Discussion:
Fluoridation: An issue which epitomises the ineptitude of Plibersek and the ALP
(too old to reply)
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-23 04:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.

"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384

Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.

Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...

Here is her centralist, socialist position...
"Essentially what the Government is doing is shoving this responsibility
onto councils and I think that this is an issue that really is much
better dealt with at a state level"

A lie. State government gave councils the *choice* because some councils
were vocal in saying that it should be a choice.

But Plibersek has been know to lie before ... and liars do not change
their spots....

Plibersek...
"There will be dentists who tell you that they can tell someone who grew
up in Queensland because of the state of their teeth as adults".
(Also, see this:


Comment: What kind of claim is that? Can she name those dentists? Is
there a study? Did they isolate the causes?

Plibersek continues...
"Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray again. You can find
all sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you know, the harmful
effects of this or that and people should be very, very careful what
they believe when they're reading it from these sorts of sources".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm

Plibersek's original response, repeated in ...
"Plibersek bares teeth over fluoridation"
...Australian Doctor, er well - not quite:
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/error/404?aspxerrorpath=/news/latest-news/plibersek-bares-teeth-over-fluoridation
"Unfortunately the page that is supposed to be here has upped sticks"

If Plibersek or any ignorant idiot from the ALP *disendorses* a course
of action, you should probably take that as an *endorsement* - so
naturally, I consulted DR Google.

Unlike Plibersek, I *can* quote a study:

This study claims that "nearly half" of Qld children suffer from tooth
decay, which it claims "compares adversely" with southern states and
then goes onto say that ...
"New South Wales and Victoria were not included in either study due a
lack of access to data and small sample sizes"
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-state-of-decay-queensland-childrens-terrible-teeth-20111208-1ol6h.html

THE SAMPLE SUBJECTS WERE "children utilising *public* dental services".

I never cease to be amazed at the *crap* that gets published in
Australia as 'statistics'. First of all, the sample subjects are
self-selecting people WITH A PROBLEM and secondly, they are from lower
socio-economic groups.

Hello, hello - How many Aboriginal kids are there in Tamzania?
(NSW and Victoria were excluded, remember?)

[OH, and BTW the study above hasn't ended - and BTW, it will never end
because the ALP ended public funding for chronic dental problems]

Now let's talk about fluoridation:

"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and then
inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only one
part per million"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823

"Fluoride inhibits this DNA enzyme activity by 50%. and inhibits repair
mechanisms, leading to an increase in genetic or chromosomal damage"
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html

Enough?

Here's some more from Dr Google...

"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in low doses affects
human brains. It allows aluminum cross the barrier. It blocks magnesium
ions that are necessary body enzymes systems. Fluoride goes into the
bone osteoblasts and blocks collagen formation, Making the bones more
brittle, Resulting in osteoporosis.. Tendons, spinal ligaments, and
cartilage become mineralized".
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html


"ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride
to the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically
poisoning hundreds of millions of people around the world.
...
There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was
causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that
increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals
increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823

Alarmed? Yes - I was too. Let's revisit the ethics.

"Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of
compulsory mass medication[10]"

[comment: That'd be right, classic we-know-whats-good-for-you ALP stuff!]

"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal
publication as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of
Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[1]"

[comment: Of which Australia are signatories?]

"In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison,
claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972,
violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues
under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy


The last word from 'Queenslanders for Safe Water, Air and Food':
"...the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is
now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing
*recent data* before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk
of future litigation"
http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/evidencefluorideharmfuloverwhelming.pdf

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ALARMED, DON'T READ IT.


PS: If you need to know more about health and the human anatomy, see the
poster called 'Female Human Anatomy' signed off by Plebersek;s department:
http://www.ruraldr.com.au/news/govt-thinks-ovaries-are-kidneys
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/poster-bungle-designers-fault-govt
http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/blooper-health-posters-recalled/

An hi-res original can be found here:
http://ebookbrowse.com/female-anatomy-poster-pdf-d366304168

Brought to you by the ALP-run Federal Health department and
livelonger.health.gov.au

PS: The Liberal spokesman on this issue is a qualified Doctor:
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/03/snowden%E2%80%99s-poster-gaffe
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?


Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Sylvia Else
2013-03-23 08:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.

But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.

Sylvia.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-23 08:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
If an issue is important enough, it is much more feasible for any
individual to convince enough people at a council level than it is at a
state level.
Post by Sylvia Else
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based.
You have a lot of confidence in decisions made at state or federal
level. Take climate change - *whatever* the evidence, it is a certainty
that carbon tax will make *no difference* to the temperature of the
planet yet the decision is made - and is ostensibly 'evidence based'.

FWIW, it is impossible to do a current study on fluoridation because the
vast majority of people ingest fluoride in toothpaste. So when Plibersek
claims there is evidence, she is talking through her hat - just as she
did when she claimed that the Central Coast would be "inundated".
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Sylvia Else
2013-03-23 10:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.

Sylvia.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-23 11:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
You can array a set of coins, half of them marked 'heads' and the other
half 'tails' and people will choose their preference. If only 1% of
voters are informed that heads will lead to better outcomes then the
'heads party' will be elected.

There is no 'fluoridation party' at the federal level but there are most
definitely pro- or anti-fluoridation candidates at the council level.

Your second fallacy or misunderstanding is of generalisation. Your
'typical council' will probably opt for fluoridation but *specific*
councils may choose not to. Choice is enhanced in councils where people
choose to make it so *because* Campbel-Newman has devolved the decision.
The rest may continue to be random, but democracy (choice) is enhanced.

Your 3rd fallacy is that individuals *do* have a choice - they can
relocate to/away from a council.

Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable. Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Sylvia Else
2013-03-23 13:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable.
You have no evidence that I have no evidence. If you think, as you
appear to, that evidence is required before an assertion is made, then
you should not be saying that I have no evidence.
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
Perhaps they're not typical councils.

Sylvia.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-23 19:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable.
You have no evidence that I have no evidence. If you think, as you
appear to, that evidence is required before an assertion is made, then
you should not be saying that I have no evidence.
It doesn't matter what I think, if you have no evidence then you have no
argument.

In any case, even if you are correct, and the typical council is no
better than a coin flip:
1. The 'untypical council' (e.g. Bundaberg) would have a better outcome.
2. A coin flip is better than a consistent wrong choice made by an
ignorant decision-maker (even a well-intentioned one).
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
Perhaps they're not typical councils.
To the extent that people are prepared to become informed *and* have the
choice, they will be better off. If your typical council is random, they
are still better off than with wrong decisions made by a we-know-better
idiot with a degree in politics.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
F Murtz
2013-03-23 14:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
You can array a set of coins, half of them marked 'heads' and the other
half 'tails' and people will choose their preference. If only 1% of
voters are informed that heads will lead to better outcomes then the
'heads party' will be elected.
There is no 'fluoridation party' at the federal level but there are most
definitely pro- or anti-fluoridation candidates at the council level.
Your second fallacy or misunderstanding is of generalisation. Your
'typical council' will probably opt for fluoridation but *specific*
councils may choose not to. Choice is enhanced in councils where people
choose to make it so *because* Campbel-Newman has devolved the decision.
The rest may continue to be random, but democracy (choice) is enhanced.
Your 3rd fallacy is that individuals *do* have a choice - they can
relocate to/away from a council.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable. Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
Why? do they agree with you?
It is much better that experts that work with medical and scientific
evidence and statistical data do these things than locals with no
training that work on emotion and listen to minority snake oil perveyors.
Clocky
2013-03-23 15:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by F Murtz
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
You can array a set of coins, half of them marked 'heads' and the other
half 'tails' and people will choose their preference. If only 1% of
voters are informed that heads will lead to better outcomes then the
'heads party' will be elected.
There is no 'fluoridation party' at the federal level but there are most
definitely pro- or anti-fluoridation candidates at the council level.
Your second fallacy or misunderstanding is of generalisation. Your
'typical council' will probably opt for fluoridation but *specific*
councils may choose not to. Choice is enhanced in councils where people
choose to make it so *because* Campbel-Newman has devolved the decision.
The rest may continue to be random, but democracy (choice) is enhanced.
Your 3rd fallacy is that individuals *do* have a choice - they can
relocate to/away from a council.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable. Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
Why? do they agree with you?
It is much better that experts that work with medical and scientific
evidence and statistical data do these things than locals with no
training that work on emotion and listen to minority snake oil perveyors.
Indeed.
Addinall
2013-03-24 06:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by F Murtz
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people
picked off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
You can array a set of coins, half of them marked 'heads' and the
other half 'tails' and people will choose their preference. If only 1%
of voters are informed that heads will lead to better outcomes then
the 'heads party' will be elected.
There is no 'fluoridation party' at the federal level but there are
most definitely pro- or anti-fluoridation candidates at the council
level.
Your second fallacy or misunderstanding is of generalisation. Your
'typical council' will probably opt for fluoridation but *specific*
councils may choose not to. Choice is enhanced in councils where
people choose to make it so *because* Campbel-Newman has devolved the
decision.
The rest may continue to be random, but democracy (choice) is enhanced.
Your 3rd fallacy is that individuals *do* have a choice - they can
relocate to/away from a council.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable. Have you done a survey? The councillors in
Bundaberg and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and*
their constituents are also better informed.
Why? do they agree with you?
It is much better that experts that work with medical and scientific
evidence and statistical data do these things than locals with no
training that work on emotion and listen to minority snake oil perveyors.
Indeed.
How the fuck would you know Clonky? You flunked High School.

Retard.
Mark Addinall.
Clocky
2013-03-23 15:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
You can array a set of coins, half of them marked 'heads' and the other
half 'tails' and people will choose their preference. If only 1% of
voters are informed that heads will lead to better outcomes then the
'heads party' will be elected.
There is no 'fluoridation party' at the federal level but there are most
definitely pro- or anti-fluoridation candidates at the council level.
Your second fallacy or misunderstanding is of generalisation. Your
'typical council' will probably opt for fluoridation but *specific*
councils may choose not to. Choice is enhanced in councils where people
choose to make it so *because* Campbel-Newman has devolved the decision.
The rest may continue to be random, but democracy (choice) is enhanced.
Your 3rd fallacy is that individuals *do* have a choice - they can
relocate to/away from a council.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable. Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
They would be very ill-informed if they think fluoridation is not a good
idea and they proceeded to remove it.

I would expect parents of children who wish for fluoridation to continue
on the basis that it helps protect teeth but are denied through no
choice of their own should be entitled to compensation from their
council for the damage it will do to the teeth of their children.
Jeßus
2013-03-24 01:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
You can array a set of coins, half of them marked 'heads' and the other
half 'tails' and people will choose their preference. If only 1% of
voters are informed that heads will lead to better outcomes then the
'heads party' will be elected.
There is no 'fluoridation party' at the federal level but there are most
definitely pro- or anti-fluoridation candidates at the council level.
Your second fallacy or misunderstanding is of generalisation. Your
'typical council' will probably opt for fluoridation but *specific*
councils may choose not to. Choice is enhanced in councils where people
choose to make it so *because* Campbel-Newman has devolved the decision.
The rest may continue to be random, but democracy (choice) is enhanced.
Your 3rd fallacy is that individuals *do* have a choice - they can
relocate to/away from a council.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable. Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
They would be very ill-informed if they think fluoridation is not a good
idea and they proceeded to remove it.
LOL.
Post by Clocky
I would expect parents of children who wish for fluoridation to continue
on the basis that it helps protect teeth but are denied through no
choice of their own should be entitled to compensation from their
council for the damage it will do to the teeth of their children.
If you want fluoride, is there something wrong with the fluoride in
toothpaste and mouthwash? Why does it need to be in the water, and how
exactly do you control the dosage? I guess you think fluorosis is
another myth? Adding fluoride to town water is nothing more than a
scam. One day we'll look back on it much like we do with dousing kids
with DDT at school.
Clocky
2013-03-25 06:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
Post by Clocky
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
You can array a set of coins, half of them marked 'heads' and the other
half 'tails' and people will choose their preference. If only 1% of
voters are informed that heads will lead to better outcomes then the
'heads party' will be elected.
There is no 'fluoridation party' at the federal level but there are most
definitely pro- or anti-fluoridation candidates at the council level.
Your second fallacy or misunderstanding is of generalisation. Your
'typical council' will probably opt for fluoridation but *specific*
councils may choose not to. Choice is enhanced in councils where people
choose to make it so *because* Campbel-Newman has devolved the decision.
The rest may continue to be random, but democracy (choice) is enhanced.
Your 3rd fallacy is that individuals *do* have a choice - they can
relocate to/away from a council.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable. Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
They would be very ill-informed if they think fluoridation is not a good
idea and they proceeded to remove it.
LOL.
Post by Clocky
I would expect parents of children who wish for fluoridation to continue
on the basis that it helps protect teeth but are denied through no
choice of their own should be entitled to compensation from their
council for the damage it will do to the teeth of their children.
If you want fluoride, is there something wrong with the fluoride in
toothpaste and mouthwash? Why does it need to be in the water, and how
exactly do you control the dosage? I guess you think fluorosis is
another myth? Adding fluoride to town water is nothing more than a
scam. One day we'll look back on it much like we do with dousing kids
with DDT at school.
So where are all these victims after decades of fluoridation?

<crickets>

Right, nothing more than paranoid and delusional scare mongering.

I suppose you still believe the MMR needle is causing autism too...
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-24 02:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
I'm saying that your typical council is no more knowledgeable, nor
better advised, than any random group of people.
Sylvia.
You can array a set of coins, half of them marked 'heads' and the other
half 'tails' and people will choose their preference. If only 1% of
voters are informed that heads will lead to better outcomes then the
'heads party' will be elected.
There is no 'fluoridation party' at the federal level but there are most
definitely pro- or anti-fluoridation candidates at the council level.
Your second fallacy or misunderstanding is of generalisation. Your
'typical council' will probably opt for fluoridation but *specific*
councils may choose not to. Choice is enhanced in councils where people
choose to make it so *because* Campbel-Newman has devolved the decision.
The rest may continue to be random, but democracy (choice) is enhanced.
Your 3rd fallacy is that individuals *do* have a choice - they can
relocate to/away from a council.
Finally, you have no evidence that 'typical councillors' are more or
less knowledgeable. Have you done a survey? The councillors in Bundaberg
and Townsville are most definitely better informed *and* their
constituents are also better informed.
They would be very ill-informed if they think fluoridation is not a good
idea and they proceeded to remove it.
Did you mean that 'They would be very ill-informed if they *thought*
*that* fluoridation *was* not a good idea and *then* proceeded to remove
it'?

Always happy to help.
Post by Clocky
I would expect parents of children who wish for fluoridation to continue
on the basis that it helps protect teeth but are denied through no
choice of their own should be entitled to compensation from their
council for the damage it will do to the teeth of their children.
I couldn't give a stuff what *you* or anyone in the ALP thinks about
fluoridation - or any other subject. Just get the fuck out of our lives.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
H D
2013-03-23 10:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
If an issue is important enough, it is much more feasible for any
individual to convince enough people at a council level than it is at a
state level.
Post by Sylvia Else
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based.
You have a lot of confidence in decisions made at state or federal level.
Take climate change - *whatever* the evidence, it is a certainty that
carbon tax will make *no difference* to the temperature of the planet yet
the decision is made - and is ostensibly 'evidence based'.
FWIW, it is impossible to do a current study on fluoridation because the
vast majority of people ingest fluoride in toothpaste. So when Plibersek
claims there is evidence, she is talking through her hat - just as she did
when she claimed that the Central Coast would be "inundated".
The study on fluoridation has been made a long time before they included the
stuff in toothpaste.
over 50 years ago European migrants who always had fluoride in their water
were warned to take fluoride
tablets as Australians had terrible teeth.
As for choice it is the same as smoking and obesity.
Wrong choices are costly to all tax payers.
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-23 11:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by H D
As for choice it is the same as smoking and obesity.
Thanks for parading your irrational ignorance once again.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Addinall
2013-03-24 06:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by H D
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the
choice of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State
Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-
gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-
fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Post by H D
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about
community *choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be
made *for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little
difference whether the choice is made at a state level or a local
level. It would still not be individual choice.
If an issue is important enough, it is much more feasible for any
individual to convince enough people at a council level than it is at a
state level.
Post by Sylvia Else
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to
be done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least
in part evidence based.
You have a lot of confidence in decisions made at state or federal
level. Take climate change - *whatever* the evidence, it is a certainty
that carbon tax will make *no difference* to the temperature of the
planet yet the decision is made - and is ostensibly 'evidence based'.
FWIW, it is impossible to do a current study on fluoridation because
the vast majority of people ingest fluoride in toothpaste. So when
Plibersek claims there is evidence, she is talking through her hat -
just as she did when she claimed that the Central Coast would be
"inundated".
The study on fluoridation has been made a long time before they included
the stuff in toothpaste.
over 50 years ago European migrants who always had fluoride in their
water were warned to take fluoride tablets as Australians had terrible
teeth.
On the 29th November 2012, the Newman LNP government passed legislative
amendments to end government mandated water fluoridation. That was
absolutely fantastic news to opponents of forced fluoridation.
Fluoridation had been forced on 4 million Queenslanders by former Premier
Anna Bligh.

Decisions on whether fluoridation is commenced ceased or continued in
different Queensland communities now lies solely with Queensland Councils.

With accumulating evidence of fluoride’s harm (there are now 35 human
studies alone that indicate that fluoride is a neurotoxin that can lower
children’s IQ), we hope that all Queensland councils will recognise
potential risks and the fact that fluoridation is unethical mass
medication and all will cease fluoridation.

Queenslanders for Safe Water, Air and Food Inc are continuing their
activities providing scientific evidence of health risks and in-
effectiveness at reducing tooth decay to decision makers.

"From other lands — Australia, Britain, Canada, Sri Lanka, Greece, Malta,
Spain, Hungary, and India — a similar situation has been revealed: either
little or no relation between water fluoride and tooth decay, or a
positive one (more fluoride, more decay) [12-17]. For example, over 30
years Professor Teotia and his team in India have examined the teeth of
some 400,000 children. They found that tooth decay increases as fluoride
intake increases. Tooth decay, they decided, results from a deficiency of
calcium and an excess of fluoride [17]."


12. Diesendorf M A re-examination of Australian fluoridation trials.
Search 17 256-261 1986.

13.Diesendorf M. Have the benefits of water fluoridation been
overestimated? International Clinical Nutrition Review 10 292-303 1990.

14. Diesendorf M. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature 322
125-129 1986.

15. Gray A S. Fluoridation: Time for a new base line? Journal of the
Canadian Dental Association 53 763-765 1987.

16. Ziegelbecker RC, Ziegelbecker R. WHO data on dental caries and
natural water fluoride levels. Fluoride 26 263-266 1993.

17. Teotia SPS, Teotia M. Dental caries: a disorder of high fluoride and
low dietary calcium interactions (30 years of personal research).
Fluoride 27 59-66 1994.

http://www.qawf.org/?TabID=34
Post by H D
As for choice it is the same as smoking and obesity.
Wrong choices are costly to all tax payers.
How the fuck would you know? You have never paid tax.

Fucking retard.

Mark Addinall.
Post by H D
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Sylvia Else
If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Rubbish.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Trevor
2013-03-29 04:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by H D
Wrong choices are costly to all tax payers.
How the fuck would you know? You have never paid tax.
The question is how the fuck would you know whether he's ever paid tax?
I'd love to know his secret if he can even avoid GST! :-)
Post by Addinall
Fucking retard.
And those who claim everyone who doesn't agree with them are "retards", are
obviously worse again.

Trevor.
Addinall
2013-03-30 02:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor
Post by Addinall
Post by H D
Wrong choices are costly to all tax payers.
How the fuck would you know? You have never paid tax.
The question is how the fuck would you know whether he's ever paid tax?
I'd love to know his secret if he can even avoid GST! :-)
Post by Addinall
Fucking retard.
And those who claim everyone who doesn't agree with them are "retards",
are obviously worse again.
Trevor.
Fucking retard.

Mark Addinall.
Dechucka
2013-04-02 23:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Trevor
Post by Addinall
Post by H D
Wrong choices are costly to all tax payers.
How the fuck would you know? You have never paid tax.
The question is how the fuck would you know whether he's ever paid tax?
I'd love to know his secret if he can even avoid GST! :-)
Post by Addinall
Fucking retard.
And those who claim everyone who doesn't agree with them are "retards",
are obviously worse again.
Trevor.
Fucking retard.
nice sig, maybe you've had to much fluoride

jg
2013-03-23 10:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's
probably even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-23 11:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's
probably even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Probably?

You're making it up - like Plibersek.

In fact, the cost of fluoridation is trivial - equivalent to less than
one filling in your lifetime - so it is highly *unlikely* that cost
would be a factor.

The cost could easily be balanced by demanding a higher premium for
health insurance. In fact the refunds for most standard dental items are
*lower* in Qld than NSW. Funny that.

Like Plibersek, you're talking through your hat. Next you'll tell us
that we're going to be "indundated" by rising sea levels.

These sorts of ignorant judgements by unqualified idiots are highly
damaging to the economy and are why the ALP stumbles from one disaster
to the next. For goodness sake, get some qualified people. Plibersek is
an idiot.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Clocky
2013-03-23 15:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's
probably even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Probably?
You're making it up - like Plibersek.
In fact, the cost of fluoridation is trivial - equivalent to less than
one filling in your lifetime - so it is highly *unlikely* that cost
would be a factor.
The cost could easily be balanced by demanding a higher premium for
health insurance. In fact the refunds for most standard dental items are
*lower* in Qld than NSW. Funny that.
Like Plibersek, you're talking through your hat. Next you'll tell us
that we're going to be "indundated" by rising sea levels.
These sorts of ignorant judgements by unqualified idiots are highly
damaging to the economy and are why the ALP stumbles from one disaster
to the next. For goodness sake, get some qualified people. Plibersek is
an idiot.
You're a flat-earther who has a problem with sound scientific evidence,
indeed any kind of evidence that doesn't agree with your ignorant stupidity.
Addinall
2013-03-24 04:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the
choice of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should
be able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State
Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-
gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-
fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Post by Clocky
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about
community *choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be
made *for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little
difference whether the choice is made at a state level or a local
level. It would still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to
be done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at
least in part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by
local councils, then it might just as well be made by a bunch of
random people picked off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's
probably even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Probably?
You're making it up - like Plibersek.
In fact, the cost of fluoridation is trivial - equivalent to less than
one filling in your lifetime - so it is highly *unlikely* that cost
would be a factor.
The cost could easily be balanced by demanding a higher premium for
health insurance. In fact the refunds for most standard dental items
are *lower* in Qld than NSW. Funny that.
Like Plibersek, you're talking through your hat. Next you'll tell us
that we're going to be "indundated" by rising sea levels.
These sorts of ignorant judgements by unqualified idiots are highly
damaging to the economy and are why the ALP stumbles from one disaster
to the next. For goodness sake, get some qualified people. Plibersek is
an idiot.
You're a flat-earther who has a problem with sound scientific evidence,
indeed any kind of evidence that doesn't agree with your ignorant stupidity.
You're an ill educated dolt. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to flouridate
water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they would like to
ingest a toxin.

