I suggest a campaign about ...

Stop water flouridation - bad science, toxic mass-medication & the new threat under the Health & Social Care Act 2012

See, as a hub,

There are some small local campaigns, losing the battle (e.g. Southampton)

Flouridation is bad science, we have been lied to.

Flouride compounds dumped in drinking water are toxic products not only of the phosphate industry but also from aluminium production.

Water flouridation - toxic dumping into the human population - saves them a fortune in toxic waste disposal costs.

As American cities are waking up to the false (and expensive) science of flouridation, they are stopping the mass-medication of their water, and the companies that need to get rid of flouride waste are looking at new markets like England to do their dumping.

There's loads of information to be found on the web, just go to Youtube & search for flouride, or flouridation

(Note the the Codex Alimentarius agenda, versus the Helsinki accords.)
http://www.naturalnews.com/001807_fluoride_fluoridation.html (and links)
to, say

and of course, the skeptic-infested WikiPedia, which tells us that, er, flouridation is safe & effective according to (selective) Science.

{ What I love about this is the way the new cult of sKeptical Scientism - the pharma-inspired main opponent of our natural health - tells us that toxins like sodium flouride (& mercury) can be rendered miraculously harmless, even good for you, by the simple laying-on-of-hands by an authoritative Dentist.

I am hoping that selected ratified Dentists will soon be able to transform base metals into gold; it will help the economy no end. }

25 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    William LaChenal shared this idea  ·   ·  Admin →


    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • Tommy commented  · 

        If you want to know , the truth about the fluoride poison that is pumped into our drinking water, try asking your local environmental health authority to supply you with a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet for this neuro toxin chemical that they authorise to be added to our drinking water.

        They will wriggle and squirm but will not provide you with the information, because they know what the document contains.

        To find out how dangerous this chemical is (that you are drinking every day), simply search Google for "material safety data sheet sodium fluoride"

      • falcon101 commented  · 

        Please also Support AVAAZ Petitions Against Water Fluoridation
        There are currently two AVAAZ petitions on water fluoridation - please sign these. In the UK a peti-tion has been started to send to the UK Government. You can sign the petition here on the AVAAZ site: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stop_Poisoning_Our_Water_With_Fluoride
        In the USA, a “stop fluoridation” petition has been started by Gerald Steel — a lawyer from Washington State who has been fighting fluoridation at the legal level. The petition is also on the AVAAZ.org site. Sign the petition at: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stop_Water_Fluoridation/?eqTIiab
        Please help by sending these to everyone you know.

      • falcon101 commented  · 

        On the 31st March this year, SHAs will be abolished and their
        powers relating to water fluoridation will pass to local authorities. In March 2012 following over a year of contentious debate and political manoeuvring, the Health and Social Care Act was finally passed.
        Sections 35-37 are of particular relevance to the fluoridation debate and, most importantly, the current situation here in Southampton. So four years after ignoring the public outcry over water fluoridation, the South Central Strategic Health Authority will cease to exist.
        What does this mean?
        The Act amends the provisions of the Water Act 2003 related to
        water fluoridation schemes. From April 2013, decisions about whether to introduce and end schemes will be made by local authorities — in our case Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council.
        Fortunately both Councils currently oppose water fluoridation but if
        the SHA implements the scheme before April, both Councils will
        become financially liable for funding the scheme. While it would be technically simple for the Councils
        to stop adding fluoride to the water, it would be disgraceful for the SHA, at this late stage, to rush to
        purchase £100,000s worth of capital equipment with the full knowledge that it may never be used.
        From April Southampton City and Hampshire County Councils will also become responsible for oral health promotion. For Southampton City Council this would be a great opportunity to invest the money that would be wasted on water fluoridation in targeted community based oral health schemes such as those being pioneered in some areas of the UK. In particular, ChildSmile — the national Scottish scheme — has been shown to reduce levels of dental decay and inequalities in oral health. This month the Scottish Government announced that the scheme had been more successful than expected delivering substantial reductions in dental decay amongst young children by over 25% since 2006. More importantly Childsmile has been shown to have impact across all groups and ages with a dramatic decrease in dental caries among three-year-olds. This is the sort of scheme that our Council’s should be
        considering if we really want to tackle dental health problems in the city. Water fluoridation is an
        obsolete policy based on outdated and poor research. Councils have the opportunity to take the lead in addressing oral health problems amongst the youngest children — an approach that would receive the backing of local childrens’ services, schools, social services and community and voluntary groups. HAF has written to the City Council urging them to invite the Scottish ChildSmile team to Southampton to brief Councillors and Officers on how to emulate ChildSmile’s success.


