By: chuckanoo
23/01/2008
9:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Some information from Hazardous MAterial Database conerning Fluoride.http://ull.chemi stry.uakron.edu/erd/chemi cals/7001/7055.html
Handling: Wash thoroughly after handling. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse. Use only in a well ventilated area. Minimize dust generation and accumulation. Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing. Keep container tightly closed. Do not ingest or inhale. Do not allow contact with water. Discard contaminated shoes. Keep from contact with moist air and steam.
Exposure effects: Chronic inhalation and ingestion may cause fluorosis with skeletal abnormalities. May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Effects may be delayed. Chronic exposure may cause lung damage. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. Chronic exposure to fluoride compounds may cause systemic toxicity. Skeletal effects may include bone brittleness, joint stiffness, teeth discoloration, tendon calcification, and osterosclerosis. Animal studies have reported the development of tumors.
Ingestion: May cause severe and permanent damage to the digestive tract. Causes gastrointestinal tract burns. Ingestion of large amounts of fluoride may include salivation, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fever, labored breathing. Exposure to fluoride compounds can result in systemic toxic effects on the heart, liver, and kidneys. It may also deplete calcium levels in the body leading to hypocalcemia and death. May cause respiratory paralysis and cardiac arrest.
And they want use to drink this stuff????? |
|
By: quikadvice
25/01/2008
10:39 am Yahoo! Profile:
quikadvice Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
January 22, 2008
1945 Human Experiment Predicts Current Fluoride Ill Effects
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_sally_st_0 80121_1945_human_experimen.htm
In 1945 dentists set out to prove that adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies safely prevented children’s tooth decay. The studies failed; but early fluoridationists ignored this inconvenient truth and forged ahead. Now with 2/3 of public water supplies fluoridated, Americans are fluoride overdosed and suffer from fluoride’s toxic effects as cavity rates climb.
In 1955, ten years into the experiment, researchers reported more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation in children purposely dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water (1956 Journal of the American Dental Association). This is the first, and only, fluoridation human health experiment which was carried out on the entire population in the city of Newburgh NY.
finish above. |
|
By: bubyshka
27/01/2008
2:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bubyshka Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| well i'm a victorian! we have so many sick ppl here.......!!!!! is it due to our water having flouride int it!...... its sounding that way the more i read of your pages. |
|
By: grub_from_62
27/01/2008
8:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
grub_from_62 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) ACT 1999 - SECT 73
Compulsory medical treatment
73 Compulsory medical treatment
(1) A medical practitioner (whether that practitioner is a medical officer or not) may carry out medical treatment on an inmate without the inmate’s consent if the Chief Executive Officer, Justice Health is of the opinion, having taken into account the cultural background and religious views of the inmate, that it is necessary to do so in order to save the inmate’s life or to prevent serious damage to the inmate’s health.
(2) Medical treatment carried out on an inmate under this section is, for all purposes, taken to have been carried out with the inmate’s consent.
(3) Nothing in this section relieves a medical practitioner from liability in respect of the carrying out of medical treatment on an inmate, being a liability to which the medical practitioner would have been subject had the treatment been carried out with the inmate’s consent.
(4) If the Chief Executive Officer, Justice Health is not a medical practitioner, the reference to the Chief Executive Officer, Justice Health in subsection (1) is taken to be a reference to a person, designated by the Chief Executive Officer for the purposes of that subsection, who is a medical practitioner.
_________________________ _________________________ _______
Are We all sentenced to compulsory treatment????
No crime
No trial
No sentence
But compulsory treatment?
Is it lawful???
Are We All officially prisoners now??? |
|
By: chuckanoo
28/01/2008
7:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
OPEN LETTER ( # 6 ) TO THE LABOR MEMBERS OF THE QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENT
cc The National, Liberal, Independent and One Nation Qld MPs, Qld Councillors, Qld Councils, Qld Public, Qld Media and the Qld Premier.
Dear Labor Members of the Queensland Parliament, it has been 200 years since the first Australian mutiny and the time is overdue for another one. We call upon you to do whatever it takes to stop Queenslanders being forcibly mass medicated with fluoride chemicals.