In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against
a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic
nature of compulsion medication.”

In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water sector
that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is
the sole responsibility of health services.”

In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way for
medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can
decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”

There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
population. Some of the risks involve:

Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC),
fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by
EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1
ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse
effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient
deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake.

Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an
“endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of
fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water,
may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine
intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity,
depression and weight gain

Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength
and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to
determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the
best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased
at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the
concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation.

Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study
from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between
fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under
the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been
described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.”
Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years
of diagnosis.

Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened
susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an
impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic
levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of
aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known
as renal osteodystrophy.

I would no sooner eat fluorosilicic acid as I would tetraethyl lead.

According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of
Health and Long Term Care, “The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is
not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and
may not be of clinical significance.” For example:

No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated
countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the
reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50
years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western
countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The
vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet,
according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their
tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the
tooth decay rates in the US.

Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier
findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in
tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation.

Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas.
While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-
income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim.

According to a recent systematic review from the British government, “The
evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was
of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” In the United States,
severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of
whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. In
addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe
tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly
different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. Thus, despite some
emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not
prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-
care access.

National Academy of Sciences. (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances:
10th Edition. Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council,
National Academy Press. p. 235. Additional references available at:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/essential-nutrient/
Featherstone JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention.
Journal of the American Dental Association. 131: 887-899. Additional
references available at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries04/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). Recommendations for
Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States.
Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). August 17. 50(RR14):1-42.
Formerly online at: http://ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/epubs/egram/
egram_061109.pdf
References online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/infant01/
Hong L, Levy SM, et al. (2006). Timing of fluoride intake in relation to
development of fluorosis on maxillary central incisors. Community
Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:299-309.
Marshman Z, et al. (2008). The impact of developmental defects of enamel
on young people in the UK. Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology
37:45-57.
Grandjean P, Landrigan P. (2006). Developmental neurotoxicity of
industrial chemicals. The Lancet, November 8.
Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives
2012 Jul 20. [Epub ahead of print]
National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A
Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press,
Washington D.C. p. 173-188.
Varner JA, et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride and
Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and
Cerebrovascular Integrity.Brain Research. 784: 284-298.
Lin Fa-Fu, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-
fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine
Deficiency Disorder Newsletter. Vol. 7. No. 3.
Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on
children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94; 198-199.
NRC (2006). p. 189-224.
NRC (2006). p. 107-148.
National Toxicology Program. (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical
report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and
osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and
Risks. US Public Health Service. Appendix E & F.
Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water
Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New
Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17.
Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride
Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer
Causes and Control 17: 421-8.
Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal
patients. In: E Johansen, DR Taves, TO Olsen, Eds. Continuing Evaluation
of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.
Ng AHM, et al. (2004). Association between fluoride, magnesium, aluminum
and bone quality in renal osteodystrophy. Bone 34: 216-224.
Ittel TH, et al. (1992). Effect of fluoride on aluminum-induced bone
disease in rats with renal failure. Kidney International 41: 1340-1348.
Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the
Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology 36:433–487
Coplan MJ, et al. (2007). Confirmation of and explanations for elevated
blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection
and fluoridation chemicals. Neurotoxicology 28(5):1032-42.
Masters RD. et al. (2000). Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water
with Elevated Blood Lead. Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091-1099.
Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with Silicofluorides and
Lead Toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 56:
435-449.
Maas R, et al. (2005). Effects of fluorides and chloramine on lead
leaching from leaded-brass surfaces. Environmental Quality Institute,
University of North Carolina, Ashville. Technical Report # 05-142 .
Macek M, et al. (2006). Blood lead concentrations in children and method
of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994. Environmental
Health Perspectives 114:130-134.
Colquhoun J. (1985). Influence of social class and fluoridation on child
dental health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41.
Diesendorf M. (1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature. 322:
125-129.
Gray AS. (1987). Fluoridation: Time For A New Base Line? Journal of the
Canadian Dental Association. 53: 763-5.
Kelly M, Bruerd B. (1987). The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay
Among Two Native American Populations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry
47:94-97.
Hildebolt CF, et al. (1989). Caries prevalences among geochemical regions
of Missouri. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:79-92.
Hileman B. (1989). New Studies Cast Doubt on Fluoridation Benefits.
Chemical and Engineering News. May 8.
Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries in U.S.
children and the effect of water fluoridation. J. Dent. Res 69, (Special
edition), 723-727.
Yiamouyiannis JA. (1990). Water Fluoridation and Tooth decay: Results
from the 1986-87 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren. Fluoride. 23:
55-67.
Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation
factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of head start
children. Public Health Reports 107: 167-73.
Domoto P, et al. (1996). The estimation of caries prevalence in small
areas. Journal of Dental Research 75:1947-56.
Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying
Water Fluoride Concentrations. J Pub Health Dent. 57(3): 136-143.
Colquhoun J. (1997). Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation.
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 29-44.
Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of
the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario
Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water
fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.
Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S. (2000). Decline of caries
prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East
Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-9.
Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two
Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation. Caries
Research 34: 462-468.
Burt BA, et al. (2000). The effects of a break in water fluoridation on
the development of dental caries and fluorosis. J Dent Res. 79(2):761-9.
Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. (2001). Patterns of dental
caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry
and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.
Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and
race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public
Health Dentistry 63(1):38-46.
Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. (2004) Consumption of nonpublic water:
implications for children’s caries experience. Community Dent Oral
Epidemiol 32:283-296.
Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated
and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.
Warren J, et al. (2009). Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using
dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Public Health Dentistry 69:111-15.
Steinmeyer R. (2011). [Influence of natural fluoride concentration in
drinking water on dental health of first class pupils in an area with
enhanced fluoride content at the beginning of the 21st century].
Gesundheitswesen. 73(8-9):483-90.
Charone S, et al. (2012). Lack of a significant relationship between
toenail fluoride concentrations and caries prevalence. Fluoride 45:133-37.
Online at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
Online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries07/
Beltran-Aguilar ED et al. (2005). Surveillance for dental caries, dental
sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis — United
States, 1988–1994 and 1999—2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 54(3): 1-44.
Massler M, Schour I. (1952). Relation of endemic dental fluorosis to
malnutrition. JADA. 44: 156-165.
Marier J, Rose D. (1977). Environmental Fluoride. National Research
Council of Canada. Associate Committe on Scientific Criteria for
Environmental Quality. NRCC No. 16081.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1993).
Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F).
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR/
TP-91/17.
Online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/thiessen-interview/
Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications
for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry
59: 211-23.
Beltrán-Aguilar ED, et al. (2010). Prevalence and Severity of Dental
Fluorosis in the United States, 1999–2004. Centers for Disease Control.
NCHS Data Brief No. 53.
National Research Council. (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride.
National Academy Press, Washington DC.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-facts/


HTH.

Mark Addinall.
Clocky
2013-03-25 02:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to flouridate
water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they would like to
ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against
a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic
nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water sector
that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is
the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way for
medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can
decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise that
the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Addinall
2013-03-25 03:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they would
like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the
problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way for
medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can
decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise that
the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid as
Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?


"Defluoridation and UNICEF
UNICEF has worked closely with the Government and other partners in
defluoridation programmes in India, where excessive fluoride has been
known for many years to exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the
1980s, UNICEF supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort
to identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently
launched a massive programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe
water in all the areas affected.

Over the past five years, UNICEF's focus in the India programme has been
on strengthening the systems for monitoring water quality, facilitating
water treatment by households, and advocating alternative water supplies
when necessary. Education - both of households and communities - is key
to the strategy. A number of demonstration projects have been initiated
in fluorosis-affected areas, with the emphasis currently on introducing
household **defluoridation.**

UNICEF has also sponsored research and development on the use of
activated alumina for removal of fluoride from water.

Since fluoride must now be considered an issue of worldwide importance,
the years of experience in India should help UNICEF and its partners
provide four types of assistance towards an eventual solution:

- Promoting a better understanding of the problem and its impact on
children;

- Raising the awareness of relevant governments and the public on the
fluoride issue in particular and the importance in general of monitoring
water quality;

- Demonstrating, through pilot projects, the efficacy of low-cost
fluoride removal technologies;

- Strengthening community and government capacity for fluorosis
prevention, including a credible system for risk assessment that
comprises both water quality monitoring and health monitoring.

Seems like UNICEF is all about REMOVING Fluoride(s) from water. Much
like most of Europe these days. Really, you Luddites are a worry. You
get a D average in Year 10 High, and education is all over for you clowns
hey?

'Fluorine and fluorides', Environmental Health Criteria 36, IPCS
International Programme on Chemical Safety, WHO, 1984. The WHO guideline
values for fluoride in drinking water were reevaluated in 1996, without
change, and the issue is currently under further review.
Prevention and control of fluorosis in India, Rajiv Gandhi National
Drinking Water Mission, 1993.
'Endemic fluorosis in Mexico', Fluoride, vol. 30, no. 4, 1997.
Data from a national research project under the eighth Five-Year Economic
and Social Development Plan, 1995.
'Fluorine and fluorides', see note 1 above.
Information supplied by UNICEF India.
http://www.unicef.org/wes/files/wf13e.pdf

How about WHO?




"Endemic fluorosis is now known to be global in scope, occurring on all
continents and affecting many millions of people. Although no precise
figures for the

global number of persons affected are available, some figures at national
levels

have been given in the literature. Thus, for example, in China some 38
million

people are reported to suffer from dental fluorosis and 1.7 million from
the more

severe skeletal fluorosis (WRI, 1990). In India, Susheela and Das (1988)

suggested that around one million people suffer from serious and
incapacitating

skeletal fluorosis. Using the Chinese dental:skeletal fluorosis ratio,
India could

therefore have up to 20 million dental fluorosis sufferers, and in fact
Mangla

(1991) suggested that fluorosis affects an estimated 25 million people in
India.

Thus in India and China alone over 60 million people may be affected and,
when

other populations in Africa and the eastern Mediterranean in particular
are taken

into account, the global total may exceed 70 million."

"Endemic skeletal fluorosis is well documented and is known to occur with
a

range of severity in several parts of the world, including India, China
and

northern, eastern, central and southern Africa. It is primarily
associated with the

consumption of drinking-water containing elevated levels of fluoride but
exposure to additional sources of fluoride such as high fluoride coal is
also potentially

very important. This is compounded by a number of factors which include

climate, related to water consumption, nutritional status and diet,
including additional sources of fluoride and exposure to other substances
that modify the

absorption of fluoride into the body. Crippling skeletal fluorosis, which
is associated with the higher levels of exposure, can result from
osteosclerosis,

ligamentous and tendinous calcification and extreme bone deformity.
Evidence

from occupational exposure also indicates that exposure to elevated
concentrations of fluoride in the air may also be a cause of skeletal
fluorosis (IPCS, 2002)."

Not pretty. It's a TOXIN. Stupid cunt.

Mark Addinall.
jg
2013-03-25 04:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they would
like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the
problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way for
medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can
decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise that
the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid as
Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF
UNICEF has worked closely with the Government and other partners in
defluoridation programmes in India, where excessive fluoride has been
known for many years to exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the
1980s, UNICEF supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort
to identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently
launched a massive programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe
water in all the areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Addinall
2013-03-25 06:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the
problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in much
of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and hygiene
as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical benefit for
the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.


There are a few problems with the government wanting to Fluoridate water.

1. Given. It is a TOXIN and the difference between "It might not do any
harm" and "BLEH, this'll kill ya" is very fine indeed. This raises a
number of issues:

1.1 Fluoride makes its way into water naturally. If there was an
increase in the amount of natural Fluoride making it into our drinking
water, then:

1.1.1 How soon would it be noticed?

1.1.2 How long would it take to remediate the dose added to the water
supply?

1.1.3 In what locations would the water quality be tested, by whom, how
often and at who's expense?

1.1.4 Given a heavy rain in Gympie can radically change the level of
Fluorine in the local drinking water compared to say, a dryish Stanford
at THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, what level of SCADA granurality can we expect
to be implemented?

2. We will be relying on a government agency to give us "just enough"
poison. Errr. How well do we trust government run technical projects to
run correctly? How many Pink Batts can we eat before we get sick?

3. Mass dosing is wrong for any number of reasons:

3.1 There is no control over the dose of Fluoride any one particular
person is likely to recieve. If you are a health nut and scoff back 5L
of tap water a day, your dose is going to be higher than those that
prefer Scotch and Dry.

3.2 Does it take into account how much toothpaste each person ingests
when going about ablutions?

3.3 What of the people with impaired renal capacity? Or thos that
already have a compromised immune system? Will the government put
gruesome warnings on our taps, with pictures of the garish results of
overdose?

4. Some of us like to make our own choices on the type of drugs and
toxins we ingest. Can I sue the government if for one month my level of
Fluoride ingestion goes ABOVE 0.7ppm? Who is going to underwrite this
risk?

5. In any society on the planet plenty of Fluoride is readily available
to all social demographics. Black tea is the singular most popular
beverage of the total human species. There is no NEED to fluoridate
water, and given the risks of getting it wrong, should not be considered.

It is just a POOR idea to feed millions of people an industrial TOXIN for
no good reason.

HTH.

Mark Addinall.
jg
2013-03-25 06:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the
problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in much
of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and hygiene
as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical benefit for
the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
There are a few problems with the government wanting to Fluoridate water.
1. Given. It is a TOXIN and the difference between "It might not do any
harm" and "BLEH, this'll kill ya" is very fine indeed. This raises a
1.1 Fluoride makes its way into water naturally. If there was an
increase in the amount of natural Fluoride making it into our drinking
1.1.1 How soon would it be noticed?
1.1.2 How long would it take to remediate the dose added to the water
supply?
1.1.3 In what locations would the water quality be tested, by whom, how
often and at who's expense?
1.1.4 Given a heavy rain in Gympie can radically change the level of
Fluorine in the local drinking water compared to say, a dryish Stanford
at THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, what level of SCADA granurality can we expect
to be implemented?
2. We will be relying on a government agency to give us "just enough"
poison. Errr. How well do we trust government run technical projects to
run correctly? How many Pink Batts can we eat before we get sick?
3.1 There is no control over the dose of Fluoride any one particular
person is likely to recieve. If you are a health nut and scoff back 5L
of tap water a day, your dose is going to be higher than those that
prefer Scotch and Dry.
3.2 Does it take into account how much toothpaste each person ingests
when going about ablutions?
3.3 What of the people with impaired renal capacity? Or thos that
already have a compromised immune system? Will the government put
gruesome warnings on our taps, with pictures of the garish results of
overdose?
4. Some of us like to make our own choices on the type of drugs and
toxins we ingest. Can I sue the government if for one month my level of
Fluoride ingestion goes ABOVE 0.7ppm? Who is going to underwrite this
risk?
5. In any society on the planet plenty of Fluoride is readily available
to all social demographics. Black tea is the singular most popular
beverage of the total human species. There is no NEED to fluoridate
water, and given the risks of getting it wrong, should not be considered.
It is just a POOR idea to feed millions of people an industrial TOXIN for
no good reason.
HTH.
Mark Addinall.
All good questions, but we have to distinguish between dosing and
removing pollution levels of anything. Which also goes for salt, even
medicine, alcohol or fat on a personal level.

We have chlorine added to our water - it's a tradeoff between using
deadly poison and killing off bugs, and it's monitored and dosed as it's
pumped. I would assume the same goes for fluoride.

We also have a dam which has 'gone salty' - the same health authorities
decided to close it, as add fluoride. Or at least advise the govt, who
'should' act on best advice.

Politicians couldn't be trusted with any of it, but we hope people more
expert are doing the deciding and measuring.
Addinall
2013-03-27 00:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in
much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and
hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical
benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
There are a few problems with the government wanting to Fluoridate water.
1. Given. It is a TOXIN and the difference between "It might not do
any harm" and "BLEH, this'll kill ya" is very fine indeed. This raises
1.1 Fluoride makes its way into water naturally. If there was an
increase in the amount of natural Fluoride making it into our drinking
1.1.1 How soon would it be noticed?
1.1.2 How long would it take to remediate the dose added to the water
supply?
1.1.3 In what locations would the water quality be tested, by whom, how
often and at who's expense?
1.1.4 Given a heavy rain in Gympie can radically change the level of
Fluorine in the local drinking water compared to say, a dryish Stanford
at THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, what level of SCADA granurality can we
expect to be implemented?
2. We will be relying on a government agency to give us "just enough"
poison. Errr. How well do we trust government run technical projects
to run correctly? How many Pink Batts can we eat before we get sick?
3.1 There is no control over the dose of Fluoride any one particular
person is likely to recieve. If you are a health nut and scoff back 5L
of tap water a day, your dose is going to be higher than those that
prefer Scotch and Dry.
3.2 Does it take into account how much toothpaste each person ingests
when going about ablutions?
3.3 What of the people with impaired renal capacity? Or thos that
already have a compromised immune system? Will the government put
gruesome warnings on our taps, with pictures of the garish results of
overdose?
4. Some of us like to make our own choices on the type of drugs and
toxins we ingest. Can I sue the government if for one month my level
of Fluoride ingestion goes ABOVE 0.7ppm? Who is going to underwrite
this risk?
5. In any society on the planet plenty of Fluoride is readily
available to all social demographics. Black tea is the singular most
popular beverage of the total human species. There is no NEED to
fluoridate water, and given the risks of getting it wrong, should not
be considered.
It is just a POOR idea to feed millions of people an industrial TOXIN
for no good reason.
HTH.
Mark Addinall.
All good questions,
Of course they are. I wrote them. Care to address the qustions?
Post by jg
but we have to distinguish between dosing and
We dose Sheep.
Post by jg
removing pollution levels of anything. Which also goes for salt, even
medicine, alcohol or fat on a personal level.
We have chlorine added to our water - it's a tradeoff between using
deadly poison and killing off bugs, and it's monitored and dosed as it's
pumped. I would assume the same goes for fluoride.
Fluorine in water doesn't kill any 'bugs'. In fact, the only possible
benefit seen is from that of a topical application, and the statistics
behind the 'benefits' are bloody shaky to say the least.

Ingesting Fluoride can have no part of a Human physiology. It just
can't. There are no mechanisms in our bodies to use the stuff.
Post by jg
We also have a dam which has 'gone salty' - the same health authorities
decided to close it, as add fluoride. Or at least advise the govt, who
'should' act on best advice.
Was that supposed to mean something? It lost me.
Post by jg
Politicians couldn't be trusted with any of it, but we hope people more
expert are doing the deciding and measuring.
Therein lies one of my major worries.

Mark Addinall.
Dechucka
2013-03-27 00:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in
much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and
hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical
benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
There are a few problems with the government wanting to Fluoridate water.
1. Given. It is a TOXIN and the difference between "It might not do
any harm" and "BLEH, this'll kill ya" is very fine indeed. This raises
1.1 Fluoride makes its way into water naturally. If there was an
increase in the amount of natural Fluoride making it into our drinking
1.1.1 How soon would it be noticed?
1.1.2 How long would it take to remediate the dose added to the water
supply?
1.1.3 In what locations would the water quality be tested, by whom, how
often and at who's expense?
1.1.4 Given a heavy rain in Gympie can radically change the level of
Fluorine in the local drinking water compared to say, a dryish Stanford
at THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, what level of SCADA granurality can we
expect to be implemented?
2. We will be relying on a government agency to give us "just enough"
poison. Errr. How well do we trust government run technical projects
to run correctly? How many Pink Batts can we eat before we get sick?
3.1 There is no control over the dose of Fluoride any one particular
person is likely to recieve. If you are a health nut and scoff back 5L
of tap water a day, your dose is going to be higher than those that
prefer Scotch and Dry.
3.2 Does it take into account how much toothpaste each person ingests
when going about ablutions?
3.3 What of the people with impaired renal capacity? Or thos that
already have a compromised immune system? Will the government put
gruesome warnings on our taps, with pictures of the garish results of
overdose?
4. Some of us like to make our own choices on the type of drugs and
toxins we ingest. Can I sue the government if for one month my level
of Fluoride ingestion goes ABOVE 0.7ppm? Who is going to underwrite
this risk?
5. In any society on the planet plenty of Fluoride is readily
available to all social demographics. Black tea is the singular most
popular beverage of the total human species. There is no NEED to
fluoridate water, and given the risks of getting it wrong, should not
be considered.
It is just a POOR idea to feed millions of people an industrial TOXIN
for no good reason.
HTH.
Mark Addinall.
All good questions,
Of course they are. I wrote them. Care to address the qustions?
Post by jg
but we have to distinguish between dosing and
We dose Sheep.
Post by jg
removing pollution levels of anything. Which also goes for salt, even
medicine, alcohol or fat on a personal level.
We have chlorine added to our water - it's a tradeoff between using
deadly poison and killing off bugs, and it's monitored and dosed as it's
pumped. I would assume the same goes for fluoride.
Fluorine in water doesn't kill any 'bugs'. In fact, the only possible
benefit seen is from that of a topical application, and the statistics
behind the 'benefits' are bloody shaky to say the least.
bullshit
Post by Addinall
Ingesting Fluoride can have no part of a Human physiology. It just
can't. There are no mechanisms in our bodies to use the stuff.
except for incorporation into teeth and bones
jg
2013-03-27 00:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in
much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and
hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical
benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
There are a few problems with the government wanting to Fluoridate water.
1. Given. It is a TOXIN and the difference between "It might not do
any harm" and "BLEH, this'll kill ya" is very fine indeed. This raises
1.1 Fluoride makes its way into water naturally. If there was an
increase in the amount of natural Fluoride making it into our drinking
1.1.1 How soon would it be noticed?
1.1.2 How long would it take to remediate the dose added to the water
supply?
1.1.3 In what locations would the water quality be tested, by whom, how
often and at who's expense?
1.1.4 Given a heavy rain in Gympie can radically change the level of
Fluorine in the local drinking water compared to say, a dryish Stanford
at THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, what level of SCADA granurality can we
expect to be implemented?
2. We will be relying on a government agency to give us "just enough"
poison. Errr. How well do we trust government run technical projects
to run correctly? How many Pink Batts can we eat before we get sick?
3.1 There is no control over the dose of Fluoride any one particular
person is likely to recieve. If you are a health nut and scoff back 5L
of tap water a day, your dose is going to be higher than those that
prefer Scotch and Dry.
3.2 Does it take into account how much toothpaste each person ingests
when going about ablutions?
3.3 What of the people with impaired renal capacity? Or thos that
already have a compromised immune system? Will the government put
gruesome warnings on our taps, with pictures of the garish results of
overdose?
4. Some of us like to make our own choices on the type of drugs and
toxins we ingest. Can I sue the government if for one month my level
of Fluoride ingestion goes ABOVE 0.7ppm? Who is going to underwrite
this risk?
5. In any society on the planet plenty of Fluoride is readily
available to all social demographics. Black tea is the singular most
popular beverage of the total human species. There is no NEED to
fluoridate water, and given the risks of getting it wrong, should not
be considered.
It is just a POOR idea to feed millions of people an industrial TOXIN
for no good reason.
HTH.
Mark Addinall.
All good questions,
Of course they are. I wrote them. Care to address the qustions?
We have to trust people regulating and controlling what's in everything
we eat drink and breathe all along the way. If you don't think they do
their job properly go check on them or test it yourself, not much point
in asking me.
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
but we have to distinguish between dosing and
We dose Sheep.
And sick people, and 2 stroke fuel, and swimming pools, and drinking
water...
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
removing pollution levels of anything. Which also goes for salt, even
medicine, alcohol or fat on a personal level.
We have chlorine added to our water - it's a tradeoff between using
deadly poison and killing off bugs, and it's monitored and dosed as it's
pumped. I would assume the same goes for fluoride.
Fluorine in water doesn't kill any 'bugs'. In fact, the only possible
benefit seen is from that of a topical application, and the statistics
behind the 'benefits' are bloody shaky to say the least.
I mentioned chlorine only to illustrate that additives are not just
bucketed in with no monitoring.
Post by Addinall
Ingesting Fluoride can have no part of a Human physiology. It just
can't. There are no mechanisms in our bodies to use the stuff.
The WHO, which someone referred to earlier, thinks otherwise.
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
We also have a dam which has 'gone salty' - the same health authorities
decided to close it, as add fluoride. Or at least advise the govt, who
'should' act on best advice.
Was that supposed to mean something? It lost me.
We trust someone qualified to work out there's too much salt in the
water, but not to work out if there's too much fluorine? I don't have
blind faith, but it's their area not mine.
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Politicians couldn't be trusted with any of it, but we hope people more
expert are doing the deciding and measuring.
Therein lies one of my major worries.
Mark Addinall.
Fluorine is added under 'expert' advice, not random public, Alcoa, faith
healers or politicians, against cost and possible risk. I get more
suspicious when a politician wants to remove it.
Dechucka
2013-03-27 00:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in
much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and
hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical
benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
There are a few problems with the government wanting to Fluoridate water.
1. Given. It is a TOXIN and the difference between "It might not do
any harm" and "BLEH, this'll kill ya" is very fine indeed. This raises
1.1 Fluoride makes its way into water naturally. If there was an
increase in the amount of natural Fluoride making it into our drinking
1.1.1 How soon would it be noticed?
1.1.2 How long would it take to remediate the dose added to the water
supply?
1.1.3 In what locations would the water quality be tested, by whom, how
often and at who's expense?
1.1.4 Given a heavy rain in Gympie can radically change the level of
Fluorine in the local drinking water compared to say, a dryish Stanford
at THE SAME MOMENT IN TIME, what level of SCADA granurality can we
expect to be implemented?
2. We will be relying on a government agency to give us "just enough"
poison. Errr. How well do we trust government run technical projects
to run correctly? How many Pink Batts can we eat before we get sick?
3.1 There is no control over the dose of Fluoride any one particular
person is likely to recieve. If you are a health nut and scoff back 5L
of tap water a day, your dose is going to be higher than those that
prefer Scotch and Dry.
3.2 Does it take into account how much toothpaste each person ingests
when going about ablutions?
3.3 What of the people with impaired renal capacity? Or thos that
already have a compromised immune system? Will the government put
gruesome warnings on our taps, with pictures of the garish results of
overdose?
4. Some of us like to make our own choices on the type of drugs and
toxins we ingest. Can I sue the government if for one month my level
of Fluoride ingestion goes ABOVE 0.7ppm? Who is going to underwrite
this risk?
5. In any society on the planet plenty of Fluoride is readily
available to all social demographics. Black tea is the singular most
popular beverage of the total human species. There is no NEED to
fluoridate water, and given the risks of getting it wrong, should not
be considered.
It is just a POOR idea to feed millions of people an industrial TOXIN
for no good reason.
HTH.
Mark Addinall.
All good questions,
Of course they are. I wrote them. Care to address the qustions?
We have to trust people regulating and controlling what's in everything we
eat drink and breathe all along the way. If you don't think they do their
job properly go check on them or test it yourself, not much point in
asking me.
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
but we have to distinguish between dosing and
We dose Sheep.
And sick people, and 2 stroke fuel, and swimming pools, and drinking
water...
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
removing pollution levels of anything. Which also goes for salt, even
medicine, alcohol or fat on a personal level.
We have chlorine added to our water - it's a tradeoff between using
deadly poison and killing off bugs, and it's monitored and dosed as it's
pumped. I would assume the same goes for fluoride.
Fluorine in water doesn't kill any 'bugs'. In fact, the only possible
benefit seen is from that of a topical application, and the statistics
behind the 'benefits' are bloody shaky to say the least.
I mentioned chlorine only to illustrate that additives are not just
bucketed in with no monitoring.
Post by Addinall
Ingesting Fluoride can have no part of a Human physiology. It just
can't. There are no mechanisms in our bodies to use the stuff.
The WHO, which someone referred to earlier, thinks otherwise.
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
We also have a dam which has 'gone salty' - the same health authorities
decided to close it, as add fluoride. Or at least advise the govt, who
'should' act on best advice.
Was that supposed to mean something? It lost me.
We trust someone qualified to work out there's too much salt in the water,
but not to work out if there's too much fluorine? I don't have blind
faith, but it's their area not mine.
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Politicians couldn't be trusted with any of it, but we hope people more
expert are doing the deciding and measuring.
Therein lies one of my major worries.
Mark Addinall.
Fluorine is added under 'expert' advice, not random public, Alcoa, faith
healers or politicians, against cost and possible risk. I get more
suspicious when a politician wants to remove it.
fyi

Caries experience among children in fluoridated Townsville and unfluoridated
Brisbane.

Slade GD, Spencer AJ, Davies MJ, Stewart JF.


Source

Department of Dental Ecology, School of Dentistry, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7450, USA. ***@mhs.unc.edu


Abstract


Fluoridation of community water supplies constitutes the main public health
strategy for prevention of dental caries in Australia. In recent years
questions have been raised about the effectiveness of water fluoridation.
The aim of this paper was to examine differences in caries experience of
children aged 5 to 12 years who were lifetime residents either of Brisbane
(the unfluoridated Queensland capital) or Townsville (fluoridated since
1965). Children from each city were sampled from patients of the school
dental service. Dental therapists and dentists from the school dental
service recorded data describing dental caries experience and parents were
asked to complete a questionnaire about their children's residential history
and exposure to other fluorides. Of the 18,348 children sampled, 10,195
(55.6 per cent) provided completed questionnaires, and 4588 were lifetime
residents of their respective cities. Caries rates were significantly lower
(P < 0.01) among children in Townsville than in Brisbane, both in the
deciduous dentition (according to age 32 to 55 per cent fewer tooth surfaces
affected) and permanent dentition (20 to 65 per cent fewer tooth surfaces
affected). Significantly lower rates in Townsville persisted (P < 0.01) in
multivariate analyses that controlled for oral hygiene practices, exposure
to fluoride supplements and household income. Water fluoridation appears to
provide a substantial public health benefit for children in Townsville.
Clocky
2013-03-25 10:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the
problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in much
of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and hygiene
as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical benefit for
the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Addinall
2013-03-26 23:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in
much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and
hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical
benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Always nice to hear from the Comic section of Green Left Wankly!
Lessee, ONE of us has postgraduate degrees in hard sciences. And it is
not you.
One of use is a member and contributor to PLoS science, and no, I don't
see a "Clonky" listed.
One of us is a member of the International Society of Computational
Biology, and again, no "Clonky" listed therein.

Now run along, and try to be more polite to your betters.
Idiot child.

Mark Addinall.
Dechucka
2013-03-27 00:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in
much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and
hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical
benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Always nice to hear from the Comic section of Green Left Wankly!
Lessee, ONE of us has postgraduate degrees in hard sciences. And it is
not you.
One of use is a member and contributor to PLoS science, and no, I don't
see a "Clonky" listed.
One of us is a member of the International Society of Computational
Biology, and again, no "Clonky" listed therein.
one of you is an expert in computers getting $35 bucks an hour.

If you are so scared of fluoride I go back to drinking ground water ( oops
has fluoride in it) and stop eating seafoods and anything processed in
treated water.

I knew you were an idiot but a conspiracy nut as well. WOW
Tomasso
2013-03-27 01:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they
would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way
for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of
fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid
as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in India,
where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to exist in
much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF supported the
Government's Technology Mission in the effort to identify and address
the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently launched a massive
programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe water in all the
areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes over
those that come with a better understanding of dental health, and
hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or medical
benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Always nice to hear from the Comic section of Green Left Wankly!
Lessee, ONE of us has postgraduate degrees in hard sciences. And it is
not you.
One of use is a member and contributor to PLoS science, and no, I don't
see a "Clonky" listed.
One of us is a member of the International Society of Computational
Biology, and again, no "Clonky" listed therein.
one of you is an expert in computers getting $35 bucks an hour.
If you are so scared of fluoride I go back to drinking ground water ( oops has fluoride in it) and stop eating
seafoods and anything processed in treated water.
Stop drinking tea and wine.
Post by Dechucka
I knew you were an idiot but a conspiracy nut as well. WOW
Addinall
2013-03-28 19:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern
Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided
NOT to flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to
whether they would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable
way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition
of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate
way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as
stupid as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in
India, where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to
exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF
supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort to
identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government
subsequently launched a massive programme, still under way, to
provide fluoride-safe water in all the areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes
over those that come with a better understanding of dental health,
and hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or
medical benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking
water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Always nice to hear from the Comic section of Green Left Wankly!
Lessee, ONE of us has postgraduate degrees in hard sciences. And it is
not you.
One of use is a member and contributor to PLoS science, and no, I don't
see a "Clonky" listed.
One of us is a member of the International Society of Computational
Biology, and again, no "Clonky" listed therein.
one of you is an expert in computers getting $35 bucks an hour.
$0.00 an hour at the moment. Writing CSS3/HTML5 libraries and an
application framework. The technology is now implemented in a browser
set to the extent that a new set of development tools are justified.

I'll make up this money in the fact that the libraries will be RESPONSIVE
over any platform that supposrts HTML5 and CSS3, so giving faster time to
market over several differing devices.

Also getting $0.000 an hour re-writing several BioPerl modules to reflect
the Modern Perl OOD/OOP paradigm. Use::Moose; etc. This time I will not
re-coup.

Compare this to a no-name fuckwit that flunked High school and the gentle
reader can compare worthiness to society in general between the both of
us. Stupid fucking cunt.
Post by Dechucka
If you are so scared of fluoride I go back to drinking ground water (
oops has fluoride in it)
Ground water also contains Uranium, Lead and Cyanide. The fact that it
can and does occur in nature, is little reason for the Gubbermint to add
more is it?
Post by Dechucka
and stop eating seafoods and anything processed
in treated water.
I knew you were an idiot but a conspiracy nut as well. WOW
You fucking retarded peasant. The reason I do not want the gubbermint
adding just enough poison to my drinking water is because of the fact
that they hire fools such as yourself. People with no real skills or
talent, but understand the alphabet reasonable well and will nod when
given an order.

Howeer, we have seen the level of care already here in QLD when
fluoridation was "controlled" by the useless Labor government we just
turfed.


- 14th May 2009 announcement, water containing 30mg/L Fluoride (should be
max of 0.8mg/L) went to 4000 homes in Warner and Brendale on 1st May
between 9am and 12 midday

- Linkwater, Qld Govt owned corporation controlling water pipelines, does
daily sampling but did not receive fluoride tests till 12 days after
overdose accident

Twelve days at 30mg/L is well into the dangerous levels of consumption
for children, especially infants.

LAWS introducing fluoride to Queensland's water supply contained a clause
banning legal action for compensation if problems should arise. So the
Labor party could happilly poison children with legal impunity. A
typical left wing 'out' clause when putting together project run and
staffed by incompetents.

"Premier Anna Bligh yesterday revealed 300,000 litres of contaminated
water was pumped to up to 4000 northern Brisbane homes for three hours on
May 1 after a malfunction delivered 20 times the allowable limit of
fluoride into the water supply.

The fault was uncovered during routine tests 12 days later."

Courier Mail

"It appears that there has been three major malfunctions , one with the
injector continuing to inject much more fluoride into the water than it
was supposed to, combined with failures of the automatic inline
monitoring and automatic failsafe shutdown system.

Despite fluoride levels being able to be measured in seconds with ion
selective electrodes, it was not until 12 days after the accident that
SEQ Water received test results showing the extremely high fluoride
levels. WHY THIS HUGE DELAY ????

Despite the Premiers denial of harm, persons consuming this water were
overdosed 40 fold with fluoride. People particularly at risk of harm
include Diabetics, the Kidney impaired , people with chemical
sensitivity or hypersensitivity to fluoride and infants.

Mothers in the suburbs affected, who made up a day’s worth of baby
bottles with tap water on the morning of 1st May would have overdosed
vulnerable infants at every feed . The huge bolus dose of fluoride could
have permanently damaged children’s developing teeth but this damage,
Dental Fluorosis, will not be seen until their teeth erupt from the
gums."


The Fluoridation plant in QLD did not work from day one. $35 MILLION was
wasted on the stupid thing to either overdose people or do nothing at
all, as for most of it's life it was turned off due to faults. Another
stunning project from the left loons in our society.


S. Marcovitch gives some details as to how those fluoride insecticdes
work (Ind. Eng. Chem. 16 (1924) 1249):

"The value of sodium fluosilicate as an insecticide is due to the fact
that it is both a contact and stomach poison. Shafer has determined that
when a roach walks over powdered sodium fluoride a little of the powder
adheres to the lower part of the body, antennae and tarsi of the feet,
and dissolves in the exudations of the integument. This seems to cause
some irritation and uneasiness; the insect soon begins to clean the
moistened powder from the body by licking it. In doing this enough of the
poison may be brought into the mouth and swallowed, to kill after a
period varying in from five to ten days. Other insects, such as Mexican
bean beetles, also have the habit of cleaning themselves and by putting
their feet in their mouths become very easy to kill. For this reason the
sodium fluosilicate is more effective against the adult beetles than the
larvae, which do not have these habits."

Governments have shown time after time that they can not be relied upon
when it comes to providing CONSISTANT PROJECT RESULTS. This may be
acceptable when it results in the delay of a BILLION DOLLAR eHealth
system that does nothing, or a BILLION DOLLAR PAYROLL that doesn't, or a
$50 BILLION NBN which by a definition, isn't. However when the dolts
want to add poison the the drinling water of a nation, it is time to
examine track records.

Cretin.

Mark Addinall.
Dechucka
2013-03-29 03:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern
Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided
NOT to flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to
whether they would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is
the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable
way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition
of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate
way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise
that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as
stupid as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in
India, where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to
exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF
supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort to
identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government
subsequently launched a massive programme, still under way, to
provide fluoride-safe water in all the areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes
over those that come with a better understanding of dental health,
and hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or
medical benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking
water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Always nice to hear from the Comic section of Green Left Wankly!
Lessee, ONE of us has postgraduate degrees in hard sciences. And it is
not you.
One of use is a member and contributor to PLoS science, and no, I don't
see a "Clonky" listed.
One of us is a member of the International Society of Computational
Biology, and again, no "Clonky" listed therein.
one of you is an expert in computers getting $35 bucks an hour.
$0.00 an hour at the moment. Writing CSS3/HTML5 libraries and an
application framework. The technology is now implemented in a browser
set to the extent that a new set of development tools are justified.
I'll make up this money in the fact that the libraries will be RESPONSIVE
over any platform that supposrts HTML5 and CSS3, so giving faster time to
market over several differing devices.
Also getting $0.000 an hour re-writing several BioPerl modules to reflect
the Modern Perl OOD/OOP paradigm. Use::Moose; etc. This time I will not
re-coup.
Compare this to a no-name fuckwit that flunked High school and the gentle
reader can compare worthiness to society in general between the both of
us. Stupid fucking cunt.
Post by Dechucka
If you are so scared of fluoride I go back to drinking ground water (
oops has fluoride in it)
Ground water also contains Uranium, Lead and Cyanide. The fact that it
can and does occur in nature, is little reason for the Gubbermint to add
more is it?
Post by Dechucka
and stop eating seafoods and anything processed
in treated water.
I knew you were an idiot but a conspiracy nut as well. WOW
You fucking retarded peasant. The reason I do not want the gubbermint
adding just enough poison to my drinking water is because of the fact
that they hire fools such as yourself. People with no real skills or
talent, but understand the alphabet reasonable well and will nod when
given an order.
Howeer, we have seen the level of care already here in QLD when
fluoridation was "controlled" by the useless Labor government we just
turfed.
- 14th May 2009 announcement, water containing 30mg/L Fluoride (should be
max of 0.8mg/L) went to 4000 homes in Warner and Brendale on 1st May
between 9am and 12 midday
- Linkwater, Qld Govt owned corporation controlling water pipelines, does
daily sampling but did not receive fluoride tests till 12 days after
overdose accident
Twelve days at 30mg/L is well into the dangerous levels of consumption
for children, especially infants.
LAWS introducing fluoride to Queensland's water supply contained a clause
banning legal action for compensation if problems should arise. So the
Labor party could happilly poison children with legal impunity. A
typical left wing 'out' clause when putting together project run and
staffed by incompetents.
"Premier Anna Bligh yesterday revealed 300,000 litres of contaminated
water was pumped to up to 4000 northern Brisbane homes for three hours on
May 1 after a malfunction delivered 20 times the allowable limit of
fluoride into the water supply.
The fault was uncovered during routine tests 12 days later."
Courier Mail
"It appears that there has been three major malfunctions , one with the
injector continuing to inject much more fluoride into the water than it
was supposed to, combined with failures of the automatic inline
monitoring and automatic failsafe shutdown system.
Despite fluoride levels being able to be measured in seconds with ion
selective electrodes, it was not until 12 days after the accident that
SEQ Water received test results showing the extremely high fluoride
levels. WHY THIS HUGE DELAY ????
Despite the Premiers denial of harm, persons consuming this water were
overdosed 40 fold with fluoride. People particularly at risk of harm
include Diabetics, the Kidney impaired , people with chemical
sensitivity or hypersensitivity to fluoride and infants.
Mothers in the suburbs affected, who made up a day’s worth of baby
bottles with tap water on the morning of 1st May would have overdosed
vulnerable infants at every feed . The huge bolus dose of fluoride could
have permanently damaged children’s developing teeth but this damage,
Dental Fluorosis, will not be seen until their teeth erupt from the
gums."
The Fluoridation plant in QLD did not work from day one. $35 MILLION was
wasted on the stupid thing to either overdose people or do nothing at
all, as for most of it's life it was turned off due to faults. Another
stunning project from the left loons in our society.
S. Marcovitch gives some details as to how those fluoride insecticdes
"The value of sodium fluosilicate as an insecticide is due to the fact
that it is both a contact and stomach poison. Shafer has determined that
when a roach walks over powdered sodium fluoride a little of the powder
adheres to the lower part of the body, antennae and tarsi of the feet,
and dissolves in the exudations of the integument. This seems to cause
some irritation and uneasiness; the insect soon begins to clean the
moistened powder from the body by licking it. In doing this enough of the
poison may be brought into the mouth and swallowed, to kill after a
period varying in from five to ten days. Other insects, such as Mexican
bean beetles, also have the habit of cleaning themselves and by putting
their feet in their mouths become very easy to kill. For this reason the
sodium fluosilicate is more effective against the adult beetles than the
larvae, which do not have these habits."
Governments have shown time after time that they can not be relied upon
when it comes to providing CONSISTANT PROJECT RESULTS. This may be
acceptable when it results in the delay of a BILLION DOLLAR eHealth
system that does nothing, or a BILLION DOLLAR PAYROLL that doesn't, or a
$50 BILLION NBN which by a definition, isn't. However when the dolts
want to add poison the the drinling water of a nation, it is time to
examine track records.
the benefits of fluoride are clearly shown in the study of dental caries
between Brisbane and Townsville? Don't like it get a filter and be happy.

