A win for science

March 8th, 2014 at 6:52 am by David Farrar

The Waikato Times reports:

Waikato District Health Board used Facebook to tell Hamilton City Council it had no excuses for withholding from the city’s water supply.

“Surely now there can be no excuses,” the board’s post said in reaction to a landmark High Court decision which favoured fluoride.

The reserved decision of Judge Rodney Harrison, released yesterday, rejected all grounds on which Christchurch-based lobby group New Health New Zealand argued against South Taranaki District Council’s moves to add fluoride to water in Waverley and Patea.

Hamilton City Council had been holding off reintroducing fluoride until the outcome of the South Taranaki case.

“Put fluoride back into the water Hamilton City Council please?”, the health board post said.

Health board spokeswoman Mary Anne Gill told the Times: “The people have spoken. The legal system has spoken. For the good of our children’s oral health, just put it back in and put it back in now.”

But, in spite of the High Court decision and a public referendum firmly in favour of fluoridation in October, Hamilton mayor Julie Hardaker says her council still has to vote on it first.

“We’ll be reviewing all the information to enable us to decide what the next steps for Hamilton will be.”

The next step is easy. The people have voted. The court case was decisive. Stick the fluoride back in.

The court judgement is below.

140307_New Health v Taranaki

Some extracts:

Accepting, as I must, that there is respectable scientific and medical support for the Council’s position, I am driven to the conclusion that the significant advantages of fluoridation clearly outweigh the only acknowledged drawback, the increased incidence of fluorosis. I am satisfied that the power conferred on local authorities to fluoridate is a proportionate response to the scourge of dental decay, particularly in socially disadvantaged areas

The evidence relied on by the Council shows that the advantages of fluoridation significantly outweigh the mild fluorosis which is an accepted outcome of fluoridation.

A good win for science.

Tags:

53 Responses to “A win for science”

  1. wat dabney (3,775 comments) says:

    A good win for science.

    It was never about the science.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. freedom101 (505 comments) says:

    Let’s hope all the other councils who have removed fluoridation after being been bullied by the anti protestors will now reconsider their decisions. Some of the ‘experts’ cited by the likes of FANZ are also associated with opposition to childhood inoculation.

    I suggest sending them all on a one-way trip to the moon to confirm whether or not Neil Armstrong walked there.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    New Health have already stated they will appeal about 5 mins after the judgement so the they never even read why they lost. Plus the plaintiff is a bloody Australian imported just to cause shit.

    Was interesting on NewsTalk when the head of the dental federation was asked who are these people and the response was they seemed to be the same anti health people including ones that are anti vaccines. Other good point he made was “so New Health is not okay with fluoride for children but happy for them to go under a general operation”

    I agree science was never part of this. These wackos are just green freaks with an alternative agenda that could cause severe health impacts in our community.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Akaroa (558 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, given the nature of humanity and the free-thinking society in which we live, there will always be Luddites who refuse to believe proven scientific facts and, instead, persist in clinging to their misguided – and in some instances – downright dangerous convictions.

    Why, there are even people walking around, free and unhindered, who actually think that a Labour government would be good for this country! Can you believe it?

    I rest my case!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    Akaroa the problem is those Luddites spread bullshit to other small minded people with big consequences. Think of the current measles outbreak.

    Also South Taranaki Council had to pay $200K in legal costs to defend the claim. They should have been awarded costs

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    Flat-earth anti-science idiots.

    No doubt this group will cry poor if costs are awarded against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. wat dabney (3,775 comments) says:

    All those who advocate compulsory fluoridation must also support the state imposing high taxes on beer, sugar and junk food, and an outright prohibition on tobacco and spirits.

    I mean, the science is clear after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. prosper (168 comments) says:

    This is about freedom. You should have the choice whether or not to accept medicine. This is not about science.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Harrison apparently is oblivious to the fact that there’s this wonderful product which prevents tooth decay. It’s called toothpaste.

