Community fluoride

Letters written by members of Wombat Water Watch published in the Daylesford Advocate

 

 

16th April  2008  Full page letter from Zachary Casper in response to notice   Ctrl click to view article

  

Letter to Advocate                 

10/1/08                                            

For those who think that they have exercised their democratic right by voting last year, think again. The Department of Human Services believes it is their right to add toxic fluoride to our drinking water without our permission or consultation.

 Fluoride advocates repeatedly state that public debate is futile, and now they state in a December Advocate that councils are not worthy of being consulted. Any discussion is dangerous to their cause (which is to conveniently dispose of embarrassing industrial waste products), especially now that so many scientists and health professionals, including Nobel Prize winners, are spreading the truth about the dangers of ingesting fluoride.

Recent true statistics comparing fluoridated and unfluoridated cities in Australia show that tooth decay in children is not reduced by fluoridation, but DSS continues its blatant lies. This toxic substance is on your doorstep now. Democracy is about you making informed decisions, so please wake up from your out-of–date indoctrination about fluoride, search out the truth and stand up for your rights now. See www.fluorideaction.org and our local water website www.watersanity

from Linda Whitefeather

December 10th, 2007 |

The ‘discovery’ of fluoride, which has been well documented in Christopher Bryson’s book ‘The Fluoride Deception’, came about in close connection with industrial interests protecting themselves from fluoride pollution liabilities.  Suppression of scientific data in the U.S., along with a concerted PR campaign, duped health professionals into believing in fluoride’s benefits. 

 Regarding tooth decay it is well known that any benefit to teeth comes from outside application as in tooth paste, not from ingestion. It is interesting that the DHS, who instigates fluoridation, also publishes warnings about children using fluoride toothpaste. If you look at all the statistics, fluoridated water does not reduce tooth decay any more than unfluoridated water. 

 Monitoring the concentration of fluoride added to water does not prevent it from concentrating in the bones, teeth, pineal gland and the inside of your urn. Excess fluoride has been shown by reputable research to have a variety of adverse effects including bone cancer, arthritis, mental impairment and skin eruptions. Hundreds of scientists and health professionals are now speaking out against fluoridation.

Yes, we do need to get informed and not be sheep.  .  Check out: www.fluoridealert.org

Linda Whitefeather    .

.  

The effects of Long Term ingestion of Sodium Fluoride- A Homoeopathic Perspective. –

Shirley Ann Lovell N.D. Dip.Hom.Homoeopaths assess remedy pictures for our Materia Medica via a systemized process called a ‘proving’. A ‘proving involves giving small amounts of a substance to a group of healthy individuals for a specific period of time. During that time all symptoms and changes experienced are carefully noted, ranked and assessed. From this a ‘drug’ or remedy picture is created. The process of dosing with small amounts is then ceased, as we are very careful not to IMRINT PERMANENTLY the remedy picture onto the person.

This is very difficult, even impossible, to reverse. So, by my understanding, and experience, the constant and continuous minute dosing of Sodium Fluoride via our water is creating a ‘drug picture’ or energy overlay on those ingesting it.The ‘drug picture’ of Sodium Fluoride is not a particularly pleasant one. Let me elaborate slightly.The key concepts as listed by Jan Scholten * are as follows:

“NATRUM FLUORATUM Sadness, depression Glamour, glitterClosed, alone Money, cars ,clothesRestriction SexDenial, Hard, fast, hurriedSensitive PsychopathicHolding on Superficial contacts “

“This gives us a picture of a society feeling isolated and alone, clamouring for possessions, seeking gratuitous sex and living a fast and relatively superficial life. Sound familiar at all?”  Of course it will not affect everyone to the same breadth and depth, but be sure, it will affect everyone to some degree.

* Homoeopathy and Minerals. Jan Scholten. Page 185

 

Various Fluorides added to our Water

29th August

Various Fluorides added to our Water On fluoridation of our community water supply, complete, unbiased information and education is needed before people can make a proper, informed choice on whether they want it.

