 Flouride in drinking water! |
By: chuckanoo
20/10/2008
8:49 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
It is illegal under Australian LAW for anybody other than registered health professionals, IE: Doctors, to prescribe medication to anyone.
Captain Bligh, her (ALLEGED) Health Minister and Dentists are NOT registerd 'Doctors'.
And yet they are going to force this Registered Man Made Poison down our throats without our 'medical' consent.
If anybody who 'wasn't' a registerd Doctor tried to prescribe medication, they would be thrown in 'gaol'.
So why are they getting away with it? |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/10/2008
12:08 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Physicians' Group Rejects Fluoridation
October 8, 2008
"Fluoridation of drinking water is scientifically untenable, and should not be part of a public health initiative or program," says the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) in a new published statement.
CAPE is Canada's leading voice on environmental health issues.
Against a backdrop of intense opposition to the fluoridation of public drinking water in several communities in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, CAPE asserts:
A) fluoridation is unlikely to be the cause of the cavity decline in Europe and North America,
B) the potential for fluoride's adverse effects is real, and
C) current evidence points in the direction of caution.
Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network says, "CAPE joins a growing list of environmental health experts who have called for an end to the fluoridation of public drinking water. |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/10/2008
12:10 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
They include:
Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment
Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, Environmental Working Group
Lois Gibbs, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice
Joseph Mercola, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine
Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, "Our Stolen Future"
Sam Epstein, MD, Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
The current and six past Presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Board of Directors (2007), American Academy of Environmental Medicine
FIVE Goldman Prize winners (2006, 2003, 1997, 1995, 1990)
These are among over 1800 professionals who have signed a statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. See: http://www.FluorideAlert.org/professionals.stateme nt.html.
According to Connett, "Citizens facing well-financed efforts to fluoridate their communities need to know that US governmental agencies (particularly the CDC) are ignoring the voluminous body of scientific evidence on the adverse effects of fluoride. The National Research Council of the National Academies published a landmark report on these effects in 2006. More than 2 years after its release, CDC and fluoridation promoting agencies in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand and the UK act as if this report was never published. We urge communities to reject fluoridation proposals until promoters can provide a rational scientific response to fluoride's dangers, which includes 23 peer-reviewed and published studies indicating that fluoride can lower children's IQ. Fluoridation exposes infants to 250 times the level of fluoride in human breast milk. That is reckless."
CAPE's statement is online at http://fluoridealert.org/cape.html |
|
By: tonegunman1
3/11/2008
8:36 am Yahoo! Profile:
tonegunman1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| All members of the American Water Works Association have now been issued with legal notices by US attorney Robert Reeves not to destroy evidence prepatory to a class action by those injured by fluoridation. |
|
By: communityspokesman
3/11/2008
12:03 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: chuckanoo
6/11/2008
9:31 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
AFIN MEMO - Nov 06 08
Brisbane's water grid will soon be delivering recycled effluent/sewerage as well as hospital waste, mortuary waste and industrial waste to householders to be used for domestic purposes (drinking, cooking, bathing){* And don't forget Fluoride!*}. This is a first-in-the-world living experiment using a large amount of recycled water (Singapore adds only about 1% of recycled water to its water supply). Not all pharmaceutical drugs can be filtered from this waste product.
If you are any of the following - a Queensland resident, a Q'ld citizen or a Q'ld elector in a nominated electorate - you are eligible to sign the E-Petition to "Prohibit the use of recycled sewerage effluent for drinking purposes".
This E-Petition can be accessed via the following link:
www.parliament.qld.gov.au /view/EPetitions_QLD/Curr entEPetition.aspx?PetNum= 1141&lIndex=-
A claim has been made to the effect that hospital waste is processed prior to it being released into the sewerage system. A check at a Brisbane hospital by the president of Queenslander's For Water, Air and Food Inc. found this claim to be untrue.
Your vote and the vote of many others would be appreciated. |
|
By: pathogan70
7/11/2008
12:55 am Yahoo! Profile:
pathogan70 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I think your essay left out desalinated water and the possibility of pelagic fish species having intercourse in the vicinity of the primary intake filter. Well Im as mad as hell about it, and I'd like to see underwater signs installed to warn said organisms against the consequences of such a practice. |
|
By: chuckanoo
7/11/2008
11:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I should point out that the last message I posted is not of my making. It was sent to me via email.
