65.8% of the U.S. population is exposed to water fluoridation. As a result, virtually 100% consume a fluoridated food and/or water supply. Yet, tooth decay still occurs in 60% of U.S. Preschoolers(2), the same as in Manchester, which has the worst tooth decay rates in the UK. Do you still think fluoridation will do any good?

Tooth decay is the result of poor diet and/or poor oral hygiene. It is ludicrous to advocate mass medication of the entire population when it is a public health education matter.

The Dept. of Health is extremely concerned about the alarming increase of childhood obesity and childhood diabetes and is trying to devise ways to reduce those two serious problems.

Better nutrition is key, of course. And if sugar intake is reduced, those conditions will undoubtedly improve - and better dental health will be a welcome bonus.

So, how about putting warning labels on all sugar products similar to those which appear on tobacco products ("This product could seriously damage your health")? And how about a duty, too, so that kids can only afford one bag of sweets instead of five every week - or two fizzy pops instead of ten? And give poor kids toothbrushes if they haven't got any.

By this means, the Government would be protecting the human rights of everyone, instead of proposing to violate them with mass medication. Forced mediation without individual consent violates a range of human rights legislation.

"Fluoride" is a poison. A systematic scientific review commissioned by the Government revealed that overexposure to fluorides affects 48% of people living in fluoridated areas. Forcing people to swallow known poisons shows an alarming political mindset and ignorance on the part of all proponents of water fluoridation.

Jane Jones,
Campaign Director,
National Pure Water Association.

Note for Editor:
Please see our submission to the Scrutiny Committee on the recent Water Bill - http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/committee.html .

Strange that a photo of classic baby bottle tooth decay is shown because it is common knowledge that even if fluoride worked, it would not help baby bottle tooth decay.

No amount of brushing will stop or fluoride will stop baby bottle tooth decay because it is caused by fruit juices and sweetie drinks in feeding bottles and soothers.. Educating parents is the only cure.

If Jackie Duxbury doesn't know the difference between baby bottle tooth decay and and dental caries from lack of proper dental hygiene - she needs to get another job.

One wonders exactly what the dental service and the education system have been doing in Manchester.

Unfortunately this type of negligence brings single agenda, opportunist pressure groups like the British Fluoridation crawling out the woodwork promoting Dr Lennans cure all, fluoridation!

Tooth decay can be halted and with a joint campaign against obesity and poor diet both problems would be resolved. Its not rocket science you know.

Mass medication with an industrial toxic waste which is not a licensed medicinal product is the biggest pile of nonsense possible.

Is Shiela Jones so anti freedom of choice, anti human rights. How any so called health professional can advocate the use of unregistered and untested products to entire populations is grossly irresponsible, it also violates the code of medical ethics.

Fluoridation is medical fascism.

I am writing to share some NZ experiences on fluoride. I can understand the authorities wanting to find a solution to the misery of tooth decay. Unfortunately it appears your authorities are looking in the wrong place again. They know that tooth decay is caused by poor diet and poor dental hygiene. The cure is to face up to the problem of poor diet choices and dental hygiene awareness not to put something into the water.
NZ had the same problem in a Northern area so they took a programme into the schools, issued the children with toothbrushes and toothpaste, showed them how to use them and had a brushing session in class each day. The results were phenomenal. The best thing is those children learnt how to care for their teeth so they were empowered to take control of their dental hygiene. Fluoridation of water does not teach anyone anything except to expect others to provide a quick fix for them. The major health problem facing the world is obesity - the cause is the same - poor diet choices in the socially deprived. Will you be wanting to put something into the water to fix that as well?

I wonder how many parents who "couldn't afford toothbrushes" COULD afford Sky dishes, washing machines, fags and burgers?

Dosing everyone with a substance proven to cause IQ damage, and implicated in the rising rates of autism and cancer in north America, is an insane knee-jerk reaction by a Government who are as unconcerned and apathetic as the parents who don't provide toothbrushes for their kids.

It's a bad day for this country when we let the lowest common denominator dictate that we can be mass-medicated with a dangerous substance that has no effect on the problem it's supposed to address.

Just say no!