Please, talk some sense into your Premier, call her back to reality and stop her attempts to force fluoridation upon all of Queensland's residents.
Two hundred years ago on the 26th Jan 1808, Premier Anna Bligh’s forebear, Governor William Bligh, suffered his 2nd embarrassing mutiny when he was deposed at gunpoint in Australia’s only military coup. This “Rum Rebellion” had little to do with the trade in spirits but more to do with a Governor who was an abusive, arrogant man with a “ tin ear ” who would not listen to people and who had lost the trust of the community.
The officers of the NSW Corps by rebelling, risked punishment and death but surprisingly were let off very leniently and the first armed overthrow of an Australian government did help Australia move on to be a free country.
.
Two hundred years on, Bligh’s direct descendant Premier Anna Bligh is arrogant, has a “ tin ear ” and will not listen to people.
Anna Bligh after just a couple of months as Premier is so extremely arrogant that she has decided to mass medicate the entire population of Queensland by putting the poison Hexafluorosilicic acid, a raw waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry into public water supplies in the guise of giving us better dental health. |
|
By: chuckanoo
28/01/2008
7:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Examination of recent state and national dental surveys proves that great majority of Queensland children without fluoride have very little tooth decay and are comparable to other states and there are hundreds of scientific publications linking fluoridation to harm. Despite this, the Premier still tries to claim that Qld Children have the worst teeth in Australia and that fluoridation is perfectly safe and has no adverse health effects.
Premier Anna Bligh really has inherited a “ tin ear ” from her ancestor.
Labor members, all the Labor MPs voted against mandated fluoridation in 2005. Please do not let the Premier bully you into now voting for forced fluoridation.
Labor members, please cross the floor and vote against the law that will medicate us all. If you stand strongly together the Premier cannot take away the initiatives you have achieved for your communities and cannot dis-endorse every member for the coming election.
Labor members, please stand up for your constituents that you were elected to represent. You were not elected to Parliament to blindly do the Premier's biddings.
Labor members, please try and talk some sense into the Premier.
Premier, you are invited to address the “Rally Against Forced Fluoridation” starting 9am Tuesday 12th February, Parliament House, George St.
Authorised by M Haines on behalf of Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation Inc contact info@qawf.org mob 0418 777112 www.qawf.org
Fluoridation, it's not science, it's just marketing. |
|
By: tonegunman1
29/01/2008
8:27 am Yahoo! Profile:
tonegunman1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas."
(The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.) |
|
By: chuckanoo
31/01/2008
8:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
As copied from the Stanthorpe's 'Border Times', Jan 24th 2008.
The controversial issue of mandatory fluoridation was discussed by the councillors at Tuesday’s meeting following receipt of a letter from the Premier Anna Bligh.
The Premier’s letter outlined the state government’s commitment to the $35 million capital program that will see 80 per cent of Queenslanders drinking fluoridated water within two years.
Councillor Trevor Cooper moved a motion that council write to Premier Bligh saying the shire would not support the program unless a state funded referendum indicated the community clearly supported mandatory fluoridation. The motion was carried. |
|
By: gaarf123
31/01/2008
11:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gaarf123 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| good news i see! |
|
By: redbaroness67
1/02/2008
3:44 am Yahoo! Profile:
redbaroness67 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Yet another good reason to install a tank and drink filtered rain water instead! |
|
By: csmason98
1/02/2008
9:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
csmason98 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| at least a referendum will have more influence than a plebiscite! Let's hope the government listens instead of ignoring the wishes of the voters!! They are obviously ignoring most of the information available against mass flouridation. |
|
By: chuckanoo
4/02/2008
9:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Professor Bernard Stewart from the University of New South Wales has compiled a list of items that the risk of cancer that are said to be untrue. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080204/tc_nm/australi a_cancer_dc
He said there little risk from drinking coffee, using deodorants, drinking fluoridated water and having breast implants or dental fillings.
It is unfortunate that he is not telling the truth about Fluoride.
Of particular concern are a series of studies indicating that fluoride can cause osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in both fluoride-treated male rats and boys under the age of 20 living in fluoridated areas. Osteosarcoma is a rare, but deadly, form of cancer that strikes primarily during the teenage years.
And yet he says it safe. From whom did he get funding from? |
|
By: sosayusal
6/02/2008
3:33 pm Yahoo! Profile:
sosayusal Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient and cost-effective light lobotomy? --- Ott].
"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty."
"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communise the world."
"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."
Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954>>
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/fluoride.htm |
|
By: chuckanoo
10/02/2008
3:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
For years I have suffered from Tartar build up behind my lower teeth. No matter what type of toothpaste I used, nothing would budge it. Not even the Tartar reducing toothpaste brands would work. And it was only during the last 3 years of using a Non fluoridated toothpaste, that there has been any reduction in the build up. In fact, within 2 days of using a toothpaste with no fluoride in it, I lost up to 60% of the build up. So, could Fluoride be causing Tartar build up? If so, what will it be doing to us if we drank it? Maybe an increase in hardened arteries? more Arthritis? who knows? The Anna Bligh doesn't know, and doesn't care!
Plus,
I have not been to a dentist since I was 17, so after 21 years, I finally went. Except for having my teeth cleaned, I was told my teeth are in great shape! No Cavities. The dentist was surprised when I told him how far back it was when I last visited a dentist.
I live in Brisbane of course, non fluoridated water (so far). And I hope it will never will be Fluoridated. I don't tooth decay from Sodium Fluoride in the drinking water. |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/02/2008
6:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Recieved an email from the so called Heatlh Minister today concrening Fluoride with a PDF attchment(MI151214a(1)).
Basically it's full of LIES!!
Example.
Research has demonstrated that fluoridation – together with oral hygiene and good nutrition – can reduce tooth decay by up to 40%. We cannot ignore the extensive scientific evidence which shows that fluoridation is a safe and effective means of improving oral health, thereby reducing the considerable personal and financial burden of oral disease. The introduction of water fluoridation will shift the focus to prevention over cure. Proven to be untrue!
This decision is about responding to the very clear wishes of the majority of Queenslanders who support the fluoridation of public water supplies. Surveys conducted over recent years by the Office of Economic and Statistical Research, the Local Government Association of Queensland, Central Queensland University and the Queensland Oral Health Alliance have consistently demonstrated that between 60% and 70% of Queenslanders support fluoridation. This is an outright LIE! Only 400 housholds were actaully surveyed. That's about 800 Legal age adults asked.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral, and worldwide approximately 360 million people drink water that naturally contains fluoride. Water fluoridation is not mass medication, but merely topping up the levels of fluoride already found naturally in the water to prevent dental decay. Drinking fluoridated water stabilises the mineral content of bones and teeth, thus strengthening the outside tooth enamel from decay-causing bacteria. FALSE, Sodium Fluoride is a man made TOXIC substance! Water Fluoridation IS mass medication. Illegal in this country!! Fluoride actually destabilises the mineral content of bones.
This decision is about responding to the very clear wishes of the majority of Queenslanders who support the fluoridation of public water supplies.Lies again, when did they hold the referendum? |
|
By: chuckanoo
12/02/2008
6:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
The Government’s decision is not intended to disadvantage those opposed to fluoridation, but to satisfy the very clear choice of an overwhelming majority of Queenslanders who wish to access cheap, safe and reliable fluoridated drinking water.
Lies, this will disadvantage those opposed to it. There is NO overwhelming majority of Queenslanders want this at all! It is not cheap and definitely not safe nor reliable.
Anna (Captain)Bligh should reconsider. For she maybe committing Political Suicide.
(P.S. Sorry for spelling mistakes in previous post) |
|
By: chuckanoo
18/02/2008
6:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
For those that are against the adding Toxic substances to our drinking water (mainly Sodium Fluoride), You should head to http://www.qawf.org/
There you will find a link to 'My Will Petition Campaing'
This link will allow you to download the 'My Will' letter which you can send to your local Politician.
Water Fluoridation can be stopped if Queensland MPs receive
enough MY WILL LETTERS. Copy this and ask friends, relatives, neighbours and work colleagues to all send a MY WILL LETTER to their own MP.