Though what you wrote pathogan70 is funny :-) |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/11/2008
7:43 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FAN Bulletin 1006: 53 U.S. communities reject fluoridation on November 4.
Nov 7, 2008
Incredible as it sounds, 53 communities, with a combined population of 244,438, rejected adding fluoride to their public drinking water in the November 4, 2008, election referenda. 14 communities voted for fluoridation (with a combined population of 40,218).
NEBRASKA:
The majority of the referenda (61) were held in Nebraska. After the Nebraska state Legislature voted in mandatory fluoridation in April 2008, a total of 64 communities (with a population over 1,000) were given the right to vote for or against fluoridation. In a stunning rebuke to the arrogance of mandatory fluoridation, 80% of the Nebraskan communities (49 to 12) voted against fluoridation on Nov 4.
The statistics for the Nov 4 fluoridation referenda in Nebraska are:
227,420 - Total population rejecting
31,177 - Total population accepting
88% - population rejecting
12% - population accepting
-see more statistics on the referenda
The 3 Nebraska communities that didn't vote on November 4 are:
Atkinson: The city council decided against a referendum and voted to fluoridate.
Norfolk: Plans to hold a referendum in 2009 (the law states that fluoride must be added by June 1, 2010, if it is not voted out by then.)
Arapahoe: They may follow Norfolk. |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/11/2008
7:44 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
On Nov 5, the Grand Island Independent reported:
Marvin "Butch" Hughes of Hastings, who led that community's anti-fluoride petition drive, said he was surprised and gratified to see such overwhelming support for the anti-fluoridation measures. Hughes said he believed his group's personal interaction with voters during the petition effort was the key to the strong support.
Now, he said, his group, Nebraskans for Safe Water, is working to get a statewide version of its newly passed Hastings Safe Water Drinking Act into the Legislature. The ordinance requires suppliers of anything into municipal water, such as the hydrofluorosilicic acid used in public fluoridation, to provide complete toxicological data to the public.
Assurances on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation were touted by innumerable state health officials and dentists, which were carried by the media throughout the state.
Dr. Steven Levy from the University of Iowa, whose work on fluoride has been largely underwritten by US regulatory agencies who promote fluoridation, was quoted as saying, "the only genuine concern involving fluoridation is a condition called dental fluorosis, which occasionally stains the teeth." |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/11/2008
7:46 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
But the most egregious endorsement came from William Bailey of the CDC's Division of Oral Health, in an Oct 28 article titled CDC official: Fluoride safe, effective, in the Hastings Tribune:
... He said these peer-reviewed studies have determined that fluoride is safe and effective in the prevention of cavities." By that, we mean no one has ever associated fluoride - based on weight of science - with adverse health affects," Bailey said. "There's no compelling evidence that fluoride hurts people."
... Bailey said fluoride is safe not only for adults, but also for babies. "In fact, we don't even say that babies can't have fluoride," he said.
... He said some people were concerned that babies were receiving more fluoride than the level developed by the National Institute of Medicine. "However, we don't believe there are any adverse health affects. None have ever been shown," Bailey said
This is the same Dr. William Bailey who gave testimony over the phone to the Fairbanks, Alaska, city council at a critical time when they were deciding whether to fluoridate. FAN transcribed his testimony and issued a detailed critique of his comments by Limeback, Thiessen, Osmunson, Spittle, Neurath, Kopf, Clinch and myself (see FAN bulletin #959: Deconstructing Dr. Bailey, May 28, 2008, and the transcript of Bailey's comments and our critique:
Part 1: http://fluoridealert.org/bailey1.html
Part 2: http://fluoridealert.org/bailey2.html
Part 3: Appendix 1 and references at http://fluoridealert.org/bailey3 .html fluoridealert.org/bailey3 .html
A copy of this critique was sent to Dr. Bailey for his response. He has not yet replied. |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/11/2008
7:47 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
As far as I am concerned Dr. Bailey is knowingly deceiving the public. He is committing fraud and is (or should be) an embarrassment to the US Public Health Service and should be asked to resign forthwith. Hopefully with a new administration the scandalous behavior by CDC officials will be reviewed. Meanwhile, we need to redouble our efforts to get a Congressional Hearing. No more public money should be spent promoting this reckless practice. At a time when people are looking for ways to cut government spending, this will be a great place to start.
There are many articles on the Nebraska votes but this is a good one that sums things up well: Fluoridation falls flat across area - see also FAN's Nebraska NewsTracker.
CORNING, NEW YORK:
On November 4, Corning residents voted to take away the right of the city council to force fluoridation on them. Their vote gives the citizens the final say on this issue. It is unlikely that they will be voting for fluoridation any time soon. Should the matter come up again the dental lobby will have a much harder time convincing the public than they had convincing a handful of people behind closed doors. Huge congratulations to Kirk Huttleston <hutman@stny.rr.com> who worked tirelessly for over a year to make this outcome possible.
According to Carol Kopf of NY State Citizens Opposed to Fluoridation and FAN's media officer and state campaign coordinator: |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/11/2008
7:47 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
When Corning's Mayor took the advice of dentists and mandated fluoridation, the community lead by Kirk Huttleston protested. As a result, the Mayor lost his seat in the following election and this year a referendum passed taking the fluoridation decision out of the hands of the city council - which in effect will kill fluoridation.
Kirk's team won despite well-financed opposition led by a dentist who is the fluoridation spokesperson for the New York State Oral Health Coalition. Kirk's team worked the phones, walked house to house, explaining the referendum where No meant Yes and Yes meant No, then enlisted those who understood to pass on the information. Without his team's extraordinary effort, Corning probably would not have rejected fluoridation and the NYS Oral Health Coalition would have gotten another notch in its belt and been energized to do more damage in NYS - for which those of us in NY are especially grateful.
The dentists "scraped" up $100,000 to fund the fluoridation scheme. Let's see if they spend that money actually treating the low-income folks they claim to care about (but won't accept Medicaid for). |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/11/2008
7:49 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
MAINE
Jackman and Moose River in Maine voted to END existing fluoridation programs.
Vinalhaven voted to continue.
WISCONSIN
Prairie du Chien voted to reject fluoridation.
Holmen voted to fluoridate.
CONCLUSIONS:
Once again we have seen confirmed - from Maine to Nebraska - that when and where citizens are given free choice on this matter and they organize, the overwhelming majority of towns reject fluoridation. On November 4, in an historic presidential election year, 79% of communities with referenda voted to keep fluoride out of their water.
To put it another way, the only way governments can keep fluoridation going is to take away (e.g. Australia) or circumvent (e.g. UK) the right of citizens to choose what medicine they take. Such an approach sabotages both our human and democratic rights.
Paul Connett
PS: FAN is running on near empty. Soon we plan to launch our fundraiser for 2009. Meanwhile, please consider making a tax deductible donation now to support our continued efforts to bring about our common goal of ending fluoridation worldwide. Making a donation is very easy to do - just go here https://secure.groundspri ng.org/dn/index.php?aid=5 061 |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/11/2008
7:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
A complete listing of the 67 referendum results from Nov 4, 2008
NEBRASKA (49 communities rejected fluoridation on Nov 4)
Ainsworth
A urora
Battle Creek
Bayard
Beatrice
Bridgeport
Broken Bow
Cambridge
Central City
Chadron
Cozad
Crawford
David City
Eagle
Friend
Geneva
Gothenburg
Grand Island
Grant
Hastings
Hebron
Imperial
Kimball
Lexington
Madison
Milford
Mitchell
North Platte
Ord
Pawnee City
Pierce
Plainview
Ravenna
Schuyler
Scottsbluff
Shelton
Sidney
St. Paul
Stanton
Stromsburg
Sutherland
Sutton
Tekamah
Valentine
Weeping Water
Wilber
Wood River
Wymore
York |
|
By: chuckanoo
8/11/2008
7:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
3 Other Communities that voted AGAINST fluoridation on Nov. 4:
Maine: Jackman and Moose River
Wisconsin: Prairie du Chien
1 Community voted to take away the right of the city council to decide to fluoridate
New York: Corning
14 Communities that voted FOR fluoridation on Nov 4:
Nebraska (12): Alma, Ashland, Crete, Dakota City, Franklin, Gretna, North Bend, Seward, Wahoo, Wisner, Wakefield, Yutan
Maine: Vinalhaven
Wisconsin: Holmen |
|
By: chuckanoo
10/11/2008
5:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
OPEN LETTER TO EDITORS, MEDIA, MPS, COUNCILLORS AND PUBLIC
On behalf of Queenslanders For Safe Water (Air and Food) Inc, I would like to respond to a letter from Dr Jeanette Young, Qld Chief Health Officer in the Gold Coast Sun (Nov 5).
In this letter, also previously claimed elsewhere in Queensland media, Dr Young asserts that "regular drinks of fluoridated water provide the ideal constant repair kit for teeth".
If this theory was true, then adults in the other Australian states which are all heavily fluoridated and have been for 30 to 40 years or more, should have much less tooth decay than Queensland adults, where less than 5% of the population currently drinks fluoridated water.
Unfortunately for Dr Young, her theory is blown out of the water by Australian state adult tooth decay data published just a few months ago, that shows in every adult age group, Queensland adults actually have less decay than at least one other state and there is actually very little difference between the states. The proof of this is published in individual State reports from the Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health from data collected during the 2004-2006 National Adult Oral Health survey, the first adult survey for 18 years.
Could Dr Young please explain why if fluoride acts as a constant repair kit for teeth, why it doesn't work when adults have been swallowing it for 30 to 40 years? Perhaps, also why no Health and Safety studies have been done before forcing fluoridation on Queenslanders?
The case seem to have been proven that fluoride in water, ingested for 30 to 40 years makes no difference to decreasing tooth decay, so why is Premier Bligh forcing it on us?
Merilyn Haines
Spokesperson For Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc.
PO Box 149 Archerfield 4108 info@qawf.org Mob.contact 0418 777 112 www.qawf.org |
|
By: chuckanoo
10/11/2008
5:57 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
A little more information
Do Queenslanders really have the worst teeth in Australia?
NO! Recently released Adult Oral Health Surveys (2008) show that Queensland adults have comparable oral health to adults in all other Australian states (see below Table)
The Survey Reports were compiled by the the Australian Institute of Health Welfare - Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health, using data from the last National Adult Oral Health Survey published 2007.
This survey was the first survey of adult oral health for 18 yrs. Examining the DMFT index used to quantitate decay experience, it can be clearly seen that Queensland adults do not have the worst oral health in Australia (in any age group) and that most states show very similar results despite not being weighted for socio-economic advantage or disadvantage.
With fluoridation now being promoted as being good for all ages and fluoride as a " constant repair kit for the teeth " the results for states with the majority of the population drinking fluoridated water for 30 yrs or more would be very disappointing to water fluoridation promoters, in that no advantage can seen.
The last 2 published National Children's Dental Surveys also show that Queensland Children when compared by the World Health Organisation's recommended International Standard of comparison (children's permanent teeth at age 12 yrs) actually have less decay or, on a par with heavily fluoridated Tasmania and the ACT (results were withheld from the most populous state of NSW) |
|
By: chuckanoo
10/11/2008
5:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
While there is a small difference in baby teeth, Queensland kids showing more decay than other states, this may be only an apparent difference. The National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999 recognized that ingested fluoride could cause a delay of eruption of teeth (less teeth in the mouth, or less time in the mouth, the less opportunity for accumulated decay). The NHMRC in 1999 recommended that studies be done comparing children a year older in fluoridated to non -fluoridated areas. If done, the results of any Australian studies done to account for delay have not been released.
With heavily fluoridated states showing no better results in adult oral health than Queensland and also Queensland children comparable to at least 2 other states, we call upon Premier Bligh and Health Minister Robertson to put a stop to forced fluoridation. In 2003 the Qld Govt Position Statement acknowledged that fluoridation was unethical mass medication without the express consent of the community.
The Premier does not have a mandate to force fluoridation, this issue was not put to the electorate and Premier Bligh was not elected as Premier at the 2006 election. In October 2005 (with the 2006 election on the horizon) at the time Premier Beattie put $6 million on the table for 5 yrs to encourage councils to fluoridate, he put out a statement that fluoridation would not be forced.
We call upon Premier Bligh and Health Minister Robertson to cease claiming that "Queenslanders have the worst teeth in Australia" and call upon them to cease their plans to force fluoridation on 4 million Queenslanders. Forced fluoridation cannot be justified; the results for adults prove it makes no difference to decreasing tooth decay even after drinking fluoride for 30 to 40 yrs. |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAction.net
FAN Bulletin 1007: Joining the dots on Australian fluoridation fraud
November 8, 2008
I would like to draw your attention to four events in Australia which I believe demonstrate the corruption of science needed to propagate the discredited practice of water fluoridation in that country. Just join the dots.
Here are the four events:
A letter from Pieta-Ray Laut, Executive Director, Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) to Professor Warwick Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), dated 20 February 2007. Note the NHMRC is an agency of the Australian government. See letter at end.
The publication of the NHMRC report in November 2007: A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation.
An article attacking opponents of fluoridation by Jason Armfield in the online journal Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, December, 2007, titled: When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature - and my response to it at this same site.
The forcing through of mandatory water fluoridation on Queensland in February 2008 by Premier Anna Bligh. This of course, can be coupled with other ongoing efforts to force fluoridation on communities in NSW and Victoria, without giving them a chance to vote on the matter.
Elsewhere I have commented at some length on the "Easleyan" hatchet job on people opposed to fluoridation by Jason Armfield, and readers know well of our fruitless efforts to try to inform Premier Bligh on the dangers and ineffectiveness of fluoridation before she forced the practice on Queensland. Here I will focus on the NHMRC (2007) review an the PHAA letter |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
The NHMRC (2007) report.
This report is being cited around the fluoridating world as the final word on the "safety and effectiveness" of water fluoridation. However, as far as addressing health concerns, a careful reading of this report indicates that at best, it is a work of professional incompetence or, at worst, an example of scientific fraud, in which scientific information is manipulated to support a preordained conclusion. There are six fundamental problems with this report.
1. The NHMRC's failure to make it clear that very little original work has been done investigating the health of fluoridated communities in Australia.
I think the average reader of a governmental report on fluoridation in a country which has been fluoridating its water for over 50 years would expect to read studies performed in their own country. However, virtually no health studies have been done in Australia on any organ or tissue other than the teeth. This is a particularly egregious omission because a previous review form this same agency over 17 years ago (NHMRC 1991) actually recommended that some health studies be done. This included recommending that fluoride bone levels be measured so that there would be a better handle on epidemiological studies on the bone. Not only were these bone levels not obtained, but no epidemiological studies on the bone were done either. The NHMRC (1991) also recommended that the many anecdotal reports that some citizens are particularly sensitive to fluoride be investigated scientifically. This also has not been done. The guiding principle in Australia - as well as other fluoridating countries - seems to be "if you don't look, you don't find." Which also means that when you apply systematic reviews to the literature - no matter how sophisticated the analyses might be - it is highly likely that there will be no damage to report. |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:03 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
2. The dominant interest in the report is on one organ: the teeth.
Of the 183 pages in the report, only a few pages in the text are devoted to health concerns.
26 pages to dental caries
23 pages to dental fluorosis
6 pages to bone fractures
7 pages to cancer
6 pages to other possible health effects
In other words more pages were devoted to both dental caries and dental fluorosis than all the other health issues combined. Once again we are reminded that the whole issue of water fluoridation, especially the money spent on research, has been captured and controlled by the dental lobby.
3. The NHMRC's cavalier dismissal of the relevance of the NRC (2006) report.
Even though citizens in Australia had requested that the NHMRC panel pay special attention to the NRC (2006) report, the authors dismissed this landmark 507-page report by the National Research Council: Fluoride In Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, (NRC 2006, referred to as "NAS, 2006 below") in just two sentences:
"The reader is also referred to recent comprehensive reports regarding water fluoridation published by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2006) and the National Research Council of the National Academies (NAS, 2006). The NAS report refers to adverse health effects from fluoride at 2 - 4 mg/L, the reader is alerted to the fact that fluoridation of Australia's drinking water occurs in the range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L."