There are three substances used to fluoridate. Sodium fluoride is the one most people are familiar with, obtained as waste from aluminium smelting plants. In Victoria the widely used materials are waste products from phosphate fertilizer production, and contain contaminants arsenic, lead and heavy metals. A letter from Melbourne Water Corporation states: -fluoride is added to Melbourne’s water as either Fluorosilicic acid (sometimes known as hydrofluosilicic acid) or sodium silicofluoride.

Fluorosilicic acid is supplied by Incitec Pivot’s Geelong plant. Sodium silicofluoride is sourced from China by Deltrex Chemicals, and batched into a slurry at their Clayton plant in Victoria. Arsenic and lead are pollutants still in the slurry after treatment at the Clayton Plant. These chemical by- products are industrial grade not pharmaceutical grade and therefore not suitable for human consumption. The concentrated Fluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate drinking water in listed in Schedule 7 of the Australian poison schedule (SUSDP). See the TGA website > www.tga.gov.au/ndpsc/ndpscg.pdf < to see that

Schedule 7 poison means: high to extremely high toxicity; too hazardous for domestic use or by untrained persons.

Fluorosilicic acid ( FSA ) Corrosive 8 Raw Contact Analysis:

Free HF acid 0.31%Phosphorous 0.04%Cadmium

0.13ppmLead

0.27ppm Mercury

4.6ppmArsenic

1.18ppmChromium

1.2ppm *ppm parts per million *information supplied by North East Water

Mary Sakara

For: Wombat Water Watch Action Group

                                                       

 

MASS MEDICATION:  IS IT LAWFUL?  IS IT SAFE?

 

Mass medication of whole communities without taking into consideration the individual age, weight and medical condition of those affected and whether or not some already have accumulated high levels of fluorides in their system, is an outdated, undemocratic and unconstitutional practice.  We are putting people who are more vulnerable such as infants, young children, the elderly, asthmatics and individuals with kidney disease at risk of overdose. 

Water fluoridation whether artificial or natural is not effective and not a safe practice.  Would our health professionals, faced with treating individual health problems, prescribe the same medication and dosage for every person in a community regardless of weight, age, medical condition, allergies etc?  I sincerely hope not! 

Is it lawful for the Government to mass medicate a community without their informed consent?  It would seem not if you take into account what is written in The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Quick & Garran).  The Constitution was painstakingly compiled by our Forefathers and took more than fifteen years to put together; it still continues to apply today. 

The constitution was founded upon and incorporates existing common law, which was verbal law before it was ever written down.

Definition: common law, that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the Community.  

The Australian Constitution remains the key document in defining the structure, powers and limitations placed upon the Commonwealth legislature, executive and judiciary.  On page 286 (commentaries on the constitution) it states that “the supreme absolute and uncontrollable authority remains with the people.” 

It is time that we the electors wake up to the fact that we have given away the rights and protections that our forefathers set into place for us with great care.  If we choose not to realize this fact then we will continue to be victims of those people in Government and Corporations who seek to exert their WILL upon us for their own gain. 

Mary Sakara 

 

8th August

 

In John Howard’s New Year speech in 2006 he stated that  “Dental decay had become an Australian Epidemic”  now the push is on to fluoridate.  If fluoride is as effective as the Government and Dentists would have us believe then why is oral disease increasing when 85% of Australians already drink fluoridated water and have been for thirty years.  It just doesn’t add up!

 

 Professor Albert Schatz Ph.D. the discoverer of  Streptomycin,  the first effective antibiotic to treat human tuberculosis, made the following statement about fluoride in 1982:

 

"Indeed fluoridation is the greatest medical hoax not only of the present century but of all times.  In other words it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has.”

 

 He concluded in his studies that artificial fluoridation does not protect against tooth decay and that it can cause death among certain individuals that are highly sensitive to it.

