This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fluoride


Thanks Motorway, this is a far more logical and scientific line of reasoning. I know that recent studies of Vitamin D have greatly increased our knowledge of its efficacy and role in the human body, but it has long been known to help with the absorption of calcium. That alone is sufficient reason to ensure an adequate intake. I have to confess that until quite recently I was of the mistaken opinion that a daily dose of sunshine was all that was needed. Your posts, and other reading have helped to educate me.

But............ it's far too easy to mass-medicate the population, getting rid of industrial waste at the same time, than to expect / educate people to be responsible for their own health!!
 
I filled in an 2GB online letter regarding Fluoride in our drinking water, with lots of useful info and links etc etc about 2 weeks ago. No reply.

How can we bring this to the attention of the public?


Interesting on USA TV





 
Last edited by a moderator:
In an effort to salvage my remaining teeth my dentist has prescribed a toothpaste called NeutraFluor 5000 Plus. Pretty impressive eh?

I can understand his concern. Each tooth is a gold mine to him. In the last six months I have had three root canals and three crowns, and several minor fillings and two cleanings. About 12 hours of torture.
 
Aye the fluoridization scheme is disgusting. The idea that the government has ANY right to control peoples consumption in ANY aspect whatsoever for their own good is monstrous (no, drugs are different - no one ever hurt anyone else because they didn't get enough fluoride).

The solution to this particular government imposition is simple - privatization of the water utilities. No company would spend money to implement a dosing system which its customers would object to.

Regarding some specifics some people might not know. Fluoride is taken up into the teeth from a young age, increasing the strength of the teeth, and thus resistance to cavities. Sure that's all very good, but fluoride toothpaste does the same job as fluoride in the water.
However, in the dental profession in the UK, a phenomenon known as the 'Birmingham Bomb' is well known. In Birmingham, where the water was fluoridized, this was taken by many a family to mean 'your kid does not need to brush his teeth anymore'. And true, the bacteria had a hard time getting through the super-hardened teeth - but if you don't brush the plaque away, it finds a way. The situation would then arise in which the kid had an apparently OK set of teeth, which were all rotten inside. One day, the kid would then bite down on something hard - and from 'Birmingham Bomb', you get the picture.
 

But they are pommies, you cannot extrapolate that to Australians.

It would be like comparing the dental practices of the various Stans to Australian dental hygiene.

gg
 

Right, it's the typical business as usual response - no response. If everyone sent a Notice to their water supply company that informs them that you would be recovering the costs to remove poisons from the water supply from the quarterly bill then a different repsonse may be received.
 
The whole thing is made more insidious by the fact that the Bligh government passed legislation making it impossible to take any legal action against them should there be any adverse effects of the mass medication of our water.

This begs the question, "Why did they feel they needed to do that, if fluoride is so good for you"? Do they know something they aren't telling us? Stupid question.......... they know what WE know but choose to indulge in a massive cover-up and keep promulgating the lie.
 
Interesting on USA TV






Gotta love the spin - "too much of a good thing"

The real statement is: We're seeing real adverse affects of fluoride on peoples health especially if they are infants or children, so we've decided to reduce the fluoride levels.

In another ten years they'll repeat this and so on, until fluoride is completely removed - as well as the legal liability of the damage it has caused.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The solution to this particular government imposition is simple - privatization of the water utilities.
Privatisation of utilities, especially water, opens up an entirely new set of problems. Using tank water for drinking would be the lesser of the evils...
 
The whole thing is made more insidious by the fact that the Bligh government passed legislation making it impossible to take any legal action against them should there be any adverse effects of the mass medication of our water.

I haven't seen a copy of this particular legislation, but ultimately it is unlawful to harm another human being - simply drawing up legislation to protect the guilty doesn't void this fact. Under common law, this legislation wouldn't stand if consent was not given or it was withdrawn eg there is no form of contract or tacit agreement to agree to be ingested with poisons.
 
Privatisation of utilities, especially water, opens up an entirely new set of problems. Using tank water for drinking would be the lesser of the evils...
But note that a water tank is a private utility .
But they are pommies, you cannot extrapolate that to Australians.
I can and I do. I know of a few places (which I won't mention), where upon informing the residents "your kids teeth are now strengthened against decay automatically by the water they drink", one will definitely in the future hear of '<these places> bomb'.
 

Yeah, l just did a quick google and found those vids - recent too.

I agree with your statement Oz.

Why the government is putting the big F into our drinking water is totally beyond me. Someone posted a youtube link previously in this thread and it has been stated that for fluoride to be effective, it is to be applied to the tooth directly (ie, gel, paste) not ingested (ie, in the water).

Can you legally put a case forward against the state government in regards to making you take this substance (Fluoride), without your permission and without real scientific proof that it actually does more good than harm? (Julia?)

As l asked before, what can we do as a group to get the attention of the media to get this issue some traction and make it known in the public domain?

Did a google search and clicked on the first sponsored link;

Got the report, 3 page PDF
It's in the next post in this thread
 
THE DOUGLASS REPORT

The fluoride myth busted!


 
Can you legally put a case forward against the state government in regards to making you take this substance (Fluoride), without your permission and without real scientific proof that it actually does more good than harm? (Julia?)