Such a dismissal of this important review - which took the panel 3.5 years to write - is unbelievable. The reason they give betrays a very poor understanding of toxicology. |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
First, for most toxic substances regulatory bodies are forced to use high dose animal experiments to extrapolate to concerns about low doses for humans. In the case of fluoride we have the luxury of being able to use dozens of relatively low dose human studies from India and China to inform our judgments.
Second, unless the study involves a very large number of subjects, when extrapolating to a "safe" level for a whole population, it is necessary to apply a safety factor (a margin of safety) to take into account the very large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance we can expect in a human population (intra-species variation). The factor usually chosen for this purpose is 10. Thus to dismiss findings of health effects reported in studies involving a small number of subjects consuming water between 2 and 4 ppm as irrelevant to a whole population consuming water at 1 ppm, is ridiculous.
Third, some of the studies reviewed in the NRC (2006) found or estimated effects at lower than 2 ppm (for example, Lin, 1991; Xiang, 2003).
Fourth, the NRC panel did an extensive exposure analysis (chapter 2) and concluded that some subsets of the population are already exceeding so called "safe" doses in drinking water fluoridated at 1 ppm. These include bottle-fed infants; above average water consumers like athletes, outdoor workers in hot climates, military personnel and people with diabetes; people with impaired kidney function and people who are borderline iodine deficient, which is a common problem in Australia. |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
4. The NHMRC's over-reliance on the York Review.
Instead of using the NRC (2006) review as their starting point the NHMRC panel went back to the York Review (McDonagh et al., 2000). However, they did this without acknowledging the caveats issued by those associated with this report. In particular, see the letter from professor Trevor Sheldon to the House of Lords. In fact, much of the NHMRC review is simply duplicating large parts of the analysis in the York Review! Like the York Review they spent much of their time on teeth, bones and cancer and bundled all the other health issues into one section. This section consisted of less than 6 pages, much of it being material reproduced from the York Review. They virtually ignore the issue of a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and the lowering of IQ in children (see point 6 below) as well as fluoride's impact on the thyroid and other parts of the endocrine system. These issues were extensively covered in the NRC (2006) report which they chose to ignore.
5. The NHMRC's questionable downplaying of the Bassin osteosarcoma study.
The NHMRC downplayed the important finding by Dr. Elise Bassin that young boys exposed to fluoridated water between their 6th and 8th years had a 5 to 7-fold increased risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma by the age of 20 using a "letter." So here we have a panel being extremely particular about what papers qualify for their analyses, but are willing to downplay a well conducted case-control study using a yet to be published study promised in a letter! Moreover, just in case people don't read the full text of the NHMRC review, the authors use exactly the same device and verbage in their Executive Summary. |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/11/2008
6:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Worse, the letter they use comes from none other than Professor Chester Douglass whose position on this whole matter is highly suspect. First, he is a co-author of a previous report which expressed concerns that a positive finding on osteosarcoma could threaten the fluoridation program (JADA 122:39-45, April 1991); second he has received government funding of over $1 million for his research on osteosarcoma and yet has published virtually nothing on the subject for over 18 years; third he is a consultant for Colgate, a manufacturer of fluoridated dental products and fourth he concealed Bassin's work from his peers, the public, the NRC panel and his funders for the three years between the successful defense of her thesis and its discovery in the rare books section of a Harvard library. Moreover, the Douglass study which is supposed to rebut Bassin's work - promised for the Summer of 2006 - has yet to appear in print. More significantly, the methodology Douglass has used is unlikely to challenge her finding since he is comparing osteosarcoma rates with bone levels of fluoride. As these levels are taken after the cases have been identified they give only a cumulative measure of fluoride exposure: i.e. these bone concentrations give no information on what levels of exposure the victims had to fluoride between the critical 6th to 8th years. |
|
Flouride in drinking water! |
|