 

Many more Health Professionals including Dentists are now speaking out against this potentially dangerous practice of mass medication of whole communities without taking into consideration age, weight, medical condition and whether or not some individuals already have accumulated high levels of fluorides in their system. We are putting people who are more vulnerable such as infants, young children, the elderly, asthmatics and individuals with kidney disease at risk of overdose. Water fluoridation whether artificial or natural is not effective and not a safe practice.

 

Fluorides are Government protected and unscientifically promoted poisons,  one has to ask the question  why are we still adding fluoride to our water in Australia when most other Countries have stopped this absurd unconstitutional,  undemocratic practice of mass medication without consent.


 

 

 

8th August

AGAINST FLUORIDATION OF OUR WATER SUPPLY

8th August

It has come to my attention in recent weeks that there is a ‘push’ to add fluoride to our water supply. I am strongly opposed to this. I am a naturopath and homoeopath with 25 years experience. This goes against my belief in free choice, and my understanding of health, and indeed dental health.

Sodium Fluoride and its derivatives, which it is proposed should be added to our water, is not a natural mineral of the body. It is a poison and a waste product. Calcium Fluoride is the mineral, from my experience and training, which is naturally occurring in our bodies, and contributes, amongst other things, to strengthening tooth enamel.

Even so, I could never recommend mass prescription and dosing of ANY substance.

On the other hand, overdose of ingested ‘fluoride’ leads to dental and skeletal fluorosis. Indeed it is known the ‘benefits’, though limited and of short duration, are topical and not systemic. The damage caused by fluorosis can never be repaired. Teeth damaged in this way can only be repaired with porcelain veneers and crowns. Studies also indicate a correlation between fluorosis and an increase in bone fractures. (

Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. 2001)

Instead, education, diet, dental hygiene should be a priority. If the relevant Health Departments are really serious about dental heath in our community why not supply education as well as provide dental services available through Medicare. Dentists could then provide proper care and appropriate means to prevent tooth decay, thereby saving huge future dental and health crises, as well as financial stress.

Yours Sincerely Shirley Lovell ND, Dip Hom

 

 

15th August

Water Quality Australia and other concerned consumer groups in Australia have called for answers to their questions about fluoride from Health Departments, doctors, dentists and anyone who should have up-to-date, reliable information, and at every turn they are refused engagement. Organisations wanting to appear fair and impartial like community health centres have set up public forums so the issues can be debated but every time there is no one who will actually speak in favour of fluoride in drinking water ! There are many questions that intelligent members of the public are entitled to have answered but no one in the Health Department feels qualified or informed enough to supply answers ! In fact there is a seminar ready to roll in Geelong. If any of our local doctors or indeed Jim Williams would like the opportunity to herald the benefits of Fluoride, Barwon Health, the main DHS health service in Geelong would love to hear from them.

In the present climate the letter to the papers is the only way the thinking public can express their concerns.

As I said in my original letter I am happy to show how the Choice article has several mistakes and omissions. If the public are interested, I can include more information in regular letters to the paper, or supply references to web sites, but since letters to the editor have to be kept to certain size, I will only look at the first issue I have with the Choice article in this letter.  (I mentioned fluorosis and bone cancer in my last letter and can elaborate on those if required).

Choice referred to “Illness from acute exposure to fluoridated water” and left it at that! As acknowledged by the Physicians’ Desk Reference, some individuals are allergic/hypersensitive to fluoride. They become ill shortly after drinking fluoridated water. The largest government-funded, clinical trial found that 1% of individuals exposed to 1 mg/day of fluoride exhibited allergic/hypersensitive reactions, including skin reactions, gastric distress, and headache. My question is, how can a consumer protection organisation endorse water treatment that makes some people ill, and not even report existence of the condition? If Choice tested a mobile phone or face cream, or any other product, and found a brand that made people ill almost immediately, it would advise consumers not to use it. It might even call for a ban or a boycott. Why did Choice not apply the same standards to fluoridated water? If it did, Choice would oppose a treatment that makes people ill and by being in drinking water, virtually removes consumer choice.