I am a Manchester mum and I don't see the parents in Birmingham, which has fluouride in its water, asking for fluouride to be removed. So if the side effects are so bad then why haven't any side effects been reported in Birmingham. I would be in favour of fluouridation and I think there should also be education campaigns in schools and by doctors and midwives targeting families with a modest income, giving practical lessons in oral hygeine and offering fluoride treatment of teeth as well.

I note that the British Flouridation Society gives the reasons for dental caries in children as "social deprivation, poor diet, lower use of toothpastes and lower parental awareness. It is dificult to see how the mass-administration of flouride via drinking water could answer these problems. Certainly it would be cheaper than the alternative of challanging the poverty and social deprivation, but sometimes you get what you pay for, and flouride will not ease the disease processes that are attendant on poor diets or bad dental hygiene. It is poor medicine that treats a fractured femur with a pain-killer, rather than the reduction and immobilization it requires
It is easy to understand the acceptance of flouride by dentists, anyone who has had to care for a small child in pain and distress would seek to alleviate such suffering. But dental caries is only one symptom of a wider disease process.Flouridization is no substitute for a good diet, good dental hygiene, regular health supervision, better awareness /education and a reduction in poverty and social inequalities. Then you start to deal with the problems of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, degenerative joint disease et al.
I can't help feeling that the profound ethical problem of administering a drug to someone without their informed consent and in the certain knowledge that it will not benefit that individual has yet to be addressed. If this is considered to be of such importance to the greater good of the population that the will of the individual should be ignored, where will this principle be used next? There is little hard evidence that MMR vaccination is anything but beneficial, but there are many parents who have made the choice not to allow its administration to thier child. There is clear evidence that should vaccination rates fall, the consequences for the population as a whole could be very serious, with considerably more serious implications for some sufferers than dental caries; yet who would advocate ignoring parental objections and vaccinating by force?
Is mass frouridization more acceptable because you will not notice it happening? At least, you will not notice it unless you are one of the unlucky people that will have some/all of the recognised side-effects.
Flouride is a rotton anwer to health needs: -of questionable use in caries, useless in the fight against gum disease and at best irrelevent to the improvement of general health and at worst the possible cause of further future health problems.

I object to medication without consent, especially as (theoretically) helping children's teeth now, by putting fluoride in drinking water, will put oldies like me in danger of osteoporosis.

Fluoride should not be added to the water supply. In areas that are currently fluoridated 48% of children have teeth permanently damaged by dental fluorosis. This is caused by overexposure to fluorides and is a visible sign that fluoride poisoning has taken place. All fluorides are protoplasmic poisons. Some of us do our best to eat and drink healthily and look after our general and dental health. I certainly do not want to live in or visit towns or areas with fluoride in the water supply. Neither do I want to buy food or drink products from fluoridated areas.
I think that it is a good idea to provide young children with freee toothpaste and toothbrushes.
Perhaps early dental visits could be offered in clinics and doctors surgeries alongside other routine health checks for young children. Then advice on oral health care as well as general health could be given. In my opinion, young children should be given non- fluoridated toothpastes as fluoride should not be swallowed and often young children find this difficult.
Presently, if anyone wants to take fluoride supplements or use fluoride products they are free to do so. Those who do not want them, do not have to have them. This is how it should be, we should all have the choice to decide for ourselves and not have something forced upon us. Saying no to fluoridation means saying yes to free choice.

Question : If we said to you that a there are a number of people and organisations who are determined and hell bent on putting a toxic poison in our water supplies would you immediately think someone was planning a terrorist attack?

Question : Is it legally right in a democratic society to add a known toxic poison to the drinking water supplies against the wishes of the majority of those whom will go on to consume it?

Question : Many of us, at some time or another, have suffered from headaches or migraines, would it be right for us all to demand aspirin be put in the water supply as a result?


Fluoride (hexafluorosilic acid) added to water supplies is not the same a calcium fluoride, which occurs naturally, or sodium fluoride, that which is in your toothpaste. Although these are still toxic, hexafluorosilic acid is 85 more poisonous than naturally occurring fluoride.

Don't be fooled by those who wish to deceive.

Your Water bills are rising 71% over the next five years to help protect the health of shellfish around our coast from polluting effluent is it fair you should receive a poison which is actually banned from being dumped in the sea?