You're probably against vaccination as well
Addinall
2013-03-30 01:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern
Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided
NOT to flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to
whether they would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of
Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking
water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking
water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal
treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health
services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable
way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition
of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate
way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or
otherwise that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you
want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as
stupid as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in
India, where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to
exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF
supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort to
identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government
subsequently launched a massive programme, still under way, to
provide fluoride-safe water in all the areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes
over those that come with a better understanding of dental health,
and hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or
medical benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking
water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Always nice to hear from the Comic section of Green Left Wankly!
Lessee, ONE of us has postgraduate degrees in hard sciences. And it
is not you.
One of use is a member and contributor to PLoS science, and no, I
don't see a "Clonky" listed.
One of us is a member of the International Society of Computational
Biology, and again, no "Clonky" listed therein.
one of you is an expert in computers getting $35 bucks an hour.
$0.00 an hour at the moment. Writing CSS3/HTML5 libraries and an
application framework. The technology is now implemented in a browser
set to the extent that a new set of development tools are justified.
I'll make up this money in the fact that the libraries will be
RESPONSIVE over any platform that supposrts HTML5 and CSS3, so giving
faster time to market over several differing devices.
Also getting $0.000 an hour re-writing several BioPerl modules to
reflect the Modern Perl OOD/OOP paradigm. Use::Moose; etc. This time
I will not re-coup.
Compare this to a no-name fuckwit that flunked High school and the
gentle reader can compare worthiness to society in general between the
both of us. Stupid fucking cunt.
Post by Dechucka
If you are so scared of fluoride I go back to drinking ground water (
oops has fluoride in it)
Ground water also contains Uranium, Lead and Cyanide. The fact that it
can and does occur in nature, is little reason for the Gubbermint to
add more is it?
Post by Dechucka
and stop eating seafoods and anything processed in treated water.
I knew you were an idiot but a conspiracy nut as well. WOW
You fucking retarded peasant. The reason I do not want the gubbermint
adding just enough poison to my drinking water is because of the fact
that they hire fools such as yourself. People with no real skills or
talent, but understand the alphabet reasonable well and will nod when
given an order.
Howeer, we have seen the level of care already here in QLD when
fluoridation was "controlled" by the useless Labor government we just
turfed.
- 14th May 2009 announcement, water containing 30mg/L Fluoride (should
be max of 0.8mg/L) went to 4000 homes in Warner and Brendale on 1st May
between 9am and 12 midday
- Linkwater, Qld Govt owned corporation controlling water pipelines,
does daily sampling but did not receive fluoride tests till 12 days
after overdose accident
Twelve days at 30mg/L is well into the dangerous levels of consumption
for children, especially infants.
LAWS introducing fluoride to Queensland's water supply contained a
clause banning legal action for compensation if problems should arise.
So the Labor party could happilly poison children with legal impunity.
A typical left wing 'out' clause when putting together project run and
staffed by incompetents.
"Premier Anna Bligh yesterday revealed 300,000 litres of contaminated
water was pumped to up to 4000 northern Brisbane homes for three hours
on May 1 after a malfunction delivered 20 times the allowable limit of
fluoride into the water supply.
The fault was uncovered during routine tests 12 days later."
Courier Mail
"It appears that there has been three major malfunctions , one with the
injector continuing to inject much more fluoride into the water than it
was supposed to, combined with failures of the automatic inline
monitoring and automatic failsafe shutdown system.
Despite fluoride levels being able to be measured in seconds with ion
selective electrodes, it was not until 12 days after the accident that
SEQ Water received test results showing the extremely high fluoride
levels. WHY THIS HUGE DELAY ????
Despite the Premiers denial of harm, persons consuming this water were
overdosed 40 fold with fluoride. People particularly at risk of harm
include Diabetics, the Kidney impaired , people with chemical
sensitivity or hypersensitivity to fluoride and infants.
Mothers in the suburbs affected, who made up a day’s worth of baby
bottles with tap water on the morning of 1st May would have overdosed
vulnerable infants at every feed . The huge bolus dose of fluoride
could have permanently damaged children’s developing teeth but this
damage, Dental Fluorosis, will not be seen until their teeth erupt
from the gums."
The Fluoridation plant in QLD did not work from day one. $35 MILLION
was wasted on the stupid thing to either overdose people or do nothing
at all, as for most of it's life it was turned off due to faults.
Another stunning project from the left loons in our society.
S. Marcovitch gives some details as to how those fluoride insecticdes
"The value of sodium fluosilicate as an insecticide is due to the fact
that it is both a contact and stomach poison. Shafer has determined
that when a roach walks over powdered sodium fluoride a little of the
powder adheres to the lower part of the body, antennae and tarsi of the
feet, and dissolves in the exudations of the integument. This seems to
cause some irritation and uneasiness; the insect soon begins to clean
the moistened powder from the body by licking it. In doing this enough
of the poison may be brought into the mouth and swallowed, to kill
after a period varying in from five to ten days. Other insects, such as
Mexican bean beetles, also have the habit of cleaning themselves and by
putting their feet in their mouths become very easy to kill. For this
reason the sodium fluosilicate is more effective against the adult
beetles than the larvae, which do not have these habits."
Governments have shown time after time that they can not be relied upon
when it comes to providing CONSISTANT PROJECT RESULTS. This may be
acceptable when it results in the delay of a BILLION DOLLAR eHealth
system that does nothing, or a BILLION DOLLAR PAYROLL that doesn't, or
a $50 BILLION NBN which by a definition, isn't. However when the dolts
want to add poison the the drinling water of a nation, it is time to
examine track records.
the benefits of fluoride are clearly shown in the study of dental caries
between Brisbane and Townsville?
Which study? Name one and I'll read it. The ones I have read so far
have been written on a century old premise that Fluoridation is GOOD for
you. Find some statistics that prop up that presumption. Dentists are
not very good epidemiologists. Statistical method is not a part of the
degree. ALL of the "studies" I have read ignore all other possible
causes for outcomes either way on the changing status of dental caries in
a localised population.

1. Health education.
2. Nutrition education.
3. Availability of dental health treatment.
4. Economic factors, ie. the ability to be able to afford dental
treatment.

But no. Typical left. An inability to reason and a blind 'faith' in one
and only one statistic.

This one is interesting, and for a change uses decent statistics.

Main findings

Among Australian children aged 5–6 years:


- nearly half (48.7%) had a history of dental decay in the deciduous teeth

- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth was 2.0


- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth of
children from the lowest socioeconomic status areas was about 70% higher
than for those from the highest socioeconomic status areas. This pattern
was evident across all states and territories whose data were included in
the analysis.



Among Australian children aged 12 years:


- nearly half (45.1%) had a history of dental decay in the permanent teeth


- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth was 1.1


- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth of
children from the lowest socioeconomic status areas was about 70% higher
than for those from the highest socioeconomic status areas.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419600

This point to socio-economic status as a major force in the occurance of
dental caries does it not?

Looking at some data here:
http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/According-to-
Alphabetical/CountryArea-B/

DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
Rank Order.

- World Health Organization Data (2012)

Country DMFTs Year Fluoridation Status

Denmark 0.7 2008 No water fluoridation.

Germany 0.7 2005 No water fluoridation.

England 0.7 2009 11% water fluoridation.

Netherlands 0.8 2002 No water fluoridation.

Switzerland 0.82 2009 No water fluoridation.

Belgium 0.9 2009-10 No water fluoridation.

Sweden 0.9 2008 No water fluoridation.

Australia 1.0 2004 80% water fluoridation.

It looks like something else other than water fluoridation has a
causative effect on the occurance of DMFTs hey?

Back to Australia.


Dental decay in children aged 12 years


There has been a considerable decline in caries experience since the
1970s, with the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent
teeth (DMFT) of Australian children aged 12 years decreasing from 4.8 in
1977 to 1.1 in 2005. However, dental decay remains a common disease among
Australian children.


Prevalence


Nearly 9,000 children aged 12 years were included in this analysis.
Across Australia, 45.1% of children aged 12 years had decay in their
permanent teeth. Tasmania (Tas) had the highest proportion of children
aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%), while WA had the lowest
proportion (39.6%) (Figure 4).

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419600

OK. I should be noted at this point that Tasmania has had the longest
history of Fluoridating drinking water, and YET STILL "had the highest
proportion of children aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%)".

Why do you think that migh be? Not enough insectacide in thier diets?
We should increase it perhaps and in Labor Science fashion "SEE WUT
HAPPENS"?


OK. Let's re-address this.

"There has been a considerable decline in caries experience since the
1970s, with the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent
teeth (DMFT) of Australian children aged 12 years decreasing from 4.8 in
1977 to 1.1 in 2005. However, dental decay remains a common disease among
Australian children."

A lot of people who are in favour of slipping POISON into the water
supply look to this statistic and point "SEE? Drinking industrial waste
is a GOOD thing".

But if we examine the WHO data across nations as in here:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/who_data01/

We see that there has been a considerable decline in caries experience in
nations both WITH and WITHOUT water Fluoridation ant the same rate.

Clearly something else is happening in these demographic samples yeah?
What could it be do you think?

Let's re-cap (sic)

"The Child Dental Health Survey 2005-06 provides information on the oral
health of children attending school dental services in Australia, and
shows that decay is relatively common in Australian children. Nearly half
children aged 5-6 years (48.7%) had a history of dental decay in the
deciduous teeth (also known as baby teeth). Likewise, nearly half of
children aged 12 years (45.1%) had a history of decay in the permanent
teeth. Young children from the lowest socioeconomic areas had about 70%
more dental decay than children from the highest socioeconomic areas."


[...]

"Nearly 9,000 children aged 12 years were included in this analysis.
Across Australia, 45.1% of children aged 12 years had decay in their
permanent teeth. Tasmania (Tas) had the highest proportion of children
aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%), while WA had the lowest
proportion (39.6%) (Figure 4)."


ISSN 1445-775X ; ISBN 978-1-74249-155-4; Cat. no. DEN 210; 12pp.;
Internet Only
Post by Dechucka
Don't like it get a filter and be
happy.
Nope. For a start, you can not 'filter' the poison from drinking water.
Reverse osmosis will do it, and distillation. Both techniques are
wasteful of water, and energy hungry.

It would be best NOT to poison the water in the first place.
Post by Dechucka
You're probably against vaccination as well
Another lefty trend. When party placitudes run dry, try and change the
subject and hide from your betters.

Fucking moron.

Mark Addinall.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-31 22:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern
Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided
NOT to flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to
whether they would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of
Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking
water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking
water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal
treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health
services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable
way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition
of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate
way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or
otherwise that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you
want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as
stupid as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in
India, where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to
exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF
supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort to
identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government
subsequently launched a massive programme, still under way, to
provide fluoride-safe water in all the areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes
over those that come with a better understanding of dental health,
and hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or
medical benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking
water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Always nice to hear from the Comic section of Green Left Wankly!
Lessee, ONE of us has postgraduate degrees in hard sciences. And it
is not you.
One of use is a member and contributor to PLoS science, and no, I
don't see a "Clonky" listed.
One of us is a member of the International Society of Computational
Biology, and again, no "Clonky" listed therein.
one of you is an expert in computers getting $35 bucks an hour.
$0.00 an hour at the moment. Writing CSS3/HTML5 libraries and an
application framework. The technology is now implemented in a browser
set to the extent that a new set of development tools are justified.
I'll make up this money in the fact that the libraries will be
RESPONSIVE over any platform that supposrts HTML5 and CSS3, so giving
faster time to market over several differing devices.
Also getting $0.000 an hour re-writing several BioPerl modules to
reflect the Modern Perl OOD/OOP paradigm. Use::Moose; etc. This time
I will not re-coup.
Compare this to a no-name fuckwit that flunked High school and the
gentle reader can compare worthiness to society in general between the
both of us. Stupid fucking cunt.
Post by Dechucka
If you are so scared of fluoride I go back to drinking ground water (
oops has fluoride in it)
Ground water also contains Uranium, Lead and Cyanide. The fact that it
can and does occur in nature, is little reason for the Gubbermint to
add more is it?
Post by Dechucka
and stop eating seafoods and anything processed in treated water.
I knew you were an idiot but a conspiracy nut as well. WOW
You fucking retarded peasant. The reason I do not want the gubbermint
adding just enough poison to my drinking water is because of the fact
that they hire fools such as yourself. People with no real skills or
talent, but understand the alphabet reasonable well and will nod when
given an order.
Howeer, we have seen the level of care already here in QLD when
fluoridation was "controlled" by the useless Labor government we just
turfed.
- 14th May 2009 announcement, water containing 30mg/L Fluoride (should
be max of 0.8mg/L) went to 4000 homes in Warner and Brendale on 1st May
between 9am and 12 midday
- Linkwater, Qld Govt owned corporation controlling water pipelines,
does daily sampling but did not receive fluoride tests till 12 days
after overdose accident
Twelve days at 30mg/L is well into the dangerous levels of consumption
for children, especially infants.
LAWS introducing fluoride to Queensland's water supply contained a
clause banning legal action for compensation if problems should arise.
So the Labor party could happilly poison children with legal impunity.
A typical left wing 'out' clause when putting together project run and
staffed by incompetents.
"Premier Anna Bligh yesterday revealed 300,000 litres of contaminated
water was pumped to up to 4000 northern Brisbane homes for three hours
on May 1 after a malfunction delivered 20 times the allowable limit of
fluoride into the water supply.
The fault was uncovered during routine tests 12 days later."
Courier Mail
"It appears that there has been three major malfunctions , one with the
injector continuing to inject much more fluoride into the water than it
was supposed to, combined with failures of the automatic inline
monitoring and automatic failsafe shutdown system.
Despite fluoride levels being able to be measured in seconds with ion
selective electrodes, it was not until 12 days after the accident that
SEQ Water received test results showing the extremely high fluoride
levels. WHY THIS HUGE DELAY ????
Despite the Premiers denial of harm, persons consuming this water were
overdosed 40 fold with fluoride. People particularly at risk of harm
include Diabetics, the Kidney impaired , people with chemical
sensitivity or hypersensitivity to fluoride and infants.
Mothers in the suburbs affected, who made up a day’s worth of baby
bottles with tap water on the morning of 1st May would have overdosed
vulnerable infants at every feed . The huge bolus dose of fluoride
could have permanently damaged children’s developing teeth but this
damage, Dental Fluorosis, will not be seen until their teeth erupt
from the gums."
The Fluoridation plant in QLD did not work from day one. $35 MILLION
was wasted on the stupid thing to either overdose people or do nothing
at all, as for most of it's life it was turned off due to faults.
Another stunning project from the left loons in our society.
S. Marcovitch gives some details as to how those fluoride insecticdes
"The value of sodium fluosilicate as an insecticide is due to the fact
that it is both a contact and stomach poison. Shafer has determined
that when a roach walks over powdered sodium fluoride a little of the
powder adheres to the lower part of the body, antennae and tarsi of the
feet, and dissolves in the exudations of the integument. This seems to
cause some irritation and uneasiness; the insect soon begins to clean
the moistened powder from the body by licking it. In doing this enough
of the poison may be brought into the mouth and swallowed, to kill
after a period varying in from five to ten days. Other insects, such as
Mexican bean beetles, also have the habit of cleaning themselves and by
putting their feet in their mouths become very easy to kill. For this
reason the sodium fluosilicate is more effective against the adult
beetles than the larvae, which do not have these habits."
Governments have shown time after time that they can not be relied upon
when it comes to providing CONSISTANT PROJECT RESULTS. This may be
acceptable when it results in the delay of a BILLION DOLLAR eHealth
system that does nothing, or a BILLION DOLLAR PAYROLL that doesn't, or
a $50 BILLION NBN which by a definition, isn't. However when the dolts
want to add poison the the drinling water of a nation, it is time to
examine track records.
the benefits of fluoride are clearly shown in the study of dental caries
between Brisbane and Townsville?
Which study? Name one and I'll read it. The ones I have read so far
have been written on a century old premise that Fluoridation is GOOD for
you. Find some statistics that prop up that presumption. Dentists are
not very good epidemiologists. Statistical method is not a part of the
degree. ALL of the "studies" I have read ignore all other possible
causes for outcomes either way on the changing status of dental caries in
a localised population.
1. Health education.
2. Nutrition education.
3. Availability of dental health treatment.
4. Economic factors, ie. the ability to be able to afford dental
treatment.
But no. Typical left. An inability to reason and a blind 'faith' in one
and only one statistic.
This one is interesting, and for a change uses decent statistics.
Main findings
- nearly half (48.7%) had a history of dental decay in the deciduous teeth
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth was 2.0
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth of
children from the lowest socioeconomic status areas was about 70% higher
than for those from the highest socioeconomic status areas. This pattern
was evident across all states and territories whose data were included in
the analysis.
- nearly half (45.1%) had a history of dental decay in the permanent teeth
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth was 1.1
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth of
children from the lowest socioeconomic status areas was about 70% higher
than for those from the highest socioeconomic status areas.
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419600
This point to socio-economic status as a major force in the occurance of
dental caries does it not?
http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/According-to-
Alphabetical/CountryArea-B/
DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
Rank Order.
- World Health Organization Data (2012)
Country DMFTs Year Fluoridation Status
Denmark 0.7 2008 No water fluoridation.
Germany 0.7 2005 No water fluoridation.
England 0.7 2009 11% water fluoridation.
Netherlands 0.8 2002 No water fluoridation.
Switzerland 0.82 2009 No water fluoridation.
Belgium 0.9 2009-10 No water fluoridation.
Sweden 0.9 2008 No water fluoridation.
Australia 1.0 2004 80% water fluoridation.
It looks like something else other than water fluoridation has a
causative effect on the occurance of DMFTs hey?
Back to Australia.
Dental decay in children aged 12 years
There has been a considerable decline in caries experience since the
1970s, with the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent
teeth (DMFT) of Australian children aged 12 years decreasing from 4.8 in
1977 to 1.1 in 2005. However, dental decay remains a common disease among
Australian children.
Prevalence
Nearly 9,000 children aged 12 years were included in this analysis.
Across Australia, 45.1% of children aged 12 years had decay in their
permanent teeth. Tasmania (Tas) had the highest proportion of children
aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%), while WA had the lowest
proportion (39.6%) (Figure 4).
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419600
OK. I should be noted at this point that Tasmania has had the longest
history of Fluoridating drinking water, and YET STILL "had the highest
proportion of children aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%)".
Why do you think that migh be? Not enough insectacide in thier diets?
We should increase it perhaps and in Labor Science fashion "SEE WUT
HAPPENS"?
OK. Let's re-address this.
"There has been a considerable decline in caries experience since the
1970s, with the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent
teeth (DMFT) of Australian children aged 12 years decreasing from 4.8 in
1977 to 1.1 in 2005. However, dental decay remains a common disease among
Australian children."
A lot of people who are in favour of slipping POISON into the water
supply look to this statistic and point "SEE? Drinking industrial waste
is a GOOD thing".
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/who_data01/
We see that there has been a considerable decline in caries experience in
nations both WITH and WITHOUT water Fluoridation ant the same rate.
Clearly something else is happening in these demographic samples yeah?
What could it be do you think?
Let's re-cap (sic)
"The Child Dental Health Survey 2005-06 provides information on the oral
health of children attending school dental services in Australia, and
shows that decay is relatively common in Australian children. Nearly half
children aged 5-6 years (48.7%) had a history of dental decay in the
deciduous teeth (also known as baby teeth). Likewise, nearly half of
children aged 12 years (45.1%) had a history of decay in the permanent
teeth. Young children from the lowest socioeconomic areas had about 70%
more dental decay than children from the highest socioeconomic areas."
[...]
"Nearly 9,000 children aged 12 years were included in this analysis.
Across Australia, 45.1% of children aged 12 years had decay in their
permanent teeth. Tasmania (Tas) had the highest proportion of children
aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%), while WA had the lowest
proportion (39.6%) (Figure 4)."
ISSN 1445-775X ; ISBN 978-1-74249-155-4; Cat. no. DEN 210; 12pp.;
Internet Only
Post by Dechucka
Don't like it get a filter and be
happy.
Nope. For a start, you can not 'filter' the poison from drinking water.
Reverse osmosis will do it, and distillation. Both techniques are
wasteful of water, and energy hungry.
It would be best NOT to poison the water in the first place.
Post by Dechucka
You're probably against vaccination as well
Another lefty trend. When party placitudes run dry, try and change the
subject and hide from your betters.
Fucking moron.
Mark Addinall.
Good post.

Hope you didn't go to al that effort just for dumbfucka.

Pity that the Health minister (assisted by a dept of hundreds of people)
didn't do the same *simple* analysis.

