Health Supreme by Sepp Hasslberger

Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media

Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media

Health Supreme

News Blog

Site Map





Food for Thought


Human Potential






The Media

War Crimes


Articles Archive


See also:


Communication Agents:

INACTIVE  Ivan Ingrilli
  Chris Gupta
  Tom Atlee
INACTIVE  Emma Holister
  Rinaldo Lampis
  Steve Bosserman
  CA Journal


Robin Good's
Web sites:












The Individual - Human Ability:


Society - Politics:






April 22, 2005

Fluoride - UK Authorities: Eat Sewage Sludge - It's Good For You

Eat Sewage Sludge - It's Good For You. That is what the UK's Department of Health seems to be saying when they assert that hexafluorosilicic acid used for drinking water fluoridation
schemes in the UK went through a purification process and is not toxic. Indeed, both sewage sludge and the fluoridation chemical commonly used in drinking water have a European "standard", a BS EN number.

George Glasser of the National Pure Water Association has researched what that means. Official claims of purity and non toxicity of the substance that is scheduled to be widely used in the UK water supply, ostensibly to "save children's teeth", seem to be a new trick to appease everyone. "Naw, that's not a poison. It has a european standard!"

Having found that hexafluorosilicic acid is anything but pure and safe, Glasser asks: "Are we dealing with pathological liars"?

- - -

From: "National Pure Water Association"
Subject: Pathalogical Liars - DoH?
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:39:34 +0100

Over the past several months, NPWA has been contacted by numerous people regarding correspondence they have received from the DoH regarding the purity of the hexafluorosilicic acid used for drinking water fluoridation schemes in the UK.

Among the fraudulent claims made by DoH for the purity of the product were:

1. it went through a purification process,

2. a BS EN (British Standard - European Number) guaranteed the purity of the product, and

3. it's not toxic.

With regard to the first claim, NPWA has attempted to verify the existence of a "purification process". After extensive investigations, we can find no such equipment, or any patents (world-wide) for such equipment, which suggests that the DoH has fabricated that information. (In other words they simply made up another lie to placate you, or cast doubt on NPWA credibility).

As for the BS EN claim, one can obtain a BS EN for anything: they simply specify the criteria for analysing a particular product and the contaminants allowed in the product - it doesn't mean that the product is safe or has been safety tested. In fact, there is even a BS EN for sewage sludge (biosolids, humanure, etc.), for which the DoH can also claim the 'highest degree of purity'.

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) boasts that the quality of UK sewage sludge is the best in all of Europe! However, we don't think anyone would want to use it as a nutritional supplement.

There is even a BS EN for children's playground swings and one for Environmental Management - in fact there is a BS EN for almost anything you can imagine.

A BS EN has no bearing on the safety or purity of a product: it simply states the testing criteria. It has nothing to do with the safety of the product.

There are only two major commercial sources of fluorosilicic acid: hydrogen fluoride production and phosphate fertilizer production. In both cases the fluorosilicic acid is a by-product of the main manufacturing process, captured in pollution scrubbers, and is of a technical grade (ie. not pharmaceutical or food grade, therefore containing impurities). See: this PDF file)

There are no producers of fluorosilicic acid who simply add sand (silica) to hydrofluoric acid (as stated by some fluoride promoters). If they did simply add sand to hydrofluoric acid, they would use a technical (contaminated) grade of hydrofluoric acid, and that would still be cost prohibitive for fluoridation.

BS EN 12175 for hexafluorosilicic acid allows:

As (arsenic) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Cd (cadmium) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 40
Cr (chromium) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Hg (mercury) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 10
Ni (nickel) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Pb (lead) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 400
Sb (antimony) mg/kg H2SiF6 max. 80
Se (selenium) mg/kg H SiF max. 80

They don't test for radionuclides and other contaminants which are attendant to the process. If you don't look for something, you won't find it.