Do not enter into a written argument with your Member of Parliament, they are public servants. Their role is similar to that required by any other public servant that we may choose to hire, whether to mow the lawn, do out accounts
or paint the house. We are their employers, they, the employees.
The correct Constitutional, legal and moral role of each Member of Parliament is to obey the directions given to them by the majority expressed will of their electorate. The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to make laws for the people, with the clear implication that those laws will reflect the WILL of the people.
This is how a Democracy works and is how the people rule, which is what Democracy literally means. This is why Members are called 'representatives' which means to 're-present' or 'present again'. Thus once they have determined our will, they are required to present
it again, in Parliament; to speak and vote as we have directed them. Anything less than their obeying our laws and OUR WILL is not a democracy. |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/02/2008
6:52 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
NEWS ALERT
Qld Health staff doctored tooth decay data used in decision to force fluoridation.
This alert is to inform Queensland Members of Parliament and others, that Queensland Health staff have doctored tooth decay rates data used in the decision making process and the massive fluoridation advertising promotions.
A delegation to the Queensland Premier, Health Minister and Chief Health Officer on the 12th Feb made them aware of this situation, however it appears that this is being ignored by the Premier and that Legislation that has its basis in fraudulent data will be rammed through Parliament on Tuesday 26th Feb.
Premier Bligh's announcement on 5th Dec that she had made the decision to force fluoridation was hilighted by comparison of tooth decay rates (but using data only from baby teeth) between Townsville and Brisbane and led into newspaper advertisements which stated "In Townsville, water supplies have been fluoridated since 1964, resulting in 65% less tooth decay in children than those in Brisbane" additionally "... fluoride is proven safe and effective"
Examination of the source of the data used reveals that Qld Health staff have changed results from "teeth surfaces" to "teeth" a four to five fold difference (teeth each have 4 or 5 surfaces depending on the type of tooth) leading to a false and exaggerated impression of tooth decay favouring fluoridated Townsville. Brisbane children were falsely shown as having 2 more decayed baby teeth than Townsville children, when in reality, averaged out, it would have been only a fraction of a tooth . The data from permanent teeth in children aged 6 to 12 years old which was available but not used by Qld Health, showed on average only a tiny fraction of a tooth difference in decay rates.. |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/02/2008
6:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Queensland Health also portrayed that the data is from 1996 when in fact it is from mid 1991 to 1992. Queensland Health have refused to acknowledge tooth decay data in permanent teeth from recent Queensland Children's Dental surveys and refused to acknowledge tooth decay data from children's
permanent teeth measured at 12 years of age which is the international standard of comparison. Recent Tooth decay data from permanent teeth shows that Queensland compares favourably to other Australian states.
There is no scientific evidence to show that water fluoridation results in 65 % less tooth decay as Queensland Health claimed. A major Brtish Government commissioned review of water fluoridation done in 2000 by York University found that size of estimated benefit to be only of the order of 15% and additionally that the review did not show water fluoridation to be safe.
Queensland Health staff have illegimately dismissed creditable scientific publications showing links with harm from Osteoscarcoma and other adverse health effects and also recommendations from the Centre for Disease Control that infants under 12 months of age not consume fluoridated water.
Freedom of Information shows that a senior Oral Health advisor to the Health Minister had written in 2006 that there are no scientific studies to prove water fluoridation is safe. |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/02/2008
6:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Queensland Health would have spent millions promoting "safety" of water fluoridation in newspaper, radio, television advertising, even in posters in public toilets, yet the 2008 Water Fluoridation Bill assures the Queensland Government blanket protection from liability.
The Water Fluoridation Act 2008 will give " protection from civil rights and remedies "to any person or corporation involved in water fluoridation. Unless Criminal negligence can be proved, no harmed person will ever be able to bring a case of harm against, or prosecute the State of Queensland,
the Minister, any an alyst , any official or any person authorised under the Fluoridation Act, or any Water supplier.
It is contradictory for the Queensland Premier to claim water fluoridation is safe, and then introduce Legislation that forces fluoridation on the population but also prevents any people harmed by it (even by accident)from making a claim against the decision makers or any person authorised
under the Act.