Campbell-Newman just went up in my book. What an excellent premier he is
turning out to be. Favours fluoridation yet gives people more choice. It
speaks volumes, saying 'I have a belief but I am not so arrogant to
impose it on you'. A leader, IOW - unlike that crop of twots in Federal
Labor.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Dechucka
2013-04-02 22:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Addinall
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Dechucka
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Post by jg
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern
Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided
NOT to flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to
whether they would like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of
Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking
water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking
water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal
treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health
services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable
way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition
of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate
way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or
otherwise that the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you
want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as
stupid as Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
"Defluoridation and UNICEF UNICEF has worked closely with the
Government and other partners in defluoridation programmes in
India, where excessive fluoride has been known for many years to
exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the 1980s, UNICEF
supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort to
identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government
subsequently launched a massive programme, still under way, to
provide fluoride-safe water in all the areas affected.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/fluoride/en/
Yes I agree with ALMOST all of that. I am yet to see a rigorous
statistical analysis that Fluoride provides any positive outcomes
over those that come with a better understanding of dental health,
and hygiene as a rule. So I disagree that there is any social or
medical benefit for the compulsary addition of Fluoride to drinking
water.
That's because you're a fucking ignorant fuckwit.
Always nice to hear from the Comic section of Green Left Wankly!
Lessee, ONE of us has postgraduate degrees in hard sciences. And it
is not you.
One of use is a member and contributor to PLoS science, and no, I
don't see a "Clonky" listed.
One of us is a member of the International Society of Computational
Biology, and again, no "Clonky" listed therein.
one of you is an expert in computers getting $35 bucks an hour.
$0.00 an hour at the moment. Writing CSS3/HTML5 libraries and an
application framework. The technology is now implemented in a browser
set to the extent that a new set of development tools are justified.
I'll make up this money in the fact that the libraries will be
RESPONSIVE over any platform that supposrts HTML5 and CSS3, so giving
faster time to market over several differing devices.
Also getting $0.000 an hour re-writing several BioPerl modules to
reflect the Modern Perl OOD/OOP paradigm. Use::Moose; etc. This time
I will not re-coup.
Compare this to a no-name fuckwit that flunked High school and the
gentle reader can compare worthiness to society in general between the
both of us. Stupid fucking cunt.
Post by Dechucka
If you are so scared of fluoride I go back to drinking ground water (
oops has fluoride in it)
Ground water also contains Uranium, Lead and Cyanide. The fact that it
can and does occur in nature, is little reason for the Gubbermint to
add more is it?
Post by Dechucka
and stop eating seafoods and anything processed in treated water.
I knew you were an idiot but a conspiracy nut as well. WOW
You fucking retarded peasant. The reason I do not want the gubbermint
adding just enough poison to my drinking water is because of the fact
that they hire fools such as yourself. People with no real skills or
talent, but understand the alphabet reasonable well and will nod when
given an order.
Howeer, we have seen the level of care already here in QLD when
fluoridation was "controlled" by the useless Labor government we just
turfed.
- 14th May 2009 announcement, water containing 30mg/L Fluoride (should
be max of 0.8mg/L) went to 4000 homes in Warner and Brendale on 1st May
between 9am and 12 midday
- Linkwater, Qld Govt owned corporation controlling water pipelines,
does daily sampling but did not receive fluoride tests till 12 days
after overdose accident
Twelve days at 30mg/L is well into the dangerous levels of consumption
for children, especially infants.
LAWS introducing fluoride to Queensland's water supply contained a
clause banning legal action for compensation if problems should arise.
So the Labor party could happilly poison children with legal impunity.
A typical left wing 'out' clause when putting together project run and
staffed by incompetents.
"Premier Anna Bligh yesterday revealed 300,000 litres of contaminated
water was pumped to up to 4000 northern Brisbane homes for three hours
on May 1 after a malfunction delivered 20 times the allowable limit of
fluoride into the water supply.
The fault was uncovered during routine tests 12 days later."
Courier Mail
"It appears that there has been three major malfunctions , one with the
injector continuing to inject much more fluoride into the water than it
was supposed to, combined with failures of the automatic inline
monitoring and automatic failsafe shutdown system.
Despite fluoride levels being able to be measured in seconds with ion
selective electrodes, it was not until 12 days after the accident that
SEQ Water received test results showing the extremely high fluoride
levels. WHY THIS HUGE DELAY ????
Despite the Premiers denial of harm, persons consuming this water were
overdosed 40 fold with fluoride. People particularly at risk of harm
include Diabetics, the Kidney impaired , people with chemical
sensitivity or hypersensitivity to fluoride and infants.
Mothers in the suburbs affected, who made up a day’s worth of baby
bottles with tap water on the morning of 1st May would have overdosed
vulnerable infants at every feed . The huge bolus dose of fluoride
could have permanently damaged children’s developing teeth but this
damage, Dental Fluorosis, will not be seen until their teeth erupt
from the gums."
The Fluoridation plant in QLD did not work from day one. $35 MILLION
was wasted on the stupid thing to either overdose people or do nothing
at all, as for most of it's life it was turned off due to faults.
Another stunning project from the left loons in our society.
S. Marcovitch gives some details as to how those fluoride insecticdes
"The value of sodium fluosilicate as an insecticide is due to the fact
that it is both a contact and stomach poison. Shafer has determined
that when a roach walks over powdered sodium fluoride a little of the
powder adheres to the lower part of the body, antennae and tarsi of the
feet, and dissolves in the exudations of the integument. This seems to
cause some irritation and uneasiness; the insect soon begins to clean
the moistened powder from the body by licking it. In doing this enough
of the poison may be brought into the mouth and swallowed, to kill
after a period varying in from five to ten days. Other insects, such as
Mexican bean beetles, also have the habit of cleaning themselves and by
putting their feet in their mouths become very easy to kill. For this
reason the sodium fluosilicate is more effective against the adult
beetles than the larvae, which do not have these habits."
Governments have shown time after time that they can not be relied upon
when it comes to providing CONSISTANT PROJECT RESULTS. This may be
acceptable when it results in the delay of a BILLION DOLLAR eHealth
system that does nothing, or a BILLION DOLLAR PAYROLL that doesn't, or
a $50 BILLION NBN which by a definition, isn't. However when the dolts
want to add poison the the drinling water of a nation, it is time to
examine track records.
the benefits of fluoride are clearly shown in the study of dental caries
between Brisbane and Townsville?
Which study? Name one and I'll read it. The ones I have read so far
have been written on a century old premise that Fluoridation is GOOD for
you. Find some statistics that prop up that presumption. Dentists are
not very good epidemiologists. Statistical method is not a part of the
degree. ALL of the "studies" I have read ignore all other possible
causes for outcomes either way on the changing status of dental caries in
a localised population.
1. Health education.
2. Nutrition education.
3. Availability of dental health treatment.
4. Economic factors, ie. the ability to be able to afford dental
treatment.
But no. Typical left. An inability to reason and a blind 'faith' in one
and only one statistic.
This one is interesting, and for a change uses decent statistics.
Main findings
- nearly half (48.7%) had a history of dental decay in the deciduous teeth
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth was 2.0
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth of
children from the lowest socioeconomic status areas was about 70% higher
than for those from the highest socioeconomic status areas. This pattern
was evident across all states and territories whose data were included in
the analysis.
- nearly half (45.1%) had a history of dental decay in the permanent teeth
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth was 1.1
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth of
children from the lowest socioeconomic status areas was about 70% higher
than for those from the highest socioeconomic status areas.
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419600
This point to socio-economic status as a major force in the occurance of
dental caries does it not?
http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/According-to-
Alphabetical/CountryArea-B/
DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
Rank Order.
- World Health Organization Data (2012)
Country DMFTs Year Fluoridation Status
Denmark 0.7 2008 No water fluoridation.
Germany 0.7 2005 No water fluoridation.
England 0.7 2009 11% water fluoridation.
Netherlands 0.8 2002 No water fluoridation.
Switzerland 0.82 2009 No water fluoridation.
Belgium 0.9 2009-10 No water fluoridation.
Sweden 0.9 2008 No water fluoridation.
Australia 1.0 2004 80% water fluoridation.
It looks like something else other than water fluoridation has a
causative effect on the occurance of DMFTs hey?
Back to Australia.
Dental decay in children aged 12 years
There has been a considerable decline in caries experience since the
1970s, with the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent
teeth (DMFT) of Australian children aged 12 years decreasing from 4.8 in
1977 to 1.1 in 2005. However, dental decay remains a common disease among
Australian children.
Prevalence
Nearly 9,000 children aged 12 years were included in this analysis.
Across Australia, 45.1% of children aged 12 years had decay in their
permanent teeth. Tasmania (Tas) had the highest proportion of children
aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%), while WA had the lowest
proportion (39.6%) (Figure 4).
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419600
OK. I should be noted at this point that Tasmania has had the longest
history of Fluoridating drinking water, and YET STILL "had the highest
proportion of children aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%)".
Why do you think that migh be? Not enough insectacide in thier diets?
We should increase it perhaps and in Labor Science fashion "SEE WUT
HAPPENS"?
OK. Let's re-address this.
"There has been a considerable decline in caries experience since the
1970s, with the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent
teeth (DMFT) of Australian children aged 12 years decreasing from 4.8 in
1977 to 1.1 in 2005. However, dental decay remains a common disease among
Australian children."
A lot of people who are in favour of slipping POISON into the water
supply look to this statistic and point "SEE? Drinking industrial waste
is a GOOD thing".
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/who_data01/
We see that there has been a considerable decline in caries experience in
nations both WITH and WITHOUT water Fluoridation ant the same rate.
Clearly something else is happening in these demographic samples yeah?
What could it be do you think?
Let's re-cap (sic)
"The Child Dental Health Survey 2005-06 provides information on the oral
health of children attending school dental services in Australia, and
shows that decay is relatively common in Australian children. Nearly half
children aged 5-6 years (48.7%) had a history of dental decay in the
deciduous teeth (also known as baby teeth). Likewise, nearly half of
children aged 12 years (45.1%) had a history of decay in the permanent
teeth. Young children from the lowest socioeconomic areas had about 70%
more dental decay than children from the highest socioeconomic areas."
[...]
"Nearly 9,000 children aged 12 years were included in this analysis.
Across Australia, 45.1% of children aged 12 years had decay in their
permanent teeth. Tasmania (Tas) had the highest proportion of children
aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%), while WA had the lowest
proportion (39.6%) (Figure 4)."
ISSN 1445-775X ; ISBN 978-1-74249-155-4; Cat. no. DEN 210; 12pp.;
Internet Only
Post by Dechucka
Don't like it get a filter and be
happy.
Nope. For a start, you can not 'filter' the poison from drinking water.
Reverse osmosis will do it, and distillation. Both techniques are
wasteful of water, and energy hungry.
It would be best NOT to poison the water in the first place.
Post by Dechucka
You're probably against vaccination as well
Another lefty trend. When party placitudes run dry, try and change the
subject and hide from your betters.
Fucking moron.
Mark Addinall.
Good post.
Hope you didn't go to al that effort just for dumbfucka.
Pity that the Health minister (assisted by a dept of hundreds of people)
didn't do the same *simple* analysis.
Campbell-Newman just went up in my book. What an excellent premier he is
turning out to be. Favours fluoridation yet gives people more choice. It
speaks volumes, saying 'I have a belief but I am not so arrogant to impose
it on you'. A leader, IOW - unlike that crop of twots in Federal Labor.
LOL giving the right to decide on peoples health to Councils
Dechucka
2013-04-02 21:56:01 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Addinall
Post by Dechucka
the benefits of fluoride are clearly shown in the study of dental caries
between Brisbane and Townsville?
Which study?
Name one and I'll read it.
http://www.smh.com.au/queensland/stopping-fluoridation-imperils-queenslanders-dental-health-20130311-2futm.html?skin=text-only
The ones I have read so far
Post by Addinall
have been written on a century old premise that Fluoridation is GOOD for
you. Find some statistics that prop up that presumption. Dentists are
not very good epidemiologists. Statistical method is not a part of the
degree. ALL of the "studies" I have read ignore all other possible
causes for outcomes either way on the changing status of dental caries in
a localised population.
1. Health education.
2. Nutrition education.
3. Availability of dental health treatment.
4. Economic factors, ie. the ability to be able to afford dental
treatment.
But no. Typical left. An inability to reason and a blind 'faith' in one
and only one statistic.
This one is interesting, and for a change uses decent statistics.
Main findings
- nearly half (48.7%) had a history of dental decay in the deciduous teeth
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth was 2.0
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth of
children from the lowest socioeconomic status areas was about 70% higher
than for those from the highest socioeconomic status areas. This pattern
was evident across all states and territories whose data were included in
the analysis.
- nearly half (45.1%) had a history of dental decay in the permanent teeth
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth was 1.1
- the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth of
children from the lowest socioeconomic status areas was about 70% higher
than for those from the highest socioeconomic status areas.
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419600
This point to socio-economic status as a major force in the occurance of
dental caries does it not?
http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/According-to-
Alphabetical/CountryArea-B/
DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country
Rank Order.
- World Health Organization Data (2012)
Country DMFTs Year Fluoridation Status
Denmark 0.7 2008 No water fluoridation.
Germany 0.7 2005 No water fluoridation.
England 0.7 2009 11% water fluoridation.
Netherlands 0.8 2002 No water fluoridation.
Switzerland 0.82 2009 No water fluoridation.
Belgium 0.9 2009-10 No water fluoridation.
Sweden 0.9 2008 No water fluoridation.
Australia 1.0 2004 80% water fluoridation.
It looks like something else other than water fluoridation has a
causative effect on the occurance of DMFTs hey?
Back to Australia.
Dental decay in children aged 12 years
There has been a considerable decline in caries experience since the
1970s, with the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent
teeth (DMFT) of Australian children aged 12 years decreasing from 4.8 in
1977 to 1.1 in 2005. However, dental decay remains a common disease among
Australian children.
Prevalence
Nearly 9,000 children aged 12 years were included in this analysis.
Across Australia, 45.1% of children aged 12 years had decay in their
permanent teeth. Tasmania (Tas) had the highest proportion of children
aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%), while WA had the lowest
proportion (39.6%) (Figure 4).
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419600
OK. I should be noted at this point that Tasmania has had the longest
history of Fluoridating drinking water, and YET STILL "had the highest
proportion of children aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%)".
Why do you think that migh be? Not enough insectacide in thier diets?
We should increase it perhaps and in Labor Science fashion "SEE WUT
HAPPENS"?
OK. Let's re-address this.
"There has been a considerable decline in caries experience since the
1970s, with the mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent
teeth (DMFT) of Australian children aged 12 years decreasing from 4.8 in
1977 to 1.1 in 2005. However, dental decay remains a common disease among
Australian children."
A lot of people who are in favour of slipping POISON into the water
supply look to this statistic and point "SEE? Drinking industrial waste
is a GOOD thing".
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/who_data01/
We see that there has been a considerable decline in caries experience in
nations both WITH and WITHOUT water Fluoridation ant the same rate.
Clearly something else is happening in these demographic samples yeah?
What could it be do you think?
Let's re-cap (sic)
"The Child Dental Health Survey 2005-06 provides information on the oral
health of children attending school dental services in Australia, and
shows that decay is relatively common in Australian children. Nearly half
children aged 5-6 years (48.7%) had a history of dental decay in the
deciduous teeth (also known as baby teeth). Likewise, nearly half of
children aged 12 years (45.1%) had a history of decay in the permanent
teeth. Young children from the lowest socioeconomic areas had about 70%
more dental decay than children from the highest socioeconomic areas."
[...]
"Nearly 9,000 children aged 12 years were included in this analysis.
Across Australia, 45.1% of children aged 12 years had decay in their
permanent teeth. Tasmania (Tas) had the highest proportion of children
aged 12 years with a history of decay (53.4%), while WA had the lowest
proportion (39.6%) (Figure 4)."
ISSN 1445-775X ; ISBN 978-1-74249-155-4; Cat. no. DEN 210; 12pp.;
Internet Only
Post by Dechucka
Don't like it get a filter and be
happy.
Nope. For a start, you can not 'filter' the poison from drinking water.
you can
Post by Addinall
Reverse osmosis will do it, and distillation. Both techniques are
wasteful of water, and energy hungry.
It would be best NOT to poison the water in the first place.
Post by Dechucka
You're probably against vaccination as well
Another lefty trend. When party placitudes run dry, try and change the
subject and hide from your betters.
Actually I'm not changing the subject just raising another point. Are you
against vaccination as well?
Clocky
2013-03-25 09:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Clocky
Post by Addinall
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to
flouridate water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they would
like to ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health
against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the
problematic nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water
sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to
people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way for
medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can
decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
The benefits far outweigh any percieved threats, real or otherwise that
the paranoid and delusional fuckwits like you want to believe.
Fuck you're a legend Clonky. Quite possibly the only person as stupid as
Wilson. UNICEF delusional fuckwits are they?
You didn't answer my question, wanker.
k***@gmail.com
2013-03-25 05:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Clocky
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the
choice of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should
be able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State
Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-
gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-
fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Post by Clocky
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about
community *choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be
made *for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little
difference whether the choice is made at a state level or a local
level. It would still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to
be done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at
least in part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by
local councils, then it might just as well be made by a bunch of
random people picked off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's
probably even more likely a local council would reject it based on
cost.
Probably?
You're making it up - like Plibersek.
In fact, the cost of fluoridation is trivial - equivalent to less than
one filling in your lifetime - so it is highly *unlikely* that cost
would be a factor.
The cost could easily be balanced by demanding a higher premium for
health insurance. In fact the refunds for most standard dental items
are *lower* in Qld than NSW. Funny that.
Like Plibersek, you're talking through your hat. Next you'll tell us
that we're going to be "indundated" by rising sea levels.
These sorts of ignorant judgements by unqualified idiots are highly
damaging to the economy and are why the ALP stumbles from one disaster
to the next. For goodness sake, get some qualified people. Plibersek is
an idiot.
You're a flat-earther who has a problem with sound scientific evidence,
indeed any kind of evidence that doesn't agree with your ignorant
stupidity.
You're an ill educated dolt. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland,
Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland have decided NOT to flouridate
water, leaving it to the individual as to whether they would like to
ingest a toxin.
In Germany, “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against
a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic
nature of compulsion medication.”
In Belgium, it is “the fundamental position of the drinking water sector
that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is
the sole responsibility of health services.”
In Luxembourg, “In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way for
medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can
decide by their own to use the most appropriate way.”
There have been any number of studies regarding a Fluoridated
Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC),
fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by
EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1
ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse
effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient
deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake.
Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an
“endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of
fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water,
may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine
intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity,
depression and weight gain
Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength
and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to
determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the
best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased
at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the
concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation.
Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study
from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between
fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under
the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been
described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.”
Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years
of diagnosis.
Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened
susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an
impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic
levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of
aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known
as renal osteodystrophy.
I would no sooner eat fluorosilicic acid as I would tetraethyl lead.
According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of
Health and Long Term Care, “The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is
not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and
No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated
countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the
reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50
years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western
countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The
vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet,
according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their
tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the
tooth decay rates in the US.
Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier
findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in
tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation.
Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas.
While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-
income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim.
According to a recent systematic review from the British government, “The
evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was
of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.” In the United States,
severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of
whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. In
addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe
tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly
different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. Thus, despite some
emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not
prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-
care access.
10th Edition. Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council,
http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/essential-nutrient/
Featherstone JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention.
Journal of the American Dental Association. 131: 887-899. Additional
references available at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries04/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). Recommendations for
Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States.
Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). August 17. 50(RR14):1-42.
Formerly online at: http://ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/epubs/egram/
egram_061109.pdf
References online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/infant01/
Hong L, Levy SM, et al. (2006). Timing of fluoride intake in relation to
development of fluorosis on maxillary central incisors. Community
Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:299-309.
Marshman Z, et al. (2008). The impact of developmental defects of enamel
on young people in the UK. Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology
37:45-57.
Grandjean P, Landrigan P. (2006). Developmental neurotoxicity of
industrial chemicals. The Lancet, November 8.
Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives
2012 Jul 20. [Epub ahead of print]
National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A
Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press,
Washington D.C. p. 173-188.
Varner JA, et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride and
Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and
Cerebrovascular Integrity.Brain Research. 784: 284-298.
Lin Fa-Fu, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-
fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine
Deficiency Disorder Newsletter. Vol. 7. No. 3.
Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on
children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94; 198-199.
NRC (2006). p. 189-224.
NRC (2006). p. 107-148.
National Toxicology Program. (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical
report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and
osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)
Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and
Risks. US Public Health Service. Appendix E & F.
Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water
Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New
Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17.
Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride
Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer
Causes and Control 17: 421-8.
Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal
patients. In: E Johansen, DR Taves, TO Olsen, Eds. Continuing Evaluation
of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.
Ng AHM, et al. (2004). Association between fluoride, magnesium, aluminum
and bone quality in renal osteodystrophy. Bone 34: 216-224.
Ittel TH, et al. (1992). Effect of fluoride on aluminum-induced bone
disease in rats with renal failure. Kidney International 41: 1340-1348.
Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the
Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology 36:433–487
Coplan MJ, et al. (2007). Confirmation of and explanations for elevated
blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection
and fluoridation chemicals. Neurotoxicology 28(5):1032-42.
Masters RD. et al. (2000). Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water
with Elevated Blood Lead. Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091-1099.
Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with Silicofluorides and
435-449.
Maas R, et al. (2005). Effects of fluorides and chloramine on lead
leaching from leaded-brass surfaces. Environmental Quality Institute,
University of North Carolina, Ashville. Technical Report # 05-142 .
Macek M, et al. (2006). Blood lead concentrations in children and method
of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994. Environmental
Health Perspectives 114:130-134.
Colquhoun J. (1985). Influence of social class and fluoridation on child
dental health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41.
125-129.
Gray AS. (1987). Fluoridation: Time For A New Base Line? Journal of the
Canadian Dental Association. 53: 763-5.
Kelly M, Bruerd B. (1987). The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay
Among Two Native American Populations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry
47:94-97.
Hildebolt CF, et al. (1989). Caries prevalences among geochemical regions
of Missouri. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:79-92.
Hileman B. (1989). New Studies Cast Doubt on Fluoridation Benefits.
Chemical and Engineering News. May 8.
Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries in U.S.
children and the effect of water fluoridation. J. Dent. Res 69, (Special
edition), 723-727.
Yiamouyiannis JA. (1990). Water Fluoridation and Tooth decay: Results
55-67.
Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation
factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of head start
children. Public Health Reports 107: 167-73.
Domoto P, et al. (1996). The estimation of caries prevalence in small
areas. Journal of Dental Research 75:1947-56.
Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying
Water Fluoride Concentrations. J Pub Health Dent. 57(3): 136-143.
Colquhoun J. (1997). Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation.
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 29-44.
Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of
the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario
Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water
fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.
Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S. (2000). Decline of caries
prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East
Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-9.
Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two
Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation. Caries
Research 34: 462-468.
Burt BA, et al. (2000). The effects of a break in water fluoridation on
the development of dental caries and fluorosis. J Dent Res. 79(2):761-9.
Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. (2001). Patterns of dental
caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry
and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.
Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and
race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public
Health Dentistry 63(1):38-46.
implications for children’s caries experience. Community Dent Oral
Epidemiol 32:283-296.
Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated
and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.
Warren J, et al. (2009). Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using
dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Public Health Dentistry 69:111-15.
Steinmeyer R. (2011). [Influence of natural fluoride concentration in
drinking water on dental health of first class pupils in an area with
enhanced fluoride content at the beginning of the 21st century].
Gesundheitswesen. 73(8-9):483-90.
Charone S, et al. (2012). Lack of a significant relationship between
toenail fluoride concentrations and caries prevalence. Fluoride 45:133-37.
Online at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
Online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/caries07/
Beltran-Aguilar ED et al. (2005). Surveillance for dental caries, dental
sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis — United
States, 1988–1994 and 1999—2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 54(3): 1-44.
Massler M, Schour I. (1952). Relation of endemic dental fluorosis to
malnutrition. JADA. 44: 156-165.
Marier J, Rose D. (1977). Environmental Fluoride. National Research
Council of Canada. Associate Committe on Scientific Criteria for
Environmental Quality. NRCC No. 16081.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1993).
Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F).
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR/
TP-91/17.
Online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/thiessen-interview/
Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications
for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry
59: 211-23.
Beltrán-Aguilar ED, et al. (2010). Prevalence and Severity of Dental
Fluorosis in the United States, 1999–2004. Centers for Disease Control.
NCHS Data Brief No. 53.
National Research Council. (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride.
National Academy Press, Washington DC.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-facts/
HTH.
Mark Addinall.
Very impressive work, Mark.

