rubbish bin (I printed a lot of colour diagrams and ink aint cheap :D ).
What you say about the dental nurse and your son reminds me when I went to the dentist a few months ago on the waiting table was a glossy cardboard info sheet selling Fluoride tablets. You actually buy tablets for children and adults and swallow them down....hello!!!..where is the benefit to your teeth in swallowing a tablet. Theres something very wrong with this picture
on the waiting table was a glossy cardboard info sheet selling Fluoride tablets. You actually buy tablets for children and adults and swallow them down
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Location: Levin, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:26 pm Post Subject:
I am very sorry to have been 'out of touch' for a while (personal pressures).
I hope your research and letter to the council bears fruit Deano - incidentally, I don't think they can legally 'throw it in the rubbish bin' !
As for telling children not to rinse toothpaste out of their mouths, I'm appalled :!: Apart from fluroide, there are other ingredients in the product that would not do the digestive system a great deal of good.
The benefit, as I understand it, is in the brushing! The fluoride is in contact with dental surfaces during that process, and I should have thought that sufficient. Twice daily, (and in some cases 3xdaily) application of fluoride toothpaste surely should be sufficient.
Very few kiddies could keep toothpaste in the mouth for very long without swallowing (adults would be pushed to achieve that also!)
Rinse the mouth out after brushing for as long as practically possible is my suggestion :wink:
Pamela
Just another thing that may be of interest is the development of fillings that contain fluoride that slowly release the fluoride into the tooth. We were given this option by our dentist a few years ago for our son who had a filling done. It was to give added protection to the tooth from further decay. Would you know if there would be any other long term effects of a filling like this Pamela? For example would the fluoride be absorbed into the body at all?
An extract from a statement by the American Dental Association reads:
Quote:
In contrast to topical fluorides, systemic fluorides ingested regularly during the time when teeth are developing are deposited throughout the entire surface and provide longer-lasting protection than those applied topically. Systemic fluorides can also give topical protection because ingested fluoride is present in saliva, which continually bathes the teeth providing a reservoir of fluoride that can be incorporated into the tooth surface to prevent decay. Fluoride also becomes incorporated into dental plaque and facilitates further remineralization. Sources of systemic fluorides include water, dietary fluoride supplements in the forms of tablets, drops or lozenges, and fluoride present in food and beverages.
This is challenged further on in the article:
Quote:
When the ADA claims that fluoride "prevents tooth decay systemically when ingested during tooth development," it is out of step with most leading dental researchers today who are now admitting that the major benefits of fluoride are accrued topically, not systemically. These authors include: Levine, 1976; Fejerskov, Thylstrup and Larsen, 1981; Carlos, 1983; Featherstone, 1987, 1999, 2000; Margolis and Moreno, 1990; Clark, 1993; Burt, 1994; Shellis and Duckworth, 1994 and Limeback, 1999, 2000.
This looks like a very in depth site with statements from the ADA then addressed by independent scientists. See here:-
Interestingly they said this about fluoride tablets:
Quote:
"Fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis in 64% of the children. (Pebbles 1974). These same tablets if swallowed provide no protection against decay. If they are chewed and dissolved in the mouth, they do appear to reduce tooth decay. The effect is topical." (David Kennedy, DDS, Aug. 31, 1998.)
Was there any information to this effect about the tablets at the dentist you were at Deano?
Good point not sure about the way it was worded sorry maybe next time I shall see. As an aside, my dentist has bone cancer and has been given 8 years to live. I wonder if he gobbled down fluoride tablets. :(
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Location: Levin, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:03 pm Post Subject:
Hi Carus,
Sorry, I don't know a lot about these fluoride fillings, but I think there are all sorts of 'new ideas' pushed from time to time - then they're found to be of no use. I'm not being cynical, but just feel things aren't always as satisfactory as initially designed.
I would suspect the fluoride would leach out into the system - but that's just my personal instinct, and not scientifically informed.
Carus, I would tend to stick to topical fluoride in fluoride toothpaste, brushing for as long as the little fellow can manage, then rinsing. Would you like to get around with a mouthfull of white gritty froth? I wouldn't!
Perhaps the dental nurse should be asked if she practices what she preaches :wink:
A point about taking F-tabs during tooth development though - the tooth buds form in the foetus at FIVE WEEKS - now that would tell me that 'tooth strengthening' during development would require F-tabs at a very early stage in foetal development.
A frightening prospect when one considers that the bones are affected by it also.
I've been giving it a lot of thought in recent days, and just wonder what other implications it has on unborn infants - I wonder if any studies have been done on prem babies, and those with birth defects? There may be some secrets hidden in the water drunk by pregnant Mums :?:
Cheerio for now,
Pamela
I actually stopped buying toothpaste with fluoride a few years ago anyway. At that time I wasn't aware of much of the information that we have been discussing here and just did it on the basis of wanting to lessen the amount of chemicals going into our bodies. We haven't had to visit the dentist often and our son has very nice teeth and few fillings. I would say our attention to a healthy diet and lifestyle has helped here.
With regards to the effects of fluoride ingestion particularly with the forming of teeth, here are some interesting comments from the web site The Fluoride Debate.
Quote:
Since 1992, the American Dental Association has required manufacturers of toothpaste to include the phrase "Use only a pea-sized amount (of toothpaste) for children under six" on fluoride toothpaste labels with the ADA Seal of Acceptance. The rationale for choosing six years of age for the toothpaste label is based on the fact that the swallowing reflex is not fully developed in children of preschool age and they may inadvertently swallow toothpaste during brushing. In addition, the enamel formation of permanent teeth is basically complete at six and so there is a decreased risk of fluorosis. Because dental fluorosis occurs while teeth are forming under the gums, individuals whose teeth have erupted are not at risk for dental fluorosis.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc.,Ph.D. (biochemistry), D.D.S., Head of Departmant of Preventative Dentistry, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, leading Canadian fluoride authority and consultant to the Canadian Dental Association, after surveying the growing evidence, makes this statement: "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto (fluoridated) tap water. Never." He goes on to say: " ... we are now spending more treating dental fluorosis than we would spend treating cavities if water were not fluoridated." (See 13-4: "A Crack Appears in the Fluoride Front," from Toronto Star, Apr. 25, 1999).
The ADA "Table 2," shows that 10 mg fluoride is "tolerable," but for how long? (See Question 13). Children have become crippled with skeletal fluorosis from drinking water that contained just 4 ppm. (See 16-1: "Deformities Brought About by Fluoride," by Prof. D.G. Steyn, Professor of Pharmacology, University of Pretoria. Includes photos).
I makes sense to me if children get dental fluorosis, which is apparently the first visible sign of excessive fluoride, then something would be happening to the skeletal bones as well. Pretty awfull stuff. Can it be reversed I wonder?
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Location: Levin, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:17 am Post Subject:
Hi Carus,
Interesting quotes, aspects of whhich support the doubts I have.
The outcome for some children when fluoride is at the rate of 4ppm is extremely worrying - when I know we were taught in 1970 that fluoride was added to public water supplies at the rate of 21ppm :!: :!:
I clearly recall being instructed to tell concerned parents
Quote:
this is a very low, safe dose - only 21parts per million
I still believe that one of the safest (although not very palatable) methods of cleaning teeth is good old baking soda - and of course manufacturers are adding that, along with all the other whiteners, frothers, abrasives, etc.
Regards, Pamela
New news on our letter to the council. Recieved a call from the guy handling the submissions and he is copying and distributing our letter and information to all the councillors. He is also sending an inquiry to the Department of health regarding our submission and the information we have sent. Needless to say we are excited that it has gone this far and I will keep you posted. Here is 2 of the three documents we sent with the letter.
The John Colquhoun article is great and will open some eyes wide in the council as he was an ardent supporter of Fluoridation who changed his mind totally.
Encouraging news Deano :-) Look forward to hearing about further progress with the Council.
The 2 links were particularly interesting in that many of the countries who haven't accepted fluoridation don't believe that "it is their task to deliver medicinal treatment to people" and the comprehensive article and findings of John Colquhoun are compelling evidence.
I was reminded of seeing schoolboys after their soccer games today all sucking on their water bottles and thought, they're getting water for sure, but the benefit is negated by the fluoridated water. :(
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:02 pm Post Subject:
Well done Deano - great news! :D Yes, that Colquhoun article certainly is an eye opener, particularly the ways in which the studies were biased to give certain desired results and how the diagnosis method was changed to produce lower perceived rates of decay.
Quote:
In other words, the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth"...For example, over 30 years Professor Teotia and his team in India have examined the teeth of some 400,000 children. They found that tooth decay increases as fluoride intake increases. Tooth decay, they decided, results from a deficiency of calcium and an excess of fluoride [17].
In light of the above, it is incredible that there still seems to be so many advocates for this.
I am quite interested to find out more about the area I grew up in - if and through what period, the water was flouridated. My teeth developed some of that mottling. I used to find it frustrating that my younger brother, who hardly ever seemed to brush his teeth when we were kids, had perfect, beautiful teeth and never had a filling.
Did you manage to find any documents that list and date the flouridated areas in New Zealand over recent decades?
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:38 pm Post Subject:
Deano wrote:
Dead in1999 you say...bet they snuffed him out after he blew the whistle.
:? Don't know about that, but I found one timeline which says that he was 'forced into early retirement':
"1990 - Dr. John Colquhoun in New Zealand is forced into early requirement in New Zealand after he conducts a study on 60,000 school children and finds no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. He additionally finds that a substantial number of children in fluoridated areas suffered from dental fluorosis. He makes the study public."
http://curezone.com/dental/fluoride.html