    Two thirds of councils don’t add fluoride to water. I wonder why…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    By the way, Harrison’s bizarre decision is to be appealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    @Watdabney, yes I am surprised how many on the Right oppose compulsion but who seem to think it’s ok for their drinking water to be added to because some kids cannot be bothered brushing their teeth.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Brian Marshall (202 comments) says:

    Prosper, you don’t have to drink the water supplied through the council water scheme. Many farmers all over the country collect their water from rainfall. That most rate payers in those areas want to have fluoride added to their water they fund to make up for the lack if that element in NZ soils is their right. Why are those same rate payers having to fund the legal costs?
    Do you use uniodised salt? Most salt sold in NZ has iodine added also, but it is never used in processed food. People choose to use it because we know it’s the best way to get iodine, but you can also purchase salt without iodine. Much like iodine, fluoride is not compulsory medication.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Brian Marshall (202 comments) says:

    Ross69, dentists in places like Whakatane can tell which of their clients come from unfluridated areas near by looking at their teeth. That’s a pretty good sign toothpaste on its own isn’t fully effective.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    And people can drink pure water from a bottle if they wish. People do have a choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. thedavincimode (6,800 comments) says:

    Brian

    Feel free to put Fluoride in your water if that’s what you want. Please don’t put it in mine.

    tvb

    Yes they do. To put Fluoride in their water if that’s what they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    “Two thirds of councils don’t add fluoride to water. I wonder why…”

    Because they are run by lefty, cardigan wearing luddites, who think that they always know best and, simply, don’t care what their voters think? Just saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    thedavincimode – IF you are one of the few who don’t want flouride, why wouldn’t it be an acceptable solution for you to filter your drinking water and/or buy bottled water?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wat dabney (3,775 comments) says:

    And people can drink pure water from a bottle if they wish. People do have a choice.

    Will they get a reduction on their rates?

    And if you are using that argument, wouldn’t it be far easier to let people add their own fluoride to pure tap water if they wish?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    http://fluoridealert.org/news/lancet-neurology-reclassifies-fluoride-as-developmental-neurotoxin/

    The most recent news is the chemical fluoride has been reclassified as a developmental neurotoxin joining the ranks of lead and arsenic.

    EcoWatch report on the news published in the March 2014 issue of Lancet Neurology:

    “A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.”

    The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels of less than four milligrams per liter, which falls under the allowable level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. prosper (168 comments) says:

    Mass medication is not freedom it is basic socialism. I hear the catch cry ah but it is for the public good.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. stephieboy (3,163 comments) says:

    I find the argument against fluoridation based on freedom to choose highly disingenuous and rather specious.This is the only tactic left by the anti fluoride brigade since they’ve lost so convincly the science argument.
    There are a host of activities and actions as we go about our daily lives that have mandatory requirements or restrictions placed on them. Obviously the addition of chloride to our water supplies comes to mind.There is the compulsory wearing of seat belts ,mandatory health and safety requirements ,restrictions on tabbaco sales and smoking ,mandatory provisions for Hospitals both public and private. Etc, etc.
    I suspect some Libertarian idiocy behind some of this.
    Not only a victory for science but plain and unadulterated commonsense .!.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. stephieboy (3,163 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth., neuro toxity.? A highly dubious claim indeed.An argument by the anti movement is the ludicrous claim that fluoride causes lower I Q functioning and tumours .etc
    Utter rot.We can simply begin to compare sample groups from Auckand ( fluoridated ) and Tauranga ( no fluroudaion ). Where is the evidence that Aucklanders have lower I Qs ,higher incidence of Brain tumors motar nueron diseases etc.
    There is isimply none .!
    We are left only with pseudo scientific and quack claims like the alleged Nuero toxicity .!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thedavincimode (6,800 comments) says:

    OneTrack

    Your argument is the flip side of mine. You are claiming that the weight of popular perception outweighs the interests of those who don’t happen to agree. That is generally regarded as acceptable in government in a democracy, but you are extending that rationale to mass medication. My response is that if you want something in your water, go right ahead and put it in. But just give me my water l’leau naturel si vous plait and if I want to add shit to it I’ll do it myself thanks and you can do the same. The difference is that you’ll add fluoride and I’ll add scotch.