This has been attempted - and failed. There are a number of action groups - thousands of letters written - documents provided adequately substantiating the facts that a) fluoride is a poison and b) ingesting the stuff does nothing to prevent tooth decay. The Bligh government just gave us the metaphorical finger.

As l asked before, what can we do as a group to get the attention of the media to get this issue some traction and make it known in the public domain?

It has already been tried. Google some of the action groups and see just how much has been done. Media not interested. Perhaps they've have somehow been gagged by Bligh. Mind you, the various action groups have not given up. If you're interested in participating they would be glad to have you.
 
Methinks we're fighting well above our weight here.
Google steel and fluoride, and you will find how much fluoride affluent would have to be neutralised and safely disposed of. Consider the cost that would add to those poor industrial conglomerates.

And then, several decades ago, some bright spark came up with the brilliant plan to dispose of it all across the countries' lawns and gardens by diluting the affluent into every city's water supplies. Brilliant - hey?

Having travelled around a fair bit, I've lived in areas that did, as well as in areas that did not poison their citizens' water supplies. And I found out in a very painful way that my body knew the difference and let me know which tap water was poisoned and which was safe. The "signal" my body used were kidney stones, dozens of them, but only in areas of the former kind.

I may be a slow learner, but in the end I did put 2 and 2 together and used a micro-filter that puts the tap water through a reverse osmosis filter, getting rid of those poisons. And guess what: In over 20 years, I haven't "given birth" to a single kidney stone.
Some female friends, who know both kinds, confirmed that the term "given birth" is aptly chosen.

PS: Although I have made it a habit to tell every medical practitioner about my findings, not one of them has shown an interest to take the matter any further. If anything, their reaction is marked by curiosity; no one admits having heard this before; neither does anybody suggest I'm fibbing - against which I would have records anyway. Seems they simply "know" there is no way any research into this phenomenon would find funding.
 
Cant say i've read much of this thread, but i grew up drinking rainwater in the country.

Have been living in cities for 6 years now drinking tap water and noticed no differences at all (positive or negative)
 

I think I might have posted the legislation way back in the thread, but basically it indemnifies the gov and water treatment operators against any action that is done according to the legislation.

I think there is still an overwhelming ignorance by most people about the problems and side effects of ingestion of fluoride, despite all the evidence. But similar to the slavery, female rights/vote, asbestos, to name a few where once the majority public opinion reached a critical balance like the current middle east revolts against dictatorships, then the flood gates will open for reform and reversal of some of these dubious, even hideous products and practices to happen.

In Qld in particular water availability and water quality has been an issue for some time. I made the point on the Shale Gas thread, that the practice of fracking looks like it will add fuel to the water quality lobby to turn the tide hopefully not to far down the track.

Also, if Labor gets tossed out in NSW in March and Qld labor follows, although the LNP went along with the legislation, mainly under pressure from John-Paul Langbroek I think the LNP (hopefully after JPL is ousted) will be an easier gov to have fluoridation dismantled under.
 
Cant say i've read much of this thread, but i grew up drinking rainwater in the country.

Have been living in cities for 6 years now drinking tap water and noticed no differences at all (positive or negative)

I was much the same until Julia started this thread. I lived mostly in rural areas and drank tank water and never thought much about water treatments in urban areas.

Interistingly, actually worringly a relative made a comment the other day at a function that they all had teeth fluoridation as kids, reckon it was fabulous for their teeth and didn't see any problem with fluoridation of water supplies.

I also think ignorance is bliss... they completely don't see the significant differance between getting a fluoride treatment at the dentist and fluoridation of the water supply and continuous ingestion of fluoride.
 
Although some on this thread may believe Fluoride ingestion thru water supplies and toothpaste is ok, the reality is that it isn't, esp if you have a child that decides to make a meal of bubble gum flavoured toothpaste...

One of the little-known facts about fluoride toothpaste, is that each tube of toothpaste - even those specifically marketed for children - contains enough fluoride to kill a child.

As detailed below, most "Colgate for Kids" toothpastes - with flavors ranging from bubble gum to watermelon - contain 143 milligrams (mg) of fluoride in each tube. This dose of fluoride is more than double the dose (60 mg) that could kill the average-weighing 2 year old child. It is also greater than the dose capable of killing all average weighing children under the age of 9.

Fortunately, however, toothpaste-induced fatalities have been rarely reported in the US. In a review of Poison Center Control reports between 1989 and 1994, 12,571 reports were found from people who had ingested excess toothpaste. Of these calls, 2 people - probably both children - experienced "major medical outcomes", defined as "signs or symptoms that are life-threatening or result in significant residual disability or disfigurement" (SOURCE: Shulman 1997).



Yet Australia doesn't require any such warning labels on toothpaste.
 
Cant say i've read much of this thread, but i grew up drinking rainwater in the country.

Have been living in cities for 6 years now drinking tap water and noticed no differences at all (positive or negative)

That is no reason to remain complacent - or ignorant. Just because there are no outward signs does not mean your health is not being compromised. People who develop osteoporosis (for example) have no symptoms, while all the time their skeletons are being eroded and health severly compromised.

On the other hand, you may suffer minimal ill effects. Does that mean you are happy to accept the immoral principle of mass-medication of the populace? Of forced ingestion of a known poison?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...