We urge the Members of the Parliament of Queensland to vote against this legislation which was based on and promoted by fraudulent data.
For further information contact mob 0418 777 112 www.qawf.org
info@qawf.org |
|
By: tonegunman1
24/02/2008
1:15 am Yahoo! Profile:
tonegunman1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Why would you need legislation to protect you against being sued for harm when they have stated that there is no harm? Victoria have enacted similar provisions in their legislation, dodging all responsibility for any harm.
This would be of course understandable if you know that assertions as to safety are fabricated. |
|
By: sosayusal
25/02/2008
9:27 am Yahoo! Profile:
sosayusal Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The history of fluoride use.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042 352089988 |
|
By: pathogan70
25/02/2008
10:43 am Yahoo! Profile:
pathogan70 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
In my opinion, what gets lost easily in all this kerfuffle is logic and reason. Some places might need it, such as Townsville where the water appears to travel a considerable distance in an ugly pipe. Cairns on the other hand, the water mostly exceeds drinking water quality standards before it reaches the treatment works. So how is one rule going to work for both?
Why are conspiracy theorists getting so worked up about one aspect of water treatment? Already there are chemicals such as aluminium sulphate and soda ash added, and polyionic flocculents as well as the whole lot being filtered through anthracite (coal). Surely a bit of flouride wont hurt?
Are people also concerned about drinking springwater where such elements can occur naturally? of course not, thermal springs have cosmic healing properties.
Now I'm cranky so if anybody's looking for me, I'll be sulking in my geodesic pyramid weaving friendship bracelets out of biodynamic goat faeces. |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/02/2008
6:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
FORMER FEDERAL HEALTH MINISTER DR DOUG EVERINGHAM SAYS NO TO WATER FLUORIDATION
diWith the kind permission of Dr Everingham this recent letter is being
forwarded to all Queensland MPs and others by Queenslanders Against Water
Fluoridation Inc www.qawf.org
FROM DR DOUG EVERINGHAM FEDERAL HEALTH MINISTER ( WHITLAM GOVT 1972 -1975 )
As a family doctor and often Acting Government Medical Officer in Rockhampton over in the 1950s I wrote a letter praising fluoridation published in the local The Morning Bulletin.
This prompted the late Jack Harding and others to show me books that warned of fluoridation risks.
I read those books and have continued to look at reports for and against fluoridation in medical journals and elsewhere.
Reports still not disproved suggest involvement of fluoride medication in contributing after some years of consumption to reduced immunities or increased intensity or numbers of cases of disorders in human and animal development or function of bones, joints, brain, thyroid and other tissues.
Many of the water supplies now fluoridated were earlier showing dental signs of fluoride overdose in a significant proportion of their consumers, and fluoridation increases the prevalence and intensity of such dental fluorosis.
Reports criticise poor experimental and statistical methods in most surveys that favour water fluoridation. Official policy promoters overwhelmingly concede that public water supplies with 4 ppm fluoride are a hazard. |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/02/2008
6:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Lowerlimits have been suggested for infants, sufferers from certain metabolic problems and persons exposed to hot conditions. No minimum concentration of fluoride in communal water supplies or in individual fluoride intake has been shown as necessary to produce fluorosis-free, cares-free teeth. Despite repeated calls for such assessment by official reports.
Many studies suggest that the only proven caries-preventing function of fluoride lies in carefully applying toothpaste and dental therapy to tooth enamel, not in swallowing fluoride. Many authors want all artificial fluoridation stopped and natural water supplies limited to some unspecified fluoride level below 1 ppm..
Such authors include professionals formerly in charge of government promotion or direction of fluoridation
Among these are the former Dean of Melbourne's dental school, Sir Arthur Amies, Dr John Colquhoun of New Zealand; and others in the few countries that still promote fluoridation, as well as many that have abandoned or avoided it.
Associate Professor Hardy Limeback, PhD, BSc, Doctor of Dental Surgery, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto and Past President, Canadian Association for Dental Research, is typical of ever more researchers who have turned against fluoridation.
In 1999 he apologized for inadvertently misleading colleagues and students, saying "For the past 15 years I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind." |
|