I am sure that pro-fluoride lobby may quote similar list of publications.
Any substance taken or dosed incorrecly may become a poison (water including).
So it is relatively easy to produce arguments for and against.

The issue is that decisions about floride in AU are based not on science
but on the opinion of local shaman, panel beater and member of Liberal party.
The last one will always vote for savings.

The list of countries you quoted is impressive but
you also have to realise that standard of health products,
toothpaste and hygenic products in EU is much higher than that in AU.
They may be getting fluor from other sources too.
You mentioned yourself that in some parts of India there is too much
fluoride in water. I guess in other parts the opposite is the
true. What about Queensland?
Do you have Liberal-free data?

Regards,

Krzysztof
Dechucka
2013-03-27 00:30:35 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Addinall
Mark Addinall.
Very impressive work, Mark.

I am sure that pro-fluoride lobby may quote similar list of publications.
Any substance taken or dosed incorrecly may become a poison (water
including).
So it is relatively easy to produce arguments for and against.
=============================

I'll quickly put forward the study

Caries experience among children in fluoridated Townsville and unfluoridated
Brisbane.

Slade GD, Spencer AJ, Davies MJ, Stewart JF.


Source

Department of Dental Ecology, School of Dentistry, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7450, USA. ***@mhs.unc.edu


Abstract


Fluoridation of community water supplies constitutes the main public health
strategy for prevention of dental caries in Australia. In recent years
questions have been raised about the effectiveness of water fluoridation.
The aim of this paper was to examine differences in caries experience of
children aged 5 to 12 years who were lifetime residents either of Brisbane
(the unfluoridated Queensland capital) or Townsville (fluoridated since
1965). Children from each city were sampled from patients of the school
dental service. Dental therapists and dentists from the school dental
service recorded data describing dental caries experience and parents were
asked to complete a questionnaire about their children's residential history
and exposure to other fluorides. Of the 18,348 children sampled, 10,195
(55.6 per cent) provided completed questionnaires, and 4588 were lifetime
residents of their respective cities. Caries rates were significantly lower
(P < 0.01) among children in Townsville than in Brisbane, both in the
deciduous dentition (according to age 32 to 55 per cent fewer tooth surfaces
affected) and permanent dentition (20 to 65 per cent fewer tooth surfaces
affected). Significantly lower rates in Townsville persisted (P < 0.01) in
multivariate analyses that controlled for oral hygiene practices, exposure
to fluoride supplements and household income. Water fluoridation appears to
provide a substantial public health benefit for children in Townsville.
jg
2013-03-25 21:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's
probably even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Probably?
You're making it up - like Plibersek.
In fact, the cost of fluoridation is trivial - equivalent to less than
one filling in your lifetime - so it is highly *unlikely* that cost
would be a factor.
The cost could easily be balanced by demanding a higher premium for
health insurance. In fact the refunds for most standard dental items are
*lower* in Qld than NSW. Funny that.
Like Plibersek, you're talking through your hat. Next you'll tell us
that we're going to be "indundated" by rising sea levels.
These sorts of ignorant judgements by unqualified idiots are highly
damaging to the economy and are why the ALP stumbles from one disaster
to the next. For goodness sake, get some qualified people. Plibersek is
an idiot.
http://www.fluorideaustralia.org/articleView.asp?Article=58

"Two years ago, Toowoomba Regional Council started adding fluoride to
Toowoomba's water supply under a compulsory State Government scheme.

Council was in the process of planning how it would do the same to
water supplies in Clifton, Wyreema, Crows Nest, Highfields, Pittsworth
and Brookstead.

That was expected to cost $3.1 million upfront and millions of dollars
over its lifetime in terms of ongoing operational costs."

Perhaps you consider that trivial for a local council, but how TF would
collecting it from health insurance funds work when many aren't in one
and most state govts pay for fluoridation, including Qld's in existing
systems?
H D
2013-03-23 14:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's probably
even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Isn't it strange how everyone talks about freedom of choice, freedom of
speech etc
but no one talks about responsibility.
jg
2013-03-23 15:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by H D
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's
probably even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Isn't it strange how everyone talks about freedom of choice, freedom of
speech etc
but no one talks about responsibility.
Well I just did, but in this litigation age it's all about making
someone, anyone, responsible.
Jeßus
2013-03-24 01:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by H D
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's probably
even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Isn't it strange how everyone talks about freedom of choice, freedom of
speech etc
but no one talks about responsibility.
That's one of the main reasons I moved out into the bush. I look after
myself and don't look to govco to take 'care' of me.

Urban living people are by and large, fucking clueless, completely
isolated from the real world and won't take personal responsibilty for
anything. It's little wonder we have the governments we have today.

Incredible that, in 2013 we are still even questioning whether
fluoride is harmful. What a great scam - not only do they NOT have to
pay for industrial waste disposal... they actually get to sell it.
jg
2013-03-25 21:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
Post by H D
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's probably
even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Isn't it strange how everyone talks about freedom of choice, freedom of
speech etc
but no one talks about responsibility.
That's one of the main reasons I moved out into the bush. I look after
myself and don't look to govco to take 'care' of me.
Urban living people are by and large, fucking clueless, completely
isolated from the real world and won't take personal responsibilty for
anything. It's little wonder we have the governments we have today.
Incredible that, in 2013 we are still even questioning whether
fluoride is harmful. What a great scam - not only do they NOT have to
pay for industrial waste disposal... they actually get to sell it.
There are still people questioning if tobacco is harmful.

How do you take responsibility for yourself teeth-wise, where city
people don't?

If you moved to the bush you either grew up with fluoride and it doesn't
matter much now, or aren't old enough for your teeth to start dropping out.
Dechucka
2013-03-25 23:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
Post by H D
Post by jg
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Regardless of one's position on fluoridation, it makes little difference
whether the choice is made at a state level or a local level. It would
still not be individual choice.
But if health decisions have to be made for me, I'd much prefer it to be
done at the state level where the decision is likely to be at least in
part evidence based. If the decision were to be made by local councils,
then it might just as well be made by a bunch of random people picked
off the street.
Sylvia.
Exactly right, although while it could be argued this transfer of
responsibility is more than likely based on cost not health, it's probably
even more likely a local council would reject it based on cost.
Isn't it strange how everyone talks about freedom of choice, freedom of
speech etc
but no one talks about responsibility.
That's one of the main reasons I moved out into the bush. I look after
myself and don't look to govco to take 'care' of me.
Urban living people are by and large, fucking clueless, completely
isolated from the real world and won't take personal responsibilty for
anything. It's little wonder we have the governments we have today.
Incredible that, in 2013 we are still even questioning whether
fluoride is harmful. What a great scam - not only do they NOT have to
pay for industrial waste disposal... they actually get to sell it.
I agree it is harmless and beneficial in the doses under discussion
DonH
2013-03-23 16:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice of
fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be able
to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics .... reacted,
claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide what gets put
into their water supply - that the choice should be made *for them*...
Here is her centralist, socialist position...
"Essentially what the Government is doing is shoving this responsibility
onto councils and I think that this is an issue that really is much better
dealt with at a state level"
A lie. State government gave councils the *choice* because some councils
were vocal in saying that it should be a choice.
But Plibersek has been know to lie before ... and liars do not change
their spots....
Plibersek...
"There will be dentists who tell you that they can tell someone who grew
up in Queensland because of the state of their teeth as adults".
(Also, see this: http://youtu.be/mvleEiRNUbM
Comment: What kind of claim is that? Can she name those dentists? Is there
a study? Did they isolate the causes?
Plibersek continues...
"Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray again. You can find all
sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you know, the harmful effects
of this or that and people should be very, very careful what they believe
when they're reading it from these sorts of sources".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm
Plibersek's original response, repeated in ...
"Plibersek bares teeth over fluoridation"
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/error/404?aspxerrorpath=/news/latest-news/plibersek-bares-teeth-over-fluoridation
"Unfortunately the page that is supposed to be here has upped sticks"
If Plibersek or any ignorant idiot from the ALP *disendorses* a course of
action, you should probably take that as an *endorsement* - so naturally,
I consulted DR Google.
This study claims that "nearly half" of Qld children suffer from tooth
decay, which it claims "compares adversely" with southern states and then
goes onto say that ...
"New South Wales and Victoria were not included in either study due a lack
of access to data and small sample sizes"
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-state-of-decay-queensland-childrens-terrible-teeth-20111208-1ol6h.html
THE SAMPLE SUBJECTS WERE "children utilising *public* dental services".
I never cease to be amazed at the *crap* that gets published in Australia
as 'statistics'. First of all, the sample subjects are self-selecting
people WITH A PROBLEM and secondly, they are from lower socio-economic
groups.
Hello, hello - How many Aboriginal kids are there in Tamzania?
(NSW and Victoria were excluded, remember?)
[OH, and BTW the study above hasn't ended - and BTW, it will never end
because the ALP ended public funding for chronic dental problems]
"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and then
inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only one part
per million"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
"Fluoride inhibits this DNA enzyme activity by 50%. and inhibits repair
mechanisms, leading to an increase in genetic or chromosomal damage"
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
Enough?
Here's some more from Dr Google...
"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in low doses affects human
brains. It allows aluminum cross the barrier. It blocks magnesium ions
that are necessary body enzymes systems. Fluoride goes into the bone
osteoblasts and blocks collagen formation, Making the bones more brittle,
Resulting in osteoporosis.. Tendons, spinal ligaments, and cartilage
become mineralized".
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
"ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride to
the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically poisoning
hundreds of millions of people around the world.
...
There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was
causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that
increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals
increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
Alarmed? Yes - I was too. Let's revisit the ethics.
"Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory
mass medication[10]"
[comment: That'd be right, classic we-know-whats-good-for-you ALP stuff!]
"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal publication
as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical
Convention of 1999.[1]"
[comment: Of which Australia are signatories?]
"In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison,
claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter
of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972, violates
Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues under the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
"...the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now
overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing *recent
data* before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future
litigation"
http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/evidencefluorideharmfuloverwhelming.pdf
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ALARMED, DON'T READ IT.
PS: If you need to know more about health and the human anatomy, see the
http://www.ruraldr.com.au/news/govt-thinks-ovaries-are-kidneys
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/poster-bungle-designers-fault-govt
http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/blooper-health-posters-recalled/
http://ebookbrowse.com/female-anatomy-poster-pdf-d366304168
Brought to you by the ALP-run Federal Health department and
livelonger.health.gov.au
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/03/snowden%E2%80%99s-poster-gaffe
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012
"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl
"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion
Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"
Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"
How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI
Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"
"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't got
it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
# Fluoridation of water supplies, just so that kids may (or may not) drink
some of the water is the perfect example of using a sledgehammer to crack a
nut.
Most of the fluoride goes to waste - and ends up in our oceans, already
becoming toxic.
At one part per million, the content is small, and just as well, because
the element fluorine is a highly active substance, and its ions, in
sufficient quantity, can corrode water pipes.
I haven't noticed dentists going broke, after several generations of
fluoridation.
A lot of nations don't fluoridate, and many which did have ceased to do
so.
Sodium fluoride is a by-product of aluminium processing, not that this
automatically condemns it.
Meanwhile, more important mass medication, such as infant injections
against childhood diseases, becomes optional; and registering of AIDS/HIV
carriers is not mandatory, as it would discriminate against gays.
Solution?
Sell bottled fluoridated water instead. Can you buy toothpaste which is
not fluoridated?
Sylvia Else
2013-03-24 01:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DonH
# Fluoridation of water supplies, just so that kids may (or may not) drink
some of the water is the perfect example of using a sledgehammer to crack a
nut.
Most of the fluoride goes to waste - and ends up in our oceans, already
becoming toxic.
The concentration in fluoridated water is similar to the natural level
in sea water, and the volume of the sea is vast compared with the
amounts of fluoridated water put into it. Man is not going to make a
measurable difference to the concentration in the sea.
Post by DonH
At one part per million, the content is small, and just as well, because
the element fluorine is a highly active substance, and its ions, in
sufficient quantity, can corrode water pipes.
Since it's not there in sufficient quantity, that is irrelevant.
Post by DonH
I haven't noticed dentists going broke, after several generations of
fluoridation.
A lot of nations don't fluoridate, and many which did have ceased to do
so.
Sodium fluoride is a by-product of aluminium processing, not that this
automatically condemns it.
So why mention it?
Post by DonH
Meanwhile, more important mass medication, such as infant injections
against childhood diseases, becomes optional; and registering of AIDS/HIV
carriers is not mandatory, as it would discriminate against gays.
Solution?
Sell bottled fluoridated water instead. Can you buy toothpaste which is
not fluoridated?
Oh, great, force holdouts like me to start drinking bottled water.

Sylvia.
Addinall
2013-03-24 04:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by DonH
# Fluoridation of water supplies, just so that kids may (or may not)
drink some of the water is the perfect example of using a sledgehammer
to crack a nut.
Most of the fluoride goes to waste - and ends up in our oceans, already
becoming toxic.
The concentration in fluoridated water is similar to the natural level
in sea water, and the volume of the sea is vast compared with the
amounts of fluoridated water put into it. Man is not going to make a
measurable difference to the concentration in the sea.
Post by DonH
At one part per million, the content is small, and just as well, because
the element fluorine is a highly active substance, and its ions, in
sufficient quantity, can corrode water pipes.
Since it's not there in sufficient quantity, that is irrelevant.
Post by DonH
I haven't noticed dentists going broke, after several generations of
fluoridation.
A lot of nations don't fluoridate, and many which did have ceased to do
so.
Sodium fluoride is a by-product of aluminium processing, not that this
automatically condemns it.
So why mention it?
Post by DonH
Meanwhile, more important mass medication, such as infant
injections
against childhood diseases, becomes optional; and registering of
AIDS/HIV carriers is not mandatory, as it would discriminate against
gays.
Solution?
Sell bottled fluoridated water instead. Can you buy toothpaste which is
not fluoridated?
Oh, great, force holdouts like me to start drinking bottled water.
It is DIFFICULT to buy toothpaste that doesn't contain Flouride.
While the effects of fluoride may be disputed, the fact that a lot of
people are getting too much of the substance is commonly accepted. In
response to the rising rates of dental fluorosis and the growing public
demand for products that don't include the potentially toxic additive,
companies have started marketing and selling fluoride-free toothpaste.
Not many in Australia.

I buy this stuff.

http://www.grantsofaustralia.com.au/

If you are happy drinking a toxin then all well and good. Don't force me
onto bottled water eh?

Mark Addinall.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Jeßus
2013-03-24 04:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
It is DIFFICULT to buy toothpaste that doesn't contain Flouride.
While the effects of fluoride may be disputed, the fact that a lot of
people are getting too much of the substance is commonly accepted. In
response to the rising rates of dental fluorosis and the growing public
demand for products that don't include the potentially toxic additive,
companies have started marketing and selling fluoride-free toothpaste.
Not many in Australia.
I buy this stuff.
http://www.grantsofaustralia.com.au/
Bi-carb works reasonably well as a toothpaste.
Addinall
2013-03-24 06:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
Post by Addinall
It is DIFFICULT to buy toothpaste that doesn't contain Flouride.
While the effects of fluoride may be disputed, the fact that a lot of
people are getting too much of the substance is commonly accepted. In
response to the rising rates of dental fluorosis and the growing public
demand for products that don't include the potentially toxic additive,
companies have started marketing and selling fluoride-free toothpaste.
Not many in Australia.
I buy this stuff.
http://www.grantsofaustralia.com.au/
Bi-carb works reasonably well as a toothpaste.
Yeah, Tastes like shit 'though!

Mark Addinall.
Jeßus
2013-03-24 07:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Jeßus
Post by Addinall
It is DIFFICULT to buy toothpaste that doesn't contain Flouride.
While the effects of fluoride may be disputed, the fact that a lot of
people are getting too much of the substance is commonly accepted. In
response to the rising rates of dental fluorosis and the growing public
demand for products that don't include the potentially toxic additive,
companies have started marketing and selling fluoride-free toothpaste.
Not many in Australia.
I buy this stuff.
http://www.grantsofaustralia.com.au/
Bi-carb works reasonably well as a toothpaste.
Yeah, Tastes like shit 'though!
Ahh ya pussy ;) I have a tablespoon of cod liver oil every morning so
a bit of bicarb won't bother me.
Addinall
2013-03-26 23:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Jeßus
Post by Addinall
It is DIFFICULT to buy toothpaste that doesn't contain Flouride.
While the effects of fluoride may be disputed, the fact that a lot of
people are getting too much of the substance is commonly accepted. In
response to the rising rates of dental fluorosis and the growing
public demand for products that don't include the potentially toxic
additive, companies have started marketing and selling fluoride-free
toothpaste. Not many in Australia.
I buy this stuff.
http://www.grantsofaustralia.com.au/
Bi-carb works reasonably well as a toothpaste.
Yeah, Tastes like shit 'though!
Ahh ya pussy ;) I have a tablespoon of cod liver oil every morning so a
bit of bicarb won't bother me.
Ha! Rugby and Karate have seen most of my teeth anyway!

Mark Addinall.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-24 09:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
Post by Addinall
It is DIFFICULT to buy toothpaste that doesn't contain Flouride.
While the effects of fluoride may be disputed, the fact that a lot of
people are getting too much of the substance is commonly accepted. In
response to the rising rates of dental fluorosis and the growing public
demand for products that don't include the potentially toxic additive,
companies have started marketing and selling fluoride-free toothpaste.
Not many in Australia.
I buy this stuff.
http://www.grantsofaustralia.com.au/
Bi-carb works reasonably well as a toothpaste.
There is also an Australian-made herbal toothpaste - Grant's, I think it is
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Sylvia Else
2013-03-24 08:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
If you are happy drinking a toxin then all well and good. Don't force me
onto bottled water eh?
The characterisation of it as a toxin is rather simplistic. There are
many substances that provide benefits in small quantities but which are
poisons in larger quantities. Vitamin A is an example. Common salt is
another.

I grew up in the UK, and the water I drank was not fluoridated. I now
have a mouth full of repaired teeth, mostly done using mercury amalgam,
whose health effects remain a matter of debate. I also underwent
treatement of my deciduous teeth at a time when, for some unfathomable
reason, the prevailing view was that they could be drilled without the
adminstration of a local anaesthetic, and that the cries of pain that
resulted were just those of a child making a fuss[*].

It's a shame I didn't get fluoridated water.

Sylvia.

[*] I mentioned this to a younger dentist no long ago, and he commented
that it had produced a generation of traumatised adults who won't go to
the dentist.
Jeßus
2013-03-24 08:29:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:03:55 +1100, Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Addinall
If you are happy drinking a toxin then all well and good. Don't force me
onto bottled water eh?
The characterisation of it as a toxin is rather simplistic. There are
many substances that provide benefits in small quantities but which are
poisons in larger quantities. Vitamin A is an example. Common salt is
another.
I grew up in the UK, and the water I drank was not fluoridated. I now
have a mouth full of repaired teeth, mostly done using mercury amalgam,
whose health effects remain a matter of debate. I also underwent
treatement of my deciduous teeth at a time when, for some unfathomable
reason, the prevailing view was that they could be drilled without the
adminstration of a local anaesthetic, and that the cries of pain that
resulted were just those of a child making a fuss[*].
It's a shame I didn't get fluoridated water.
So you blame the water and not your diet/upbringing/genetics?
Sure, why not.
Sylvia Else
2013-03-24 08:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:03:55 +1100, Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Addinall
If you are happy drinking a toxin then all well and good. Don't force me
onto bottled water eh?
The characterisation of it as a toxin is rather simplistic. There are
many substances that provide benefits in small quantities but which are
poisons in larger quantities. Vitamin A is an example. Common salt is
another.
I grew up in the UK, and the water I drank was not fluoridated. I now
have a mouth full of repaired teeth, mostly done using mercury amalgam,
whose health effects remain a matter of debate. I also underwent
treatement of my deciduous teeth at a time when, for some unfathomable
reason, the prevailing view was that they could be drilled without the
adminstration of a local anaesthetic, and that the cries of pain that
resulted were just those of a child making a fuss[*].
It's a shame I didn't get fluoridated water.
So you blame the water and not your diet/upbringing/genetics?
Sure, why not.
It's not a matter of blame. One's diet, upbringing, genetics, and indeed
general environment, no doubt all have an impact on the amount of dental
decay one suffers. The evidence is that, whatever level of decay one
would otherwise suffer, the addition of fluoridation reduces it.

Sylvia.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-24 10:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:03:55 +1100, Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Addinall
If you are happy drinking a toxin then all well and good. Don't force me
onto bottled water eh?
The characterisation of it as a toxin is rather simplistic. There are
many substances that provide benefits in small quantities but which are
poisons in larger quantities. Vitamin A is an example. Common salt is
another.
I grew up in the UK, and the water I drank was not fluoridated. I now
have a mouth full of repaired teeth, mostly done using mercury amalgam,
whose health effects remain a matter of debate. I also underwent
treatement of my deciduous teeth at a time when, for some unfathomable
reason, the prevailing view was that they could be drilled without the
adminstration of a local anaesthetic, and that the cries of pain that
resulted were just those of a child making a fuss[*].
It's a shame I didn't get fluoridated water.
So you blame the water and not your diet/upbringing/genetics?
Sure, why not.
Non-use of fluoride toothpaste - is more likely.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
H D
2013-03-25 01:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Jeßus
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:03:55 +1100, Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Addinall
If you are happy drinking a toxin then all well and good. Don't force me
onto bottled water eh?
The characterisation of it as a toxin is rather simplistic. There are
many substances that provide benefits in small quantities but which are
poisons in larger quantities. Vitamin A is an example. Common salt is
another.
I grew up in the UK, and the water I drank was not fluoridated. I now
have a mouth full of repaired teeth, mostly done using mercury amalgam,
whose health effects remain a matter of debate. I also underwent
treatement of my deciduous teeth at a time when, for some unfathomable
reason, the prevailing view was that they could be drilled without the
adminstration of a local anaesthetic, and that the cries of pain that
resulted were just those of a child making a fuss[*].
It's a shame I didn't get fluoridated water.
So you blame the water and not your diet/upbringing/genetics?
Sure, why not.
Non-use of fluoride toothpaste - is more likely.
So says the child growing up when one could buy fluoride toothpaste.
Addinall
2013-03-24 23:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Addinall
If you are happy drinking a toxin then all well and good. Don't force
me onto bottled water eh?
The characterisation of it as a toxin is rather simplistic. There are
many substances that provide benefits in small quantities but which are
poisons in larger quantities. Vitamin A is an example. Common salt is
another.
Not really bint. You DIE without salt. You DIE (or get very sick)
without the group of substances collectively called Vitamin A.
"Vitamin A deficiency is estimated to affect approximately one third of
children under the age of five around the world.[34] It is estimated to
claim the lives of 670,000 children under five annually.[35]
Approximately 250,000–500,000 children in developing countries become
blind each year owing to vitamin A deficiency, with the highest
prevalence in Southeast Asia and Africa.[36]" - Wiki

Fluoride has NO ROLE IN HUMAN METABOLISM. NONE. IT IS A CUMULATIVE
TOXIN.
Is that too fucking hard for you?
Post by Sylvia Else
I grew up in the UK, and the water I drank was not fluoridated. I now
have a mouth full of repaired teeth,
And that is due to the "un-fluordated" water? You don't have a fucking
clue do you? Camellia sinensis, when steeped in boiling water, will
release 2-9 milligrams of both Fluoride and Aluminium per 1L of water.

Are you the only pom alive that never had a cup of tea?

Fucking idiot.
Post by Sylvia Else
mostly done using mercury amalgam,
whose health effects remain a matter of debate. I also underwent
treatement of my deciduous teeth at a time when, for some unfathomable
reason, the prevailing view was that they could be drilled without the
adminstration of a local anaesthetic, and that the cries of pain that
resulted were just those of a child making a fuss[*].
It's a shame I didn't get fluoridated water.
Why? You want brittle bones and bad teeth?

Mark Addinall.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
[*] I mentioned this to a younger dentist no long ago, and he commented
that it had produced a generation of traumatised adults who won't go to
the dentist.
hislop
2013-03-24 03:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DonH
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice of
fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be able
to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics .... reacted,
claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide what gets put
into their water supply - that the choice should be made *for them*...
Here is her centralist, socialist position...
"Essentially what the Government is doing is shoving this responsibility
onto councils and I think that this is an issue that really is much better
dealt with at a state level"
A lie. State government gave councils the *choice* because some councils
were vocal in saying that it should be a choice.
But Plibersek has been know to lie before ... and liars do not change
their spots....
Plibersek...
"There will be dentists who tell you that they can tell someone who grew
up in Queensland because of the state of their teeth as adults".
(Also, see this: http://youtu.be/mvleEiRNUbM
Comment: What kind of claim is that? Can she name those dentists? Is there
a study? Did they isolate the causes?
Plibersek continues...
"Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray again. You can find all
sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you know, the harmful effects
of this or that and people should be very, very careful what they believe
when they're reading it from these sorts of sources".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm
Plibersek's original response, repeated in ...
"Plibersek bares teeth over fluoridation"
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/error/404?aspxerrorpath=/news/latest-news/plibersek-bares-teeth-over-fluoridation
"Unfortunately the page that is supposed to be here has upped sticks"
If Plibersek or any ignorant idiot from the ALP *disendorses* a course of
action, you should probably take that as an *endorsement* - so naturally,
I consulted DR Google.
This study claims that "nearly half" of Qld children suffer from tooth
decay, which it claims "compares adversely" with southern states and then
goes onto say that ...
"New South Wales and Victoria were not included in either study due a lack
of access to data and small sample sizes"
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-state-of-decay-queensland-childrens-terrible-teeth-20111208-1ol6h.html
THE SAMPLE SUBJECTS WERE "children utilising *public* dental services".
I never cease to be amazed at the *crap* that gets published in Australia
as 'statistics'. First of all, the sample subjects are self-selecting
people WITH A PROBLEM and secondly, they are from lower socio-economic
groups.
Hello, hello - How many Aboriginal kids are there in Tamzania?
(NSW and Victoria were excluded, remember?)
[OH, and BTW the study above hasn't ended - and BTW, it will never end
because the ALP ended public funding for chronic dental problems]
"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and then
inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only one part
per million"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
"Fluoride inhibits this DNA enzyme activity by 50%. and inhibits repair
mechanisms, leading to an increase in genetic or chromosomal damage"
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
Enough?
Here's some more from Dr Google...
"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in low doses affects human
brains. It allows aluminum cross the barrier. It blocks magnesium ions
that are necessary body enzymes systems. Fluoride goes into the bone
osteoblasts and blocks collagen formation, Making the bones more brittle,
Resulting in osteoporosis.. Tendons, spinal ligaments, and cartilage
become mineralized".
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
"ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride to
the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically poisoning
hundreds of millions of people around the world.
...
There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was
causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that
increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals
increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
Alarmed? Yes - I was too. Let's revisit the ethics.
"Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory
mass medication[10]"
[comment: That'd be right, classic we-know-whats-good-for-you ALP stuff!]
"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal publication
as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical
Convention of 1999.[1]"
[comment: Of which Australia are signatories?]
"In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison,
claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter
of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972, violates
Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues under the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
"...the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now
overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing *recent
data* before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future
litigation"
http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/evidencefluorideharmfuloverwhelming.pdf
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ALARMED, DON'T READ IT.
PS: If you need to know more about health and the human anatomy, see the
http://www.ruraldr.com.au/news/govt-thinks-ovaries-are-kidneys
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/poster-bungle-designers-fault-govt
http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/blooper-health-posters-recalled/
http://ebookbrowse.com/female-anatomy-poster-pdf-d366304168
Brought to you by the ALP-run Federal Health department and
livelonger.health.gov.au
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/03/snowden%E2%80%99s-poster-gaffe
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012
"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl
"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion
Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"
Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"
How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI
Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"
"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't got
it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
# Fluoridation of water supplies, just so that kids may (or may not) drink
some of the water is the perfect example of using a sledgehammer to crack a
nut.
Most of the fluoride goes to waste - and ends up in our oceans, already
becoming toxic.
At one part per million, the content is small, and just as well, because
the element fluorine is a highly active substance, and its ions, in
sufficient quantity, can corrode water pipes.
I haven't noticed dentists going broke, after several generations of
fluoridation.
A lot of nations don't fluoridate, and many which did have ceased to do
so.
Sodium fluoride is a by-product of aluminium processing, not that this
automatically condemns it.
I'm not sure how this doesn't.
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does. There is more
talk on using it than any explanation. Is evidence used as a reason for
using it? Is there a scientific reason for adding this to water?
Why are governments so keen on adding it?
How was the decision first made for adding it in the world?
Post by DonH
Meanwhile, more important mass medication, such as infant injections
against childhood diseases, becomes optional; and registering of AIDS/HIV
carriers is not mandatory, as it would discriminate against gays.
Solution?
Sell bottled fluoridated water instead. Can you buy toothpaste which is
not fluoridated?
There are ones called herbal which aren't. Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is
something to avoid which is put in almost all toothpastes to make it froth.
Sylvia Else
2013-03-24 04:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Sodium fluoride is a by-product of aluminium processing, not that
this automatically condemns it.
I'm not sure how this doesn't.
It's just chemistry. It happens that aluminium processing is one way
(assuming it is, I haven't checked) of producing sodium fluoride. It's
not the only way. Burning metalic sodium in gaseous fluorine would
certainly do it, though I'd recommend against trying it at home.
Post by hislop
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does. There is more
talk on using it than any explanation. Is evidence used as a reason for
using it? Is there a scientific reason for adding this to water?
Why are governments so keen on adding it?
How was the decision first made for adding it in the world?
See

http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/Fluoride/TheStoryofFluoridation.htm

Sylvia.
Addinall
2013-03-24 04:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State
Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-
councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics .... reacted,
claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide what gets
put into their water supply - that the choice should be made *for
them*...
Here is her centralist, socialist position...
"Essentially what the Government is doing is shoving this
responsibility onto councils and I think that this is an issue that
really is much better dealt with at a state level"
A lie. State government gave councils the *choice* because some
councils were vocal in saying that it should be a choice.
But Plibersek has been know to lie before ... and liars do not change
their spots....
Plibersek...
"There will be dentists who tell you that they can tell someone who
grew up in Queensland because of the state of their teeth as adults".
(Also, see this: http://youtu.be/mvleEiRNUbM
Comment: What kind of claim is that? Can she name those dentists? Is
there a study? Did they isolate the causes?
Plibersek continues...
"Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray again. You can find
all sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you know, the harmful
effects of this or that and people should be very, very careful what
they believe when they're reading it from these sorts of sources".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm
Plibersek's original response, repeated in ...
"Plibersek bares teeth over fluoridation"
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/error/404?aspxerrorpath=/news/
latest-news/plibersek-bares-teeth-over-fluoridation
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
"Unfortunately the page that is supposed to be here has upped sticks"
If Plibersek or any ignorant idiot from the ALP *disendorses* a course
of action, you should probably take that as an *endorsement* - so
naturally,
I consulted DR Google.
This study claims that "nearly half" of Qld children suffer from tooth
decay, which it claims "compares adversely" with southern states and
then goes onto say that ...
"New South Wales and Victoria were not included in either study due a
lack of access to data and small sample sizes"
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-state-of-decay-
queensland-childrens-terrible-teeth-20111208-1ol6h.html
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
THE SAMPLE SUBJECTS WERE "children utilising *public* dental
services".
I never cease to be amazed at the *crap* that gets published in
Australia as 'statistics'. First of all, the sample subjects are
self-selecting people WITH A PROBLEM and secondly, they are from lower
socio-economic groups.
Hello, hello - How many Aboriginal kids are there in Tamzania?
(NSW and Victoria were excluded, remember?)
[OH, and BTW the study above hasn't ended - and BTW, it will never end
because the ALP ended public funding for chronic dental problems]
"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and
then inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only
one part per million"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
"Fluoride inhibits this DNA enzyme activity by 50%. and inhibits
repair mechanisms, leading to an increase in genetic or chromosomal
damage"
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
Enough?
Here's some more from Dr Google...
"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in low doses affects
human brains. It allows aluminum cross the barrier. It blocks
magnesium ions that are necessary body enzymes systems. Fluoride goes
into the bone osteoblasts and blocks collagen formation, Making the
bones more brittle,
Resulting in osteoporosis.. Tendons, spinal ligaments, and cartilage
become mineralized".
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
"ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride
to the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically
poisoning hundreds of millions of people around the world.
...
There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was
causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that
increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals
increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
Alarmed? Yes - I was too. Let's revisit the ethics.
"Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of
compulsory mass medication[10]"
[comment: That'd be right, classic we-know-whats-good-for-you ALP stuff!]
"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal
publication as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of
Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[1]"
[comment: Of which Australia are signatories?]
"In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison,
claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of
1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises
issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
"...the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is
now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing
*recent data* before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at
risk of future litigation"
http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/
evidencefluorideharmfuloverwhelming.pdf
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ALARMED, DON'T READ IT.
PS: If you need to know more about health and the human anatomy, see
the poster called 'Female Human Anatomy' signed off by Plebersek;s
http://www.ruraldr.com.au/news/govt-thinks-ovaries-are-kidneys
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/poster-bungle-
designers-fault-govt
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/blooper-health-posters-recalled/
http://ebookbrowse.com/female-anatomy-poster-pdf-d366304168
Brought to you by the ALP-run Federal Health department and
livelonger.health.gov.au
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/03/snowden%E2%80%99s-
poster-gaffe
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012
"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his
Obeid like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-
affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of $300 billion. He steadfastly
refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-
increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion
Post by hislop
Post by DonH
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much,
I guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"
Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our
democracy"
How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI
Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"
"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
# Fluoridation of water supplies, just so that kids may (or may not)
drink some of the water is the perfect example of using a sledgehammer
to crack a nut.
Most of the fluoride goes to waste - and ends up in our oceans, already
becoming toxic.
At one part per million, the content is small, and just as well, because
the element fluorine is a highly active substance, and its ions, in
sufficient quantity, can corrode water pipes.
I haven't noticed dentists going broke, after several generations of
fluoridation.
A lot of nations don't fluoridate, and many which did have ceased to do
so.
Sodium fluoride is a by-product of aluminium processing, not that this
automatically condemns it.
I'm not sure how this doesn't.
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does. There is more
It kills the bacteria in plaque by de-naturing the DNA structure.
HINT. This is why many people aren't to fussed on swallowing big lots of
it.

Mark Addinall.
Post by hislop
talk on using it than any explanation. Is evidence used as a reason for
using it? Is there a scientific reason for adding this to water?
Why are governments so keen on adding it?
How was the decision first made for adding it in the world?
Post by DonH
Meanwhile, more important mass medication, such as infant
injections
against childhood diseases, becomes optional; and registering of
AIDS/HIV carriers is not mandatory, as it would discriminate against
gays.
Solution?
Sell bottled fluoridated water instead. Can you buy toothpaste which is
not fluoridated?
There are ones called herbal which aren't. Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is
something to avoid which is put in almost all toothpastes to make it froth.
Dechucka
2013-03-25 23:33:02 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Addinall
Post by hislop
I'm not sure how this doesn't.
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does. There is more
It kills the bacteria in plaque by de-naturing the DNA structure.
HINT. This is why many people aren't to fussed on swallowing big lots of
it.
no it doesn't you liar
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-25 23:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Addinall
Post by hislop
I'm not sure how this doesn't.
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does. There is more
It kills the bacteria in plaque by de-naturing the DNA structure.
HINT. This is why many people aren't to fussed on swallowing big lots of
it.
no it doesn't you liar
What is it wiff yew and HD today? Saying "you liar" all the time. Folks
might think yew wuzz talking about thah PM!
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Dechucka
2013-03-26 00:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Addinall
Post by hislop
I'm not sure how this doesn't.
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does. There is more
It kills the bacteria in plaque by de-naturing the DNA structure.
HINT. This is why many people aren't to fussed on swallowing big lots of
it.
no it doesn't you liar
What is it wiff yew and HD today? Saying "you liar" all the time. Folks
might think yew wuzz talking about thah PM!
no talking about you. Get some facts and stop lying
Dechucka
2013-03-26 00:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Addinall
Post by hislop
I'm not sure how this doesn't.
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does. There is more
It kills the bacteria in plaque by de-naturing the DNA structure.
HINT. This is why many people aren't to fussed on swallowing big lots of
it.
no it doesn't you liar
What is it wiff yew and HD today? Saying "you liar" all the time. Folks
might think yew wuzz talking about thah PM!
no talking about you. Get some facts and stop lying
actually Add... but you are right up with it
Jeßus
2013-03-24 04:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by hislop
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does.
Dentists, like GPs, are probably the least informed when it comes to
such things. Most dentists still think mercury amalgams are just fine.
Post by hislop
There is more
talk on using it than any explanation. Is evidence used as a reason for
using it? Is there a scientific reason for adding this to water?
No legitimate explanations forthcoming from scientists. Only
political/financial reasons.
Post by hislop
Why are governments so keen on adding it?
How was the decision first made for adding it in the world?
This partly sums it up nicely:

"At the end of World War II, the US government sent Charles Eliot
Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and
pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in
Germany. The German chemists told Perkins of a scheme which they had
devised during the war and had been adapted by the German General
Staff. The German chemists explained of their attempt to control the
population in any given area through the mass medication of drinking
water with sodium fluoride, a tactic used in German and Russian
prisoner of war camps to make the prisoners "stupid and
docile"(Stephen 1995). Farben had developed plans during the war to
fluoridate the occupied countries because it was found that
fluoridation caused slight damage to a specific part of the brain,
making it more difficult for the person affected to defend his freedom
and causing the individual to become more docile towards authority"
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14949
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-24 10:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
Post by hislop
I wish a dental person would explain what fluoride does.
Dentists, like GPs, are probably the least informed when it comes to
such things. Most dentists still think mercury amalgams are just fine.
Post by hislop
There is more
talk on using it than any explanation. Is evidence used as a reason for
using it? Is there a scientific reason for adding this to water?
No legitimate explanations forthcoming from scientists. Only
political/financial reasons.
Post by hislop
Why are governments so keen on adding it?
How was the decision first made for adding it in the world?
"At the end of World War II, the US government sent Charles Eliot
Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and
pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in
Germany. The German chemists told Perkins of a scheme which they had
devised during the war and had been adapted by the German General
Staff. The German chemists explained of their attempt to control the
population in any given area through the mass medication of drinking
water with sodium fluoride, a tactic used in German and Russian
prisoner of war camps to make the prisoners "stupid and
docile"(Stephen 1995). Farben had developed plans during the war to
fluoridate the occupied countries because it was found that
fluoridation caused slight damage to a specific part of the brain,
making it more difficult for the person affected to defend his freedom
and causing the individual to become more docile towards authority"
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14949
It is not very effective because the ALP only has 30% of the primary vote.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Addinall
2013-03-24 06:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-
councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Here is her centralist, socialist position...
"Essentially what the Government is doing is shoving this responsibility
onto councils and I think that this is an issue that really is much
better dealt with at a state level"
A lie. State government gave councils the *choice* because some councils
were vocal in saying that it should be a choice.
But Plibersek has been know to lie before ... and liars do not change
their spots....
Plibersek...
"There will be dentists who tell you that they can tell someone who grew
up in Queensland because of the state of their teeth as adults".
(Also, see this: http://youtu.be/mvleEiRNUbM
Comment: What kind of claim is that? Can she name those dentists? Is
there a study? Did they isolate the causes?
Plibersek continues...
"Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray again. You can find
all sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you know, the harmful
effects of this or that and people should be very, very careful what
they believe when they're reading it from these sorts of sources".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm
Plibersek's original response, repeated in ...
"Plibersek bares teeth over fluoridation"
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/error/404?aspxerrorpath=/news/latest-
news/plibersek-bares-teeth-over-fluoridation
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
"Unfortunately the page that is supposed to be here has upped sticks"
If Plibersek or any ignorant idiot from the ALP *disendorses* a course
of action, you should probably take that as an *endorsement* - so
naturally, I consulted DR Google.
This study claims that "nearly half" of Qld children suffer from tooth
decay, which it claims "compares adversely" with southern states and
then goes onto say that ...
"New South Wales and Victoria were not included in either study due a
lack of access to data and small sample sizes"
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-state-of-decay-queensland-
childrens-terrible-teeth-20111208-1ol6h.html
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
THE SAMPLE SUBJECTS WERE "children utilising *public* dental services".
I never cease to be amazed at the *crap* that gets published in
Australia as 'statistics'. First of all, the sample subjects are
self-selecting people WITH A PROBLEM and secondly, they are from lower
socio-economic groups.
Hello, hello - How many Aboriginal kids are there in Tamzania?
(NSW and Victoria were excluded, remember?)
[OH, and BTW the study above hasn't ended - and BTW, it will never end
because the ALP ended public funding for chronic dental problems]
"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and then
inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only one
part per million"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
"Fluoride inhibits this DNA enzyme activity by 50%. and inhibits repair
mechanisms, leading to an increase in genetic or chromosomal damage"
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
Enough?
Here's some more from Dr Google...
"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in low doses affects
human brains. It allows aluminum cross the barrier. It blocks magnesium
ions that are necessary body enzymes systems. Fluoride goes into the
bone osteoblasts and blocks collagen formation, Making the bones more
brittle, Resulting in osteoporosis.. Tendons, spinal ligaments, and
cartilage become mineralized".
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
"ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride
to the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically
poisoning hundreds of millions of people around the world.
...
There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was
causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that
increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals
increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
Alarmed? Yes - I was too. Let's revisit the ethics.
"Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of
compulsory mass medication[10]"
[comment: That'd be right, classic we-know-whats-good-for-you ALP stuff!]
"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal
publication as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of
Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[1]"
[comment: Of which Australia are signatories?]
"In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison,
claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972,
violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues
under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
"...the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is
now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing
*recent data* before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk
of future litigation"
http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/
evidencefluorideharmfuloverwhelming.pdf
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ALARMED, DON'T READ IT.
It is true. MOST of Europe has stopped Fluoridation. WHO and UNICEF are
now running programs to REMOVE Fluoride from drinking water. Several
countries around the globe have endemic fluorosis, Australia being one of
the most affected.

Defluoridation and UNICEF
--------------------------
UNICEF has worked closely with the Government and other partners in
defluoridation programmes in India, where excessive fluoride has been
known for many years to exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the
1980s, UNICEF supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort
to identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently
launched a massive programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe
water in all the areas affected.


Over the past five years, UNICEF's focus in the India programme has been
on strengthening the systems for monitoring water quality, facilitating
water treatment by households, and advocating alternative water supplies
when necessary. Education - both of households and communities - is key
to the strategy. A number of demonstration projects have been initiated
in fluorosis-affected areas, with the emphasis currently on introducing
household defluoridation. UNICEF has also sponsored research and
development on the use of activated alumina for removal of fluoride from
water.


Since fluoride must now be considered an issue of worldwide importance,
the years of experience in India should help UNICEF and its partners
provide four types of assistance towards an eventual solution:


- Promoting a better understanding of the problem and its impact on
children;

- Raising the awareness of relevant governments and the public on the
fluoride issue in particular and the importance in general of monitoring
water quality;

- Demonstrating, through pilot projects, the efficacy of low-cost
fluoride removal technologies;

- Strengthening community and government capacity for fluorosis
prevention, including a credible system for risk assessment that
comprises both water quality monitoring and health monitoring.



Notes:
'Fluorine and fluorides', Environmental Health Criteria 36, IPCS
International Programme on Chemical Safety, WHO, 1984. The WHO guideline
values for fluoride in drinking water were reevaluated in 1996, without
change, and the issue is currently under further review.
Prevention and control of fluorosis in India, Rajiv Gandhi National
Drinking Water Mission, 1993.
'Endemic fluorosis in Mexico', Fluoride, vol. 30, no. 4, 1997.
Data from a national research project under the eighth Five-Year Economic
and Social Development Plan, 1995.
'Fluorine and fluorides', see note 1 above.
Information supplied by UNICEF India.





Of course the left-wing contributions from Clonky and Twevor are as usual
about fifty or so years out of date. Makes me wonder if ANYONE from the
left has EVER read a book that wasn't a comic. Fucking retards every
last one of them.

http://www.unicef.org/wash/files/wf13e.pdf

Chapter 11.

See: "Countries with endemic fluorosis due to excess fluoride in drinking
water"

"Preventing fluoride poisoning

Fluoride poisoning can be prevented

or minimized by using alternative water

sources, by removing excessive fluoride

from drinking water, and by improving

the nutritional status of populations

at risk."


Fluoride is industrial poison. It has NO place in the human organism at
all.

Mark Addinall.
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
PS: If you need to know more about health and the human anatomy, see the
poster called 'Female Human Anatomy' signed off by Plebersek;s
http://www.ruraldr.com.au/news/govt-thinks-ovaries-are-kidneys
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/poster-bungle-
designers-fault-govt
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/blooper-health-posters-recalled/
http://ebookbrowse.com/female-anatomy-poster-pdf-d366304168
Brought to you by the ALP-run Federal Health department and
livelonger.health.gov.au
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/03/snowden%E2%80%99s-
poster-gaffe
Jeßus
2013-03-24 06:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Of course the left-wing contributions from Clonky and Twevor are as usual
about fifty or so years out of date. Makes me wonder if ANYONE from the
left has EVER read a book that wasn't a comic. Fucking retards every
last one of them.
Why did you have to ruin your argument by dragging in left/right wing
crap into the discussion? You're kidding yourself if you think
pro-fluoridation is somehow a left-wing conspiracy. It simply doesn't
stand up to any kind scrutiny. It really makes you no better than
those you deride.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-24 10:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
Post by Addinall
Of course the left-wing contributions from Clonky and Twevor are as usual
about fifty or so years out of date. Makes me wonder if ANYONE from the
left has EVER read a book that wasn't a comic. Fucking retards every
last one of them.
Why did you have to ruin your argument by dragging in left/right wing
crap into the discussion? You're kidding yourself if you think
pro-fluoridation is somehow a left-wing conspiracy. It simply doesn't
stand up to any kind scrutiny. It really makes you no better than
those you deride.
Leftists have a proclivity to think that they know what's good for the
rest of us and if they get into power, start legislating us into
complicity. This is precisely Tanya Plibersek's position. Plibersek is
the Federal Health minister. Why on earth we *need* a Federal Health
minister when health is a state-level responsibility is a good question.
Maybe that's why Gillard selected someone with a degree in politics. Or
is it because she is a long-standing member of Emily's List - and
organisation whose members promote members ahead of more competent
candidates - a strategy which inevitably results in inept idiots like
Kirner, Lawrence, Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek in positions of power.

Please see the start of this thread. Premier Campbell-Newman devolved
the decision to mass-fluoridate water to councils *despite* being in
favour of fluoridation himself.

Tanya Plibersek reacted to his action, deriding opponents of
fluoridation, completely missing the point about choice and arguing from
an entirely ignorant position.

These days the right is liberal and the left are autocratic, arrogant
and dictatorial. It *is* a left-right issue.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Addinall
2013-03-25 01:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeßus
Post by Addinall
Of course the left-wing contributions from Clonky and Twevor are as
usual about fifty or so years out of date. Makes me wonder if ANYONE
from the left has EVER read a book that wasn't a comic. Fucking retards
every last one of them.
Why did you have to ruin your argument by dragging in left/right wing
crap into the discussion? You're kidding yourself if you think
pro-fluoridation is somehow a left-wing conspiracy. It simply doesn't
stand up to any kind scrutiny. It really makes you no better than those
you deride.
It is a left/right issue now. As usual, the left don't keep up with any
modern research. They have a series of mantras, and that is all the work
they are prepared to do.

For those who have a sense of history will tell you that initially
general Fluoridation of drinking water was a right wing ploy to lessen a
poor public image of manufacturing.; ALCOA was trying to PROVE to the
world at the time that Aluminum pots didn't poisen people. Then a
dentist found in a quaint little town called Bauxite, that all of the
children's teeth were mis-coloured, broken, malformed.

In what was only one of the best mis-uses of statistical method in
history, this afflication was marketed as a 'good' thing, as certain type
of caries were under-reported in this population.

As is the history of most pollution, dilution was seen to be the key for
effective dispersal. Find a number in PPM that ACTUALLY DOESN'T KILL
people and we'll run with that as the 'optimal' dose.

Many large scale studies have been carried out to now show the reverse of
the mantra is true. More Fluoride === Poorer Dental Health.

But the left can't open a book and learn. One of the mighty leaders has
decreed "it is good" and the Sheep go "baaaaaaaa".

I don't care if the idiots want to ingest toxins. Just don't try and
poison me. Fair?

Mark Addinall.
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-24 10:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-
councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
...
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Of course the left-wing contributions from Clonky and Twevor are as usual
about fifty or so years out of date. Makes me wonder if ANYONE from the
left has EVER read a book that wasn't a comic. Fucking retards every
last one of them.
The contribution from the ALP:
"TANYA PLIBERSEK: Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray
again. You can find all sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you
know, the harmful effects of this or that and people should be very,
very careful what they believe when they're reading it from these sorts
of sources".

The contribution from the LNP:
"Jason Woodforth says he and almost half of the Liberal National Party's
huge backbench want fluoride banned completely in Queensland. He
describes fluoride as a toxic chemical.

Tanya Plibersek says that's an uneducated position".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm

Plibersek has a degree in politics.
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
http://www.unicef.org/wash/files/wf13e.pdf
Chapter 11.
See: "Countries with endemic fluorosis due to excess fluoride in drinking
water"
"Preventing fluoride poisoning
Fluoride poisoning can be prevented
or minimized by using alternative water
sources, by removing excessive fluoride
from drinking water, and by improving
the nutritional status of populations
at risk."
Fluoride is industrial poison. It has NO place in the human organism at
all.
Mark Addinall.
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
PS: If you need to know more about health and the human anatomy, see the
http://www.ruraldr.com.au/news/govt-thinks-ovaries-are-kidneys
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/poster-bungle-
designers-fault-govt
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/blooper-health-posters-recalled/
http://ebookbrowse.com/female-anatomy-poster-pdf-d366304168
Brought to you by the ALP-run Federal Health department and
livelonger.health.gov.au
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/03/snowden%E2%80%99s-
poster-gaffe
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Dechucka
2013-03-25 23:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-
councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Here is her centralist, socialist position...
"Essentially what the Government is doing is shoving this responsibility
onto councils and I think that this is an issue that really is much
better dealt with at a state level"
A lie. State government gave councils the *choice* because some councils
were vocal in saying that it should be a choice.
But Plibersek has been know to lie before ... and liars do not change
their spots....
Plibersek...
"There will be dentists who tell you that they can tell someone who grew
up in Queensland because of the state of their teeth as adults".
(Also, see this: http://youtu.be/mvleEiRNUbM
Comment: What kind of claim is that? Can she name those dentists? Is
there a study? Did they isolate the causes?
Plibersek continues...
"Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray again. You can find
all sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you know, the harmful
effects of this or that and people should be very, very careful what
they believe when they're reading it from these sorts of sources".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm
Plibersek's original response, repeated in ...
"Plibersek bares teeth over fluoridation"
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/error/404?aspxerrorpath=/news/latest-
news/plibersek-bares-teeth-over-fluoridation
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
"Unfortunately the page that is supposed to be here has upped sticks"
If Plibersek or any ignorant idiot from the ALP *disendorses* a course
of action, you should probably take that as an *endorsement* - so
naturally, I consulted DR Google.
This study claims that "nearly half" of Qld children suffer from tooth
decay, which it claims "compares adversely" with southern states and
then goes onto say that ...
"New South Wales and Victoria were not included in either study due a
lack of access to data and small sample sizes"
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-state-of-decay-queensland-
childrens-terrible-teeth-20111208-1ol6h.html
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
THE SAMPLE SUBJECTS WERE "children utilising *public* dental services".
I never cease to be amazed at the *crap* that gets published in
Australia as 'statistics'. First of all, the sample subjects are
self-selecting people WITH A PROBLEM and secondly, they are from lower
socio-economic groups.
Hello, hello - How many Aboriginal kids are there in Tamzania?
(NSW and Victoria were excluded, remember?)
[OH, and BTW the study above hasn't ended - and BTW, it will never end
because the ALP ended public funding for chronic dental problems]
"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and then
inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only one
part per million"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
"Fluoride inhibits this DNA enzyme activity by 50%. and inhibits repair
mechanisms, leading to an increase in genetic or chromosomal damage"
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
Enough?
Here's some more from Dr Google...
"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in low doses affects
human brains. It allows aluminum cross the barrier. It blocks magnesium
ions that are necessary body enzymes systems. Fluoride goes into the
bone osteoblasts and blocks collagen formation, Making the bones more
brittle, Resulting in osteoporosis.. Tendons, spinal ligaments, and
cartilage become mineralized".
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
"ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride
to the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically
poisoning hundreds of millions of people around the world.
...
There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was
causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that
increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals
increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
Alarmed? Yes - I was too. Let's revisit the ethics.
"Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of
compulsory mass medication[10]"
[comment: That'd be right, classic we-know-whats-good-for-you ALP stuff!]
"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal
publication as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of
Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[1]"
[comment: Of which Australia are signatories?]
"In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison,
claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972,
violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues
under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
"...the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is
now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing
*recent data* before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk
of future litigation"
http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/
evidencefluorideharmfuloverwhelming.pdf
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ALARMED, DON'T READ IT.
It is true. MOST of Europe has stopped Fluoridation. WHO and UNICEF are
now running programs to REMOVE Fluoride from drinking water. Several
countries around the globe have endemic fluorosis, Australia being one of
the most affected.
Defluoridation and UNICEF
--------------------------
UNICEF has worked closely with the Government and other partners in
defluoridation programmes in India, where excessive fluoride has been
known for many years to exist in much of the nation's groundwater. In the
1980s, UNICEF supported the Government's Technology Mission in the effort
to identify and address the fluoride problem: the Government subsequently
launched a massive programme, still under way, to provide fluoride-safe
water in all the areas affected.
no we aren't, come on back up your statement
Vote 99% Greens
2013-03-24 09:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State
Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Here is her centralist, socialist position...
"Essentially what the Government is doing is shoving this
responsibility onto councils and I think that this is an issue that
really is much better dealt with at a state level"
A lie. State government gave councils the *choice* because some
councils were vocal in saying that it should be a choice.
But Plibersek has been know to lie before ... and liars do not change
their spots....
Plibersek...
"There will be dentists who tell you that they can tell someone who
grew up in Queensland because of the state of their teeth as adults".
(Also, see this: http://youtu.be/mvleEiRNUbM
Comment: What kind of claim is that? Can she name those dentists? Is
there a study? Did they isolate the causes?
Plibersek continues...
"Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray again. You can find
all sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you know, the harmful
effects of this or that and people should be very, very careful what
they believe when they're reading it from these sorts of sources".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm
Plibersek's original response, repeated in ...
"Plibersek bares teeth over fluoridation"
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/error/404?aspxerrorpath=/news/latest-news/plibersek-bares-teeth-over-fluoridation
"Unfortunately the page that is supposed to be here has upped sticks"
If Plibersek or any ignorant idiot from the ALP *disendorses* a course
of action, you should probably take that as an *endorsement* - so
naturally, I consulted DR Google.
This study claims that "nearly half" of Qld children suffer from tooth
decay, which it claims "compares adversely" with southern states and
then goes onto say that ...
"New South Wales and Victoria were not included in either study due a
lack of access to data and small sample sizes"
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-state-of-decay-queensland-childrens-terrible-teeth-20111208-1ol6h.html
THE SAMPLE SUBJECTS WERE "children utilising *public* dental
services".
I never cease to be amazed at the *crap* that gets published in
Australia as 'statistics'. First of all, the sample subjects are
self-selecting people WITH A PROBLEM and secondly, they are from lower
socio-economic groups.
Hello, hello - How many Aboriginal kids are there in Tamzania?
(NSW and Victoria were excluded, remember?)
[OH, and BTW the study above hasn't ended - and BTW, it will never end
because the ALP ended public funding for chronic dental problems]
"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and
then inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only
one part per million"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
"Fluoride inhibits this DNA enzyme activity by 50%. and inhibits
repair mechanisms, leading to an increase in genetic or chromosomal
damage"
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
Enough?
Here's some more from Dr Google...
"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in low doses affects
human brains. It allows aluminum cross the barrier. It blocks
magnesium ions that are necessary body enzymes systems. Fluoride goes
into the bone osteoblasts and blocks collagen formation, Making the bones
more
brittle, Resulting in osteoporosis.. Tendons, spinal ligaments, and
cartilage become mineralized".
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
"ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride
to the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically
poisoning hundreds of millions of people around the world.
...
There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was
causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that
increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals
increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
Alarmed? Yes - I was too. Let's revisit the ethics.
"Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of
compulsory mass medication[10]"
[comment: That'd be right, classic we-know-whats-good-for-you ALP stuff!]
"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal
publication as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of
Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[1]"
[comment: Of which Australia are signatories?]
"In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a
poison, claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the
European Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of
1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises
issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
"...the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is
now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing
*recent data* before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at
risk of future litigation"
http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/evidencefluorideharmfuloverwhelming.pdf
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ALARMED, DON'T READ IT.
PS: If you need to know more about health and the human anatomy, see
the poster called 'Female Human Anatomy' signed off by Plebersek;s
http://www.ruraldr.com.au/news/govt-thinks-ovaries-are-kidneys
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/poster-bungle-designers-fault-govt
http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/blooper-health-posters-recalled/
http://ebookbrowse.com/female-anatomy-poster-pdf-d366304168
Brought to you by the ALP-run Federal Health department and
livelonger.health.gov.au
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/03/snowden%E2%80%99s-poster-gaffe
Funny how you right wing conservative morons have so much trouble
understanding science and scientific evidence and mix up hearsay & anecdotal
evidence as fact.



You claim an insignificant amount of fluoride (which appears in nature and
the food we eat) will have devastating effect on human beings.



But you also claim and humongous tonnage of carbon dioxide pumped into the
atmosphere daily will not have any effect on altering the climate!!??



Like the saying goes "It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than
to open your mouth and prove it"



"10. Conclusion
Fluoride can help prevent cavities, but at high intakes it can harm tooth
development (dental fluorosis) and bones (skeletal fluorosis); there is a
narrow range between intakes which are beneficial and those which are
detrimental. Populations consuming artificially fluoridated drinking water
or other fluoridated products, such as fluoridated toothpaste, develop fewer
cavities.

In areas of the world with high levels of fluoride naturally present in
minerals and water, skeletal fluorosis is common. This crippling disability,
which includes increased risk of bone fracture, affects millions of people
in various parts of Africa, China and India.

All organisms both on land and in water are exposed to fluoride released
from natural sources and/or by human activities. Excess exposure poses a
risk to them.

There is a need to better characterize the biological effects of exposure to
different levels of fluoride. More..."

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fluoride/
Vote 99% Greens
2013-03-24 09:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Late last year, Qld Premier, Campbell Newman announced that the choice
of fluoridation would be devolved to local councils.
"Campbell Newman says he supports fluoridation but councils should be
able to decide if it is in their water supply not the State
Government"
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/queensland/campbell-newman-gives-councils-responsibility-for-fluoridation/story-fndo4ckr-1226534032384
Clearly, the question was not about *fluoridation* but about community
*choice*.
Tanya Plibersek, Health Minister qualified in .... Politics ....
reacted, claiming that people should *not* have the choice to decide
what gets put into their water supply - that the choice should be made
*for them*...
Here is her centralist, socialist position...
"Essentially what the Government is doing is shoving this
responsibility onto councils and I think that this is an issue that
really is much better dealt with at a state level"
A lie. State government gave councils the *choice* because some
councils were vocal in saying that it should be a choice.
But Plibersek has been know to lie before ... and liars do not change
their spots....
Plibersek...
"There will be dentists who tell you that they can tell someone who
grew up in Queensland because of the state of their teeth as adults".
(Also, see this: http://youtu.be/mvleEiRNUbM
Comment: What kind of claim is that? Can she name those dentists? Is
there a study? Did they isolate the causes?
Plibersek continues...
"Look I think it's Dr Google leading people astray again. You can find
all sorts of nutty things on the internet about, you know, the harmful
effects of this or that and people should be very, very careful what
they believe when they're reading it from these sorts of sources".
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3651906.htm
Plibersek's original response, repeated in ...
"Plibersek bares teeth over fluoridation"
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/error/404?aspxerrorpath=/news/latest-news/plibersek-bares-teeth-over-fluoridation
"Unfortunately the page that is supposed to be here has upped sticks"
If Plibersek or any ignorant idiot from the ALP *disendorses* a course
of action, you should probably take that as an *endorsement* - so
naturally, I consulted DR Google.
This study claims that "nearly half" of Qld children suffer from tooth
decay, which it claims "compares adversely" with southern states and
then goes onto say that ...
"New South Wales and Victoria were not included in either study due a
lack of access to data and small sample sizes"
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/a-state-of-decay-queensland-childrens-terrible-teeth-20111208-1ol6h.html
THE SAMPLE SUBJECTS WERE "children utilising *public* dental
services".
I never cease to be amazed at the *crap* that gets published in
Australia as 'statistics'. First of all, the sample subjects are
self-selecting people WITH A PROBLEM and secondly, they are from lower
socio-economic groups.
Hello, hello - How many Aboriginal kids are there in Tamzania?
(NSW and Victoria were excluded, remember?)
[OH, and BTW the study above hasn't ended - and BTW, it will never end
because the ALP ended public funding for chronic dental problems]
"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and
then inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only
one part per million"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
"Fluoride inhibits this DNA enzyme activity by 50%. and inhibits
repair mechanisms, leading to an increase in genetic or chromosomal
damage"
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
Enough?
Here's some more from Dr Google...
"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in low doses affects
human brains. It allows aluminum cross the barrier. It blocks
magnesium ions that are necessary body enzymes systems. Fluoride goes
into the bone osteoblasts and blocks collagen formation, Making the bones
more
brittle, Resulting in osteoporosis.. Tendons, spinal ligaments, and
cartilage become mineralized".
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
"ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride
to the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically
poisoning hundreds of millions of people around the world.
...
There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was
causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that
increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals
increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
Alarmed? Yes - I was too. Let's revisit the ethics.
"Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of
compulsory mass medication[10]"
[comment: That'd be right, classic we-know-whats-good-for-you ALP stuff!]
"Water fluoridation was characterized in at least one journal
publication as a violation the Nuremberg Code and the Council of
Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[1]"
[comment: Of which Australia are signatories?]
"In the United Kingdom, the Green Party refers to fluoride as a
poison, claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the
European Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of
1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises
issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy
"...the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is
now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing
*recent data* before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at
risk of future litigation"
http://www.qawf.org/UploadFiles/file/evidencefluorideharmfuloverwhelming.pdf
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ALARMED, DON'T READ IT.
PS: If you need to know more about health and the human anatomy, see
the poster called 'Female Human Anatomy' signed off by Plebersek;s
http://www.ruraldr.com.au/news/govt-thinks-ovaries-are-kidneys
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/poster-bungle-designers-fault-govt
http://echonetdaily.echo.net.au/blooper-health-posters-recalled/
http://ebookbrowse.com/female-anatomy-poster-pdf-d366304168
Brought to you by the ALP-run Federal Health department and
livelonger.health.gov.au
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/10/03/snowden%E2%80%99s-poster-gaffe
Funny how you right wing conservative morons have so much trouble
understanding science and scientific evidence and mix up hearsay & anecdotal
evidence as fact.



You claim an insignificant amount of fluoride (which appears in nature and
the food we eat) will have devastating effect on human beings.



But you also claim and humongous tonnage of carbon dioxide pumped into the
atmosphere daily will not have any effect on altering the climate!!??



Like the saying goes "It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than
to open your mouth and prove it"



"10. Conclusion
Fluoride can help prevent cavities, but at high intakes it can harm tooth
development (dental fluorosis) and bones (skeletal fluorosis); there is a
narrow range between intakes which are beneficial and those which are
detrimental. Populations consuming artificially fluoridated drinking water
or other fluoridated products, such as fluoridated toothpaste, develop fewer
cavities.

In areas of the world with high levels of fluoride naturally present in
minerals and water, skeletal fluorosis is common. This crippling disability,
which includes increased risk of bone fracture, affects millions of people
in various parts of Africa, China and India.

All organisms both on land and in water are exposed to fluoride released
from natural sources and/or by human activities. Excess exposure poses a
risk to them.

There is a need to better characterize the biological effects of exposure to
different levels of fluoride. More..."

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fluoride/
Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
2013-03-24 11:08:15 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Vote 99% Greens
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
"Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and
then inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at *only*
*one* *part* *per* *million*"
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
...
Post by Vote 99% Greens
Post by Arrogant Liars & Pretenders
Here's some more from Dr Google...
"Fluoride is a central nervous system toxin and in *low* *doses* affects
human brains. ...
http://www.americanacupuncture.com/DANGERS%20OF%20FLUORIDE.html
(emphasis added to assist comprehension)
Post by Vote 99% Greens
Funny how you right wing conservative morons have so much trouble
understanding science and scientific evidence and mix up hearsay & anecdotal
evidence as fact.
Bet you've had your full dose of fluoride today eh?
Post by Vote 99% Greens
You claim an insignificant amount of fluoride (which appears in nature and
the food we eat) will have devastating effect on human beings.
Not my claim, you idiot - references are provided.
Post by Vote 99% Greens
But you also claim and humongous tonnage of carbon dioxide pumped into the
atmosphere daily will not have any effect on altering the climate!!??
Try to stay on topic, idiot.
Post by Vote 99% Greens
Like the saying goes "It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than
to open your mouth and prove it"
Indeed.
Post by Vote 99% Greens
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fluoride/
ROTFL.

Green facts? An oxymoron of the highest order.
--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://youtu.be/lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...