Regarding the toxicity of fluoride, we are repeatedly told that fluoride from any source breaks down in the body into 'the fluoride ion', which is how it becomes effective. The toxicity of 'the fluoride ion' has been well-documented by chemists and is not in question. The argument has been that, at very low exposures, the toxic effects are slight (or take a long time to show up) and are balanced by beneficial effects on teeth, but however slow or slight, it's still toxic. It isn't possible for 'the fluoride ion' to be toxic sometimes and not toxic at others.

If you read the following, you will see that this battle over how pure the product is has been going on for years - and the NPWA has uncovered the lies. See:

The NPWA believes, from past experience, that DoH policy in dealing with questions about fluoridation is: make up a lie - any old lie will do.


The big push for drinking water fluoridation will begin after the election - we suggest that everyone start making waves, now.

Also, we strongly suggest that everyone sign up for the UK antifluoridation forum at

Read the new NPWA Watershed at

May 2005 - From the NPWA - National Pure Water Association in the UK:

Why would the UK water industry request from the government "absolute indemnity on civil liability and indemnity on strict criminal liability as far as public policy allows" - before they would extend fluoridation schemes in Britain?

And they got it from the government in 2005.

The only logical conclusion that we at NPWA could come to was that the UK water industry was fully aware that it is already involved in a dubious, risky practice with possible ancillary criminal activities. Otherwise, why would an industry ask to be indemnified by the government for criminal and civil liabilities unless they knew they were in violation of the law?

This request can only be viewed as an admission of guilt, and further, as willingness to continue violating the law as long as they have some government protection. Consequently, one can only interpret the message from the UK water industry to the government and the general public as: It is perfectly willing to participate in dubious and/or criminal activities on behalf of the government as long as it has some assurance that its legal costs will be covered if it gets caught out.

Immunity from prosecution is not in the cards for criminal actions or they would have asked for that concession...

See also related:

UK Against Fluoridation - blog


Apologize for Fluoridation; Don't Celebrate It, Say Experts

Water Fluoridation: Folly or Fraud?
By David McRae, B.Sc. (Hons)
Every day of the week, most Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, and Irish are exposed to an influence that can be a cause of serious health problems: the addition of chemical fluoride to our drinking water.
(The article starts one-third down the page - you need to scroll down to find it.)


posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Friday April 22 2005
updated on Friday September 26 2008

URL of this article:


Related Articles

WHO Ignores Science, Questions - Recommends Toxic Fluoride
When the World Health Organization in its most recent issue of Drinking Water Guidelines recommends that fluoride should never be missing from our water, is it really doing the bidding of the Sugar Industry? Certainly dental caries is promoted by our consumption of sugar and sweets, including soft drinks, and the economic interests behind these junk foods are enormous. Fluoride provides a convenient "red herring" to put our attention on... [read more]
April 12, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger

Fluoride and Aggression
Mary's comprehensive paper is incredibly information dense and is perfect to circulate and educate our politicians and the regulatory bodies on the serious health dangers from fluorides. See also: Fluoridation Revisited Hidden Sources of Fluoride - Pesticides Chris Gupta ----------------------- Following is a copy of my latest paper on fluoride. I wrote it in the wake of the latest school shooting. It is very short, but to the point. Please... [read more]
March 30, 2005 - Chris Gupta

Fluoride and IQ
The practice of dumping toxic-waste fluorosilicates into public water supplies in the name of fighting tooth decay has just received another damper. According to a recently released Chinese study, there is a clear relation between fluoride levels in the water that is consumed by a population and low Intelligence quotient scores of children who do the consuming. I wonder why there is a generalized push to introduce fluoridation in some... [read more]
August 25, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

Spin Doctoring: Toxins - Fluoride
Here is a book that further expands on the post 'Fluoridation Revisited' discussion of Spin doctoring: ..."The drive to encourage public acceptance of fluoride was handed over to Edward Bernays, known as the father of PR, or the original spin doctor, and the man who helped persuade women to take up smoking. "You can get practically any idea accepted," Bernays explained, "if doctors are in favour. The public is willing... [read more]
June 09, 2004 - Chris Gupta