To end, I note, a week ago on ABC news, the report of the present dental crisis that has resulted because the Dept put it’s faith (and that’s all it is!) in fluoride. Fewer dentists were trained and now we have a major dental caries crisis in Melbourne, fluoridated since 1977.

M Corbett Hepburn

July 2007

In response to a letter dated 3rd May, sent to Dr John Carnie, of the Dept of Human Services by ten local medical practitioners demanding our water be fluoridated, I have to wonder why the doctors decided to send this letter. In other non-fluoridated rural areas the local health professionals (who are supported and funded by this same Dept) have been pressured to do this so the Dept has grounds to say that the call to fluoridate the water has come from the local community. Nothing could be further from the truth!

There has been an outcry from community members who know about this and who value chemical free water. Most believe in our democratic right to drinking water free of compulsory mass medication.  

The Labour Party have long had fluoridation in their list of outdated and unrevised policies with the rationale that the poor cannot afford dental care (who can! …why aren’t the doctors calling for dental care to be a claimable Medicare expense ?). Using the same prejudice how will the doctors prevent formulae fed babies being overdosed? If  ‘poor people’ are not able to be educated and assisted by dentists how come they can be educated to remember not to use town water for their babies? 

In November 2006 the American Dental Association, a strong advocate of fluoridation for 50 years, had this message to its members: “If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.” According to the ADA, babies exposed to fluoridated water can ingest more fluoride than the Tolerable Upper Intake recommended by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, placing them at elevated risk of developing dental fluorosis. 

The article in Choice Magazine that the doctors have quoted as support for their outrageous letter has been discredited. I am happy to supply an analysis of the mistakes in the article and a list of serious omissions.  Fluorosis is just one of them. Bone cancer in young boys and individual sensitivity (see Today Tonight program 1st August ‘05) have not been addressed. (Note research funds are not available for an unbiased look at this issue. It was decided in the 50’s and the medical and dental establishments in Australia and the USA have had their heads in the sand ever since. Other countries have removed fluoride from their water as an outdated practice (however lucrative, in our case, for the fertilizer company). 

A list of  “40  Reasons not to Fluoridate” (and none of them are trivial) has been given to the Health Dept who have refused to comment. If they are so sure of their “safe and effective” jingle why is it so difficult for the community to get a reply? No Dental or Health Professional is willing to debate publicly with speakers on the Clean (Fluoride free) Drinking Water side of the debate.  

Perhaps our ten local medical practitioners who were willing to demand fluoridation on our behalf, without local consultation, would be willing to let us know why they are so adamant that an insignificant amount of hardened enamel in young children, is worth the added chemical burden on adult bodies already loaded with cancer inducing agents? 

I am sure that the doctors would not feel so free to recommend adding  this waste product from industry to our drinking water if the State Government had not passed an act of parliament that prevents anyone from suing for damages if fluoride is involved ! 

M Corbett (Hepburn)

 

The Debate On Flouride 

April 20, 2007  

New information and statistics are now emerging concerning whether or not fluoride actually has any beneficial affects on teeth.   Many researchers are now saying that fluoride should not be taken internally, and that the only benefit of fluoride is gained from topical applications to strengthen tooth enamel.   

Many physicians have been insufficiently informed about the side affects of fluoride and are now in agreement with critics of fluoride.  Pediatricians in particular, are being cautioned about fluoride dosage, for example, children who are underweight are at greater risk of being overdosed. Babies should not have fluoridated water added to their baby formula or food. They are now being advised that a small amount of fluoride containing-toothpaste about half the size of a pea should only be used.  

Calcium Flouride occurs naturally in water and foods,  why risk overdosing by adding it to our water supply?  Please fill out and return the Have Your Say survey that you will receive in the mail this week and “Have Your Say”.

Mary Sakara