    Fundamentally, you are imposing on me in order to satisfy your views. As for the science angle, I recall there was a guy from a University in the US mid-west who once famously stated: “give me a $50,000 grant and I’ll prove anything”.

    The irony for the pro-fluoride brigade is that it took the state interventionist ross69 to point out the irony of those normally railing against state intervention supporting mass medication :)

    I’ve often wondered why that is whenever the fluoride debate gets batted around here. Whether it is because those who perceive themselves to be to the right inherently favour a sense of orthodoxy and are reluctant to disturb status quo or not accepting of those who query that orthodoxy. In this case, the orthodoxy is perceived as the science in favour of fluoride.

    I’m in favour of personal choice on the subject of mass medication and don’t agree with the proposition that everyone who doesn’t want to drink mass-medicated water needs to pay 4 grand + or whatever to get a reliable central filtration system to get rid of all the crap that that Councils put in the water. I can choose not to eat bread that has been medicated to address fertility issues in a small proportion of the female population (which I resent) but water is more difficult.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “We can simply begin to compare sample groups from Auckand ( fluoridated ) and Tauranga ( no fluroudaion ). Where is the evidence that Aucklanders have low I Qs ,higher incidence of Brain tumors motar nueron diseases etc.”

    Exactly right, there is nothing to show fluoridated groups have higher instances of health problems than non-fluoridated groups despite over 50 years and millions of sample groups. Nothing. No evidence of harm whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth., neuro toxity.? A highly dubious claim indeed.

    Not according to authors from the neurotoxicoligy division of the US EPA, who classify it as a chemical which has substantial evidence of developmental neurotocixity.

    Ref: Building a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants: Evidence from Human and Animal Studies
    http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    “Not according to authors from the neurotoxicoligy division of the US EPA, who classify it as a chemical which has substantial evidence of developmental neurotocixity.”

    Yet no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure. Talking out your ass ugly.

    Also lets look at the rest of your list, it includes Ozone, Caffiene and diamorphine hydrochloride. Better start railing against coffee, air and painkillers too.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Yet no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.

    Why should anyone expect the NZ health industry to be honest about fluoride?

    http://www.fannz.org.nz/whyfluoridaitonshouldbeendedinnewzealand.php

    4. The trial that launched fluoridation in NZ was a fraud.

    This trial was the Hastings-Napier Fluoridation Trial conducted between 1954 and 1964. The fraud was first discussed by the late Dr. John Colquhoun and his PhD thesis adviser Dr. Robert Mann in an article that appeared in The Ecologist in 1986. Further details were presented in Colquhoun’s thesis in 1987 (which is now available to a wider audience) and further refined by Colquhoun and Wilson in 1999.

    4.1 The bare bones of the case.

    The Hastings Napier trial was meant to have Hastings as the fluoridated community and Napier as the control. In other words it was going to be cross-sectional study – comparing tooth decay in two cities at the same point in time after one had been fluoridated and the other had not. Shortly into the experiment the control city was dropped, thus the study became a longitudinal one. In this case comparing the tooth decay in one city (Hastings) at the beginning and end of the trial.

    For such a comparison to be valid, there must be no change in key parameters during the trial. However, there was a change in one of the key parameters in this trial and it was a major one – the method of diagnosing and treating tooth decay. This was more stringent at the end than it was at the beginning.

    At the beginning of the trial school dental nurses were filling indentations (as if they were cavities) but the end they were only filling genuine “holes” in the enamel. Thus the drop in tooth decay attributed to fluoridation was part, or all, the result of making the diagnosis and treatment of tooth decay more stringent.

    What makes the final report a fraud was that the authors did not mention the change in diagnosis when claiming the drop in tooth decay was due to fluoridation.

    In other words, the whole of the fluoridation program in NZ has been built on the basis of a fraudulent study.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    So still no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So still no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.

    What studies have been done which look for this relationship?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Goodness. The intituling (fancy name for the front page of the judgment) refers to the counsel (fancy name for lawyers) as “council”. A good pun but I’m sure it wasn’t intended that say.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    What studies have been done which look for this relationship?

    All of them. Not one study has ever shown health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.

    Here is one specific one:
    http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/860

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    All of them.

    So you’re saying that no evidence of neurotoxity has been found in studies which look for a relationship between fluoride and bone fractures?
    Are you just introducing the bone fracture issue to divert from the known neurotoxity of fluoride?
    No comment about the fraudulent NZ study used to introduce fluoridation in this country, either?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. holysheet (397 comments) says:

    “Two thirds of councils don’t add fluoride to water.…”

    But they all add chlorine

    If it is okay to add one chemical why not one more.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    “If it is okay to add one chemical why not one more.”

    and that’s how socialism from both sides of the house works

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    No, I am talking about health problems as per my comment: “So still no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.”

    Bone fractures being one such health problem.

    Reading is not your strong suit. But the burden of proof is on you, not me. You need to show evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure in order to support your position. You can’t do it – you lose. You have no proof so you can be safety ignored until such time as you provide proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. stephieboy (3,163 comments) says:

    I believe that again the likes of Ugly Truth are being highly specious..Fraudulent Flurode studies in N Z ?. On what basis is that claim made based on which research .?
    Anti Fluoride network supposition and Propoganda.?
    Back to a core issue anti Flurode brigade.
    I’ll effects are alleged like neuro toxicity.Another is the alleged incidence of a rise in bone camcer – Osteosarcoma with the use of fluoride in municipal water supplies.
    Where exactly is the local evidence for this in say compared Taurnga ( none ) to Auckland ( with ). ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Mrs Trellis (34 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth…… bullshit :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. stephieboy (3,163 comments) says:

    Wikiiriwhis, Socialsm .?
    Is it ” socialism” to have the mandatory wearing of seat belts or minimum health compliance standards for food and restrauant outlets..?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No, I am talking about health problems as per my comment: “So still no evidence of large scale neurotoxicity or other health problems in fluoridated communities in comparison with non-fluoridated communities despite a sample size in the millions and decades of exposure.”

    Well, there won’t be any evidence of neurotoxicity if no studies have been done which test for it, would there?

    Reading is not your strong suit.

    I can read just fine, asshole.

    But the burden of proof is on you, not me.

    Your statement that no evidence of large scale neurotoxity exists is only meaningful if studies have been done which look for it. You have not provided any evidence that such studies exist, instead you diverted to the side issue of bone damage due to fluoride.

    Still no response to the fraudulent NZ study of my 10:24 post, Contrarian?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth…… bullshit

    Yes Mrs Trelliss, DPF’s article is bullshit. The role of judges is to determine matters of law, not matters of fact, and science identifies fluoride as a known neurotoxin.

    I find it entirely unsurprising that NZ’s corrupt judicial system would align itself with the scientific fraud that led to the introduction of fluoridation in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. MT_Tinman (3,204 comments) says:

    A win for science

    No, it’s a win for stateism, a win for the we-know-best crowd.

    A win for busy-body PC scum.

    The science is neither here nor there.

    While there is even one person who does not want The HCC to add flouride to drinking water delivered to his house (and, of course, other ways people who want extra flouride to get it) it should not be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. stephieboy (3,163 comments) says:

    MT Tinman, it is a win for science and it is there.
    It’s an unmitigated defeat for unreason and pseudo science..
    You’d naturally be happy if the PC scum took chlorine our of municipal water and make e.g Medical qualifications and certification non compulsory.?
    Get a life.!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Why mass medicate because some mothers are too lazy to feed their children properly or supervise their personal hygiene??

    If the fluoride that is added to some water supplies happened to be naturally occurring fluoride, maybe people wouldn’t mind so much. The fluoride used is a by product of aluminum smelting and so deadly poisonous that it can’t be dumped conventionally. It contains heavy metals and therefore toxic to humans. We don’t even use fluoride toothpaste in our house. Both of us, aged 73 and 65 respectively still have our own teeth, so the argument that it is necessary for dental health is dodgy to say the least.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. MT_Tinman (3,204 comments) says:

    stephieboy I realise this is probably beyond you but chlorine is added to the water to make it safe to drink, flouride as a mass medication.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. stephieboy (3,163 comments) says:

    M T Tinman, yes chlorine is added to water to make it safe to drink much like fluoride is added for the safety and health of our teeth .
    Mass medication.? Are you suggesting fluoride is a kind of sedative.?
    Ugly Truth if you continue to make outlandish claims about neuro toxicity etc then it would be only eminently sensible and fair to put the onus on you to back up your claims with
    some basic evidence and facts.