Food, Not Fluoride, Reduces Cavities
This is a good follow up on the earlier post: "Spin Doctoring: Toxins - Fluoride" as it always boils down to food but they can't make any money with this most effective of all remedies... Chris Gupta ------------------------------------------- Food, Not Fluoride, Reduces Cavities (CONTACT LETTER TO YOUR OFFICIALS INCLUDED) From New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation July 2004 Cavities occur in 66% of U.S. preschool children, and more often... [read more]
July 15, 2004 - Chris Gupta

Irish ask EU to help rid drinking water of toxic fluoride
During a Brussels seminar for the review of the European Union's Drinking Water Directive, groups in Ireland and the UK have asked the EU to help end fluoridation, which they say is leading to adverse health effects in the population. Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment as well as the UK's National Pure Water Association have made submissions asking to incorporate guarantees in the directive which would allow them... [read more]
November 14, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger




Readers' Comments

Received from the Australian Health Freedom Alliance:

Dear Health Freedom Advocate,

Vote no to fluoridation. Please forward this widely.

For more info on Fluoridation:

Michael Bending
Alliance for Health Freedom Australia

12 Reasons to reject fluoridation!

1. Only individuals have the right to decide if they or their children take *drugs. This point should end the debate on compulsory artificial fluoridation. (*The U.S. Food and Drug Administration clearly show that fluoride is not a food, nutrient or dietary supplement. They state, Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect [Ed. e.g. fluoridation] would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient.F.D.A. 1963.)

2. Claiming fluoride is natural as it can be found in the Earths crust or water is misleading. You can similarly claim that arsenic, mercury, radium and other poisons, also found in earth or water, are natural. Fluorides in fluoridation are toxic waste from fertiliser factory chimneys.

3. Fluoridation is undemocratic. Before major decisions, people have a right to hear both sides, not just propaganda. We have an inalienable right to have a say (referendum) if we choose.

4. Of every 10,000 litres of public water fluoridated, probably less than 1 litre is drunk by young children, with 9,999 litres used for thousands of other purposes, e.g. agricultural, industrial, cleaning, aquariums, pools, food processing, vehicular etc. Many children prefer milk or juices.

5. Doctors have legal and medical restrictions in prescribing drugs. The patient's medical history, age, weight, sex, illnesses, susceptibilities and other drugs taken, must all be determined. After an adequate medical examination, prescriptions must be for a specific drug, duration, person and dose - never 'take this whenever you're thirsty'!. Adverse side-effects must be explained. No doctor in their right mind would medicate an entire population, let alone for all their lives.

6. Among experts, the controversy rages over fluoridation. Leaving aside who's right, if the safety of any drug is so hugely controversial, doesn't common sense demand that it not be used at all, let alone be forced on millions of people, for all their lives.

7. Less than 4% of the worlds population is fluoridated, despite 50 years of massive, world-wide, well-financed, media protected propaganda. With such a huge rejection or failure to take up fluoridation in other countries and all of west continental EU, why would we want to?

8. Fluoride is so toxic, it has a major disease named after it: fluorosis. Next to dental caries, the most common damage to teeth is caused by fluoride; dental fluorosis. This white to brown mottling [breakdown of the tooth structure] is the first visible sign of chronic fluoride poisoning of the body. All three major Australian government inquiries into fluoridation (Tas 1968, Vic 1979, ACT 89-91) reported that up to 10% of children will develop mottled teeth if water is fluoridated. In practice, this figure is as high as 48% (UK Govt. York Report, 2000).

9. The World Health Organisation's International Agency for Cancer Research stated sodium silicofluoride [as used for fluoridation in Australia] is, ".. an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide and rodenticide [rat poison] .. [and] a fluoridating agent for municipal drinking-water".

10. Decay is caused by a poor diet and lots of devitalised sugar and other carbohydrates (22 teaspoons of sugar a day, 44 kilograms average yearly). The only reason for badly decayed teeth is they weren't serviced earlier. Parents often can't afford the high costs of dentists (earning up to $500,000 yearly). However, no one should use drugs to try to handle children's eating problems.

11. Authorities often make mistakes. Fluoridation is claimed to be safe, but so was DDT, Copper 7, 24-D, the Dalkon Shield, 245-T, Deildrin, Thalidomide and more recently - Vioxx - all shown, later, to be harmful or deadly. But at least they weren't compulsory. Fluoridation is!

12. If someone tried to force us to take a pill every time we drank a glass of water, we'd suggest they go where it's eternally hot. The only difference with fluoridation is that the pill is dissolved in the water before they make us take it.

Dennis Stevenson, Parliamentary Member, ACT Govt. Fluoridation Inquiry 89-91.
All answers can be fully evidenced.

Posted by: Sepp on April 26, 2005 03:58 PM


According to a recent message from the National Pure Water Association in the UK, the water companies need not care whether you pay your water bill or not - the government will step in and pay if collection becomes "too difficult"...

Here's the dough:

For those living in fluoridated areas and punters who just don't want to pay their water bills, it seems almost too good to be true. During the past several weeks, NPWA HQ has received calls from perplexed fluoridation objectors throughout England. When they contacted their water company and stated that they would deduct monies for bottled water/water filters if their water was fluoridated, they were told that the water companies didn't care, because the Department of Health would pay their water bill.

After reviewing the Indemnities to Water Companies section of the 2003 Water Bill, NPWA found the anecdotal reports from the fluoridation objectors were based in fact.

IT'S TRUE! - Read excerpts below - the Government has indemnified them for almost everything under the sun including "third party debt"!

[2005 No. 920


The Water Supply (Fluoridation Indemnities) (England) Regulations 2005
Made 24th March 2005
Coming into force 1st April 2005

2. - (1) Pursuant to section 90 of the Act and subject to clauses 3 to 5 below, the Secretary of State for Health hereby indemnifies the water undertaker-

(a) against all claims, proceedings, actions, damages, legal costs, expenses and any other liabilities;

(b) in respect of any death or personal injury, or loss of or damage to property;]

In essence, all that people who live in fluoridated areas have to do is write a letter to their water company stating that they are deducting money from their water bill to pay for water filters or bottled water, and the Department of Health will pick up the tab.

All the water company has to do is say that they made a "reasonable effort" to recover the debt, which means that you will get a few reminder notices in the mail and perhaps, a phone call, but that will probably be the extent of it. (Water companies want to minimise costs.) The water company will then bill the DoH. At that point it is up to the DoH to send the water company a cheque, and then attempt to recover the "third party debt" - at huge cost to the taxpayer.

The DoH has taken on the responsibility of being a debt collection agency for the water industry. Presumably they believe their own propaganda, and assume that only a few 'kooks and crackpots' will refuse to pay their water bills. Imagine if it was the 90% of people who actually oppose fluoridation! 6 million people are already being fluoridated. Is the DoH going to take 5.4 million people to court now, and millions more later?

However, NPWA sees a problem with the term "reasonable": it was not defined in the Act. What is "a reasonable effort" to one party might not seem reasonable to another party - in this case, neither party has any idea of what definition of "reasonable" the other party is assuming.

In reality, while the DoH appears to be indemnifying the water industry for everything, they have actually indemnified them for nothing, because of the vagueness of the document's language - everything is open to interpretation, e.g. "reasonable". We foresee the water industry having to take the Government to court in order to recover its losses.

However, before the vague wording of the Act is clarified in court, fluoridation objectors living in fluoridated areas might want to help the UK water industry test the goodwill of the Government. Write a letter to your water company and tell them that you are starting to deduct the cost of your water filter, or bottled water, from your monthly bill, and see what happens.

If you would like a copy of the indemnities, send an e-mail to

Posted by: Sepp on April 27, 2005 05:07 PM


May 2005: Information from the National Pure Water Association

Seems like there is a little confusion among the UK water industry, the Government and people promoting fluoridation - no one is quite sure who exactly the purveyors of information about fluoride are going to be.  And, as usual, everyone will be pointing the finger at the other to confuse you as to exactly who is responsible - that is a certainty. 

NPWA finds this a typical scenario, but we suspect that the government is not going offer much support to the UK water industry over the fluoridation issue.

NPWA has received reports that the Department of Health is steering people toward the water industry to supply the answers their questions about fluoridation. This is probably because Keith Osborne of United Utilities Plc's (UUPlc.) "Public Health Scientist", a.k.a. "Chief Scientist' did quite a bit of work for the British Fluoridation Society's second edition of the "One in a Million" fluoridation propaganda book.

NPWA believes that the Government assumes that UUPlc will be happy to answer all your questions - after all they were allowed to raise water bills by about 17% which gave them a nice bump-up on sagging share prices in the stock market. And UUPlc has the foremost authority on UK 'Water Industry Perspective' on drinking water fluoridation as an employee - Keith Osbourne, Chief Scientist.

Osbourne has risen to the top scientific position in the UK water industry with regards to his purported knowledge of all aspects of drinking water fluoridation. His last claim to 'scientific' fame was an innocuous study about cryptosporidium. (See Fifty-eight cases of diarrhea with Cryptosporidium identified in stool specimens ... - 33k.).

NPWA has long suspected Keith Osbourne of ulterior motives because of his poorly concealed support of fluoridation in spite of a claimed of neutrality on the issue. NPWA also was aware of his association with top fluoridistas such as Prof. Mike Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society. 

NPWA is also convinced that Osbourne's contribution to the second edition of "One in a Million" was authorised by UUPlc Chairman Sir Richard Evans - Osbourne is an employee of UUPlc and would have had to have permission from the top dog before entering into that 'scientific' endeavour.

Perhaps, UUPlc took on this de facto responsibility because they saw themselves as the having the resident equivalent of the US National Fluoridation Engineer. Sir Richard being a shrewd businessman possibly saw it as an opportunity to set UUPlc up in a nice ancillary fluoridation consulting business for their investment CV - diversification. If nothing else, the gesture would engraciate them to the Government.

Interestingly, UUPlc involvement in the fluoridation issue goes a little deeper. It seems that in a declared interest statement from the House of Lords by Lord Tanlaw, he not only an advisor to UUPlc, but he is also President of the British Fluoridation Society!

As most of the people living in the Northwest know, UUPlc has been very defensive of fluoridation and Keith Osbourne has responded to many of you with rather condescending pro-fluoridation responses.

Some of Osbourne's handy work can be seen at

NPWA suggests that everyone should start addressing all questions about fluoridation to:

Keith Osbourne (Public Health Scientist)    
United Utilities
Dawson House
Great Sankey
WA5 3LW   

Or email him at

For those of you who would like to register your objection to fluoridation directly to stock market analysts, following is a list of contacts from the UUPlc web site. Make the analyst aware of the fact that mass medication is not in the purview of a privatised water company - the industry knows that they are engaged in a risky endeavour, that is why they requested and had received criminal and civil indemnities from the Government - tell their analysts about it.

The simple request for criminal and civil indemnities is a basic admission that there is the potential of criminal activity involved and injury to people with the practice of mass medication. The request also strongly implies that the UK water industry cannot secure indemnities to cover them for mass medicating the public from a reputable insurer because there is a high degree of risk involved - In other words, they cannot secure indemnities for fluoridating drinking water from any insurer in the world. Fortunately, not everyone is stupefied by fluoridista propaganda.

The water companies would not have asked for "criminal indemnity" unless they were forewarned that fluoridation could be construed as an criminal act in a court of law.

These are the contacts:

Analyst Bank Telephone Number Iain Turner Deutsche Bank 020 7545 8000 Peter Bisztyga Citigroup 020 7398 6000 Dominic Nash Credit Suisse First Boston 020 7888 8888 Andrew Mead Goldman Sachs 020 7774 1000 Verity Mitchell HSBC 020 7621 0011 Bobby Chada Morgan Stanley 020 7435 8000 Geraint Anderson Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein 020 7623 8000 Andrew Wright UBS Warburg 020 7567 8000 Angelos Anastasiou Will iams de Broe 020 7588 7511 Edmund Reid Cazenove & Co 020 7588 2828 Fraser McLaren ING 0131 527 3000 Robert Miller-Bakewell Merrill Lynch 0131 473 1000 Jamie Tunnicliffe ABN AMRO 020 7678 8000 Clive Roberts Charles Stanley 020 7739 8200 Sofia Savvantidou JP Morgan 020 7325 0650 John Musk Lehman Brothers 020 7102 4138

Contacts for investors can be found at

You may also want to refer the analysts to this web page http.//  - UK Councils Against Fluoridation "Dangerous Goods Advisory Notice".

Sir Richard, Chairman UUPlc, is said to be one of the few businessmen who can see Tony Blair on request - Tell him to take your message about fluoridation to the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms.

Posted by: Sepp on May 16, 2005 08:39 PM


Security code:

Please enter the security code displayed on the above grid

Due to our anti-spamming policy the comments you are posting will show up online within few hours from the posting time.



The Individual Is Supreme And Finds Its Way Through Intuition


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

These articles are brought to you strictly for educational and informational purposes. Be sure to consult your health practitioner of choice before utilizing any of the information to cure or mitigate disease. Any copyrighted material cited is used strictly in a non commercial way and in accordance with the "fair use" doctrine.



Enter your Email

Powered by FeedBlitz



Most Popular Articles
Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

Lipitor - The Human Cost

Fluoride Accumulates in Pineal Gland

Original blueprints for 200 mpg carburetor found in England

Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US

Aspartame and Multiple Sclerosis - Neurosurgeon's Warning

'Bird Flu', SARS - Biowarfare or a Pandemic of Propaganda?



More recent articles
Chromotherapy in Cancer

Inclined Bed Therapy: Tilt your bed for healthful sleep

European Food Safety Authority cherry picks evidence - finds Aspartame completely safe

Did Aspartame kill Cory Terry?

Retroviral particles in human immune defenses - is AIDS orthodoxy dead wrong?

Vaccine damage in Great Britain: The consequences of Dr Wakefield’s trials

Archive of all articles on this site



Most recent comments
Uganda: Pfizer Sponsored AIDS Institute Snubs Natural Treatment Options

Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

AIDS: 'No Gold Standard' For HIV Testing

Lipitor: Side Effects And Natural Remedy

'Global Business Coalition' Wants More Testing: But Tests Do Not Show AIDS



Candida International

What Does MHRA Stand For??

Bono and Bush Party without Koch: AIDS Industry Makes a Mockery of Medical Science

Profit as Usual and to Hell with the Risks: Media Urge that Young Girls Receive Mandatory Cervical Cancer Vaccine


Share The Wealth

Artificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn

Drinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic

Democracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride

"Evidence Be Damned...Patient Outcome Is Irrelevant" - From Helke

Why Remove Fluoride From Phosphate Rock To Make Fertilizer


Evolving Collective Intelligence

Let Us Please Frame Collective Intelligence As Big As It Is

Reflections on the evolution of choice and collective intelligence

Whole System Learning and Evolution -- and the New Journalism

Gathering storms of unwanted change

Protect Sources or Not? - More Complex than It Seems



Islanda, quando il popolo sconfigge l'economia globale.

Il Giorno Fuori dal Tempo, Il significato energetico del 25 luglio

Rinaldo Lampis: L'uso Cosciente delle Energie

Attivazione nei Colli Euganei (PD) della Piramide di Luce

Contatti con gli Abitanti Invisibili della Natura


Diary of a Knowledge Broker

Giving It Away, Making Money

Greenhouses That Change the World

Cycles of Communication and Collaboration

What Is an "Integrated Solution"?

Thoughts about Value-Add




Best sellers from