A meeting will be held at the friends meeting house (opposite central library) in Manchester at 7:00p on Wednesday 18th

Other details of other meetings around the Manchester area available from our website.

www.bafg.org.uk

Little medical health fascists advocating unlicensed and unregistered products to be force fed to the public.

It violates Fundamental rights and It is a criminal act.

Hiding behind the cloak of professional respectability,
They should be booted out of their jobs.

I won't be be paying for this toxic crap. If Sheila Jones wants fluoride she should do us a favour and drink a glass full of the stuff, bog off!

Toothpaste that contains Sodium Fluoride (pharmaceutical grade) is quite different from Fluoridation chemicals in public drinking water (industrial/commercial grade containing heavy metals as arsenic, lead, and radiological contaminants).
The 'rotten teeth' may be Dental Fluorosis from other sources of fluorides such as beverages, processed foods and other environmental effects.
The National Academy of Sciences' report; Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, 1993, reports Dental Fluorosis has risen 22 to 84% and that it ranges from mild (white streaks), moderate (yellow to brown discoloring), to severe (dark discolor with pitting and cavities).
Even though the water may not be fluoridated, there are many other sources such as the toothpaste, beverages and foods processed with fluoridated water, and other environmental sources (Teflon, Scotchgard, many medicines, ie, Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Cipro, and many others)
The above report notes this and the Executive Summary states:
"The subcommittee found inconsistencies in the fluoride toxicity data base and gaps in knowledge. Accordingly, it recommends further research in the areas of fluoride intake, dental fluorosis, bone strength and fractures, and carcinogenicity".
The report also states that Dental Fluorosis has increased 22 to 84% in the USA. See color pictures page 34, and note that calcium can combine with fluoride and become insoluble passing through the body unabsorbed, page 129.

It is totally against all common sense, and contravenes human rights to carry out mass 'medication' on the population with a known poison in order to tackle what is a problem of re-education. It would be far more economical to supply toothpaste and brushes free of charge to those who require them than to treat the ailments from mass fluoridation which would be likely to surface in future.

Dispite 65.8% of the U.S. population are exposed to water fluoridation, back teeth, where the majority of tooth decay occurs, dental sealants are safe and effective. 20% of children carry 80% of tooth decay, allowing expensive sealants. In the USA they aim to expand dental sealant use from 23% to 50% by the year 2010.

In Scotland trials are underway of varnishes and dental sealants in Dundee, and results are promising. Results should be available Summer 2004. The USA are using Dental Sealants because water fluoridation works poorly on the chewing surfaces of back teeth.
David Maddock, Safe Water Society, Southampton, Hampshire, UK

I agree wholeheartedly with the comment from the NPWA on this.
Sheila Jones is obviously a fan of mass-medication, even at the expense of human rights and seeking a better alternative, such as the free toothbrush scheme and better dental care education.
Given the logic of her argument, what other things can we put in the water supply so that we "help" those at risk?

I also wonder what public consultation went on to allow the addition of fluoride to the milk supply in Manchester schools?

I agree with the comments about about it being more economical to supply toothpaste
and brushes free of charge, or better still educate thick people. Try nutricious food instead of filling their oh so cute little hands full of a bag of sugary rubbish, oh well it keeps them quiet!

There seems to be only one problem with it though, it may interfere with the expanding business of toxic waste disposal, or should I say the countless billions of dollars being saved by the toxic waste producers in disposal costs. They can't dump it in the sea and they can't landfill it. Simple, get everyone to drink it. Add this up over 50 years and you know someone is making subtsantial money.
The British Fluoridation Society(which the tax payer funds) is guilty of misleading the media, the politicians and the public. They have been allowed for too long to chuck misleading crap in our newspapers eagerly gobbled up by journalists with space to fill and little knowledge of the subject.
Call it what it is PROPAGANDA!

Join the fastest growing campaign in the country. If you don't want your water fluoridating send the Chairman of your water company a yellow card telling him that is he does fluoridate you will deduct the cost of a reverse osmosis filter B#450-B#600 to remove it from the price of your water bill. Find out about the yellow card campaign at
npwa.freeserve.co.uk.
"See you in court Mr Evans"!