        SHA vows to go ahead -
        but there are still many questions to answer …..

        With only three months to go, the SHA is still insisting that water fluoridation will go ahead in South-ampton. It seems that nothing will dent their enthusiasm and commitment to impose fluoridation on a local population that has clearly signalled it does not want it. It also flies in the face of the significant improvements in children’s dental health in the last few years and increasing amounts of research that casts doubt on the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation. Who would have thought that when the SHA made its ill-informed decision in February 2009 that four years later there are still unanswered questions:
        • Will the scheme go ahead?
        • Which areas will receive fluoridated water?
        • How much will it cost?
        • Where will the dosing stations be located?

        Southern Water have informed HAF that some areas identified in the original consultation may not
        receive fluoridated water, while other areas not included in the consultation may receive it! HAF has submitted another Freedom of Information request to the SHA to try and get further details of their proposals and we should get a response in mid January.

      • falcon101 commented  · 

        “Fluoride, as such, is never added to the water. Only silicofluorides (a hazardous waste containing many toxic pollutants) are used to artificially fluoridate water, and studies have proven that they do not effectively prevent tooth decay, they only delay it. Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body will be different.
        This was proven in a study called, "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds." After this study was completed, this statement was made: " ... this meant a daily intake of approximately 40 mg/kg of fluorine from sodium fluoride as compared with 3400 mg/kg from calcium fluoride. Therefore, from the standpoint of lethal concentrations and amount of fluorine necessary to cause growth inhibition, wide differences in toxicity of some of the compounds of fluoride were noted." In other words, industrial waste (sodium fluoride) is 85 times more toxic than natural calcium fluoride. Both of them contain fluoride, but they are totally different compounds.
        Calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Soft waters to which fluoride is artificially added lack this calcium which is present in most waters that contain natural fluoride.
        "The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts put into the water supply, sodium fluoride or silicofluorides, are industrial products never found in natural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.

      • Grace Distill commented  · 

        I'd like to support this idea, though I understand that to some it just sounds like conspiracy theory. I urge people not to dismiss it just because it invokes such highly emotional and cynical reactions. That is just the gut response from those of us who feel helplessly railroaded by bureaucracy on this matter, while our health, and that of our children, may be forcibly compromised by those who think they know better.

        I have today read this:
        "A recently published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have "significantly lower" IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas. "

        This is not the only health issue linked to fluoride. Here- http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/14/fluoride-effects-in-children.aspx?e_cid=1stBestOfNL_art_5 -is a place to begin to learn about it; some might think that site is a bit "conspiracy theory" but if so, please go to google and discover the huge extent of the controversy.

        I cannot understand why this debate is getting so little attention, why people seem content to ignore the fact that those in power would be happy to medicate us against our will and without taking the worldwide controversy - that is leading to other nations reducing water-fluoridation - into account at all.

        I was first drawn to the debate about fluoridation by my own children's teeth. Let me explain. My mother kept my (and my sisters') infant teeth, as they fell out, in a little box. I did the same with my children's baby teeth. Those of my (non-fluoride) generation remained intact - solid little teeth forever, in spite of the odd filling or patch of decay. My children's teeth however, (exposed not even to water-fluoridation, but only to the fluoride unavoidable in toothpaste), within a very few years began to fall apart. By the time my kids were adult, their little teeth, though filling-free and undecayed, had disintegrated into tiny fragments, even though they were in soft wrapping in a padded box. There's got to be something seriously wrong with that. And they want to put it in the water!

        Please research the argument against fluoridation and then sign up to support this cause!

      Feedback and Knowