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

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:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/queensland-letter.htm

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. johannaz@dodo.com.au

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

WATER INDUSTRY, ENGLAND

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

Indemnity
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 indemnity@npwa.org.uk

http://www.npwa.org.uk

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 ... www.medscape.com/viewarticle/434420 - 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! www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg23.htm).

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 www.bfsweb.org/One%20in%20a%20million/contents.pdf.

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

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

Or email him at Keith.Osborn@uuplc.co.uk

www.unitedutilities.com

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 http://www.unitedutilities.com/?OBH=142.

You may also want to refer the analysts to this web page http.//www.npwa.org.uk/dga.pdf  - 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

 

Name: Email Address: URL: Comments: Remember info? 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