    You might like to start with the local scene first.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Stephieboy

    How does consuming water improve the quality of teeth when fluoride is meant to work as a topical treatment? I presume you don’t swallow toothpaste for the same reason.

    The incidence of tooth cavities has fallen dramatically in communities where fluoride is not added to the water. Why is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    THere are plenty of dentists who oppose adding fluoride to water. When you have experts opposed to fluoridation, it might pay to listen to what they have to say rather than arrogantly dismiss their views. I note that when Hamilton councillors voted to oppose water fluoridation, some councillors said they didn’t like the arrogance of the pro-lobby.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. prosper (168 comments) says:

    Fancy having to agree with Ross 69.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Sensible folk in rural Wainui who get Adams Ale straight from their unfluoridated creeks and rooftops will be laughing through their lack teeth at you officially poisoned folk in the Waikato. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wat dabney (3,775 comments) says:

    But they all add chlorine

    If it is okay to add one chemical why not one more.

    Wait. What?

    They render the water drinkable with chlorine therefore they can add anything else they wish?

    What sort of logic is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth if you continue to make outlandish claims about neuro toxicity etc then it would be only eminently sensible and fair to put the onus on you to back up your claims with some basic evidence and facts.

    Some basic history from the Victorian Hansard (Australia):

    This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.”Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individuals power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.”Both the Germans and the Russians added fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile.”

    http://www.slideshare.net/kynize/nazis-used-sodium-fluoride

    From the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research:

    Neurotoxic Effects of Fluoride in Endemic Skeletal Fluorosis and in Experimental Chronic Fluoride Toxicity
    Shivarajashankara Y.M., Shivashankara A.R.

    Mullenix et al., observed an accumulation of fluoride in the important regions of the brain, especially in the hippocampus (mean 0.993 ppm F at 125 ppm water fluoride during weanling), which was found to increase as the fluoride levels in the drinking water increased (4).

    Fluoride is toxic to the brain and chronic fluoride intoxication causes abnormalities in the brain cell architecture. There are many reports of histological abnormalities in the brain tissue of animals which were exposed to high levels of fluoride directly or during the foetal and weanling stages via the mother

    With regards to the effect of fluoride on the metabolism in the brain, studies have shown that fluoride (as NaF) impairs the activities of the enzymes which are concerned with the metabolism of lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, and transmission of the nerve impulse

    This is a repost of of my 9:17 from yesterday….

    http://fluoridealert.org/news/lancet-neurology-reclassifies-fluoride-as-developmental-neurotoxin/

    The most recent news is the chemical fluoride has been reclassified as a developmental neurotoxin joining the ranks of lead and arsenic.

    EcoWatch report on the news published in the March 2014 issue of Lancet Neurology:

    “A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.”

    The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels of less than four milligrams per liter, which falls under the allowable level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Crusader (317 comments) says:

    This is about freedom. You should have the choice whether or not to accept medicine. This is not about science.

    You don’t want 1 part in a million of fluoride? OK, well if that’s important to you, its easy to spring a few hundred bucks on a water tank and connect it to the down spout of your gutter.
    Your kids will get far more fluoride from the toothpaste they use.

    But over on the other side of town, the kids who rarely brush their teeth will suffer caries. That’s the facts. Perhaps you don’t care about them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    its easy to spring a few hundred bucks on a water tank and connect it to the down spout of your gutter.

    And risk substituting fluoride poisoning for lead poisoning.

    Your kids will get far more fluoride from the toothpaste they use.

    Not all toothpaste contains fluoride.

    the kids who rarely brush their teeth will suffer caries

    Tooth decay can be solved without reintroducing the Roman practice of adding a neurotoxin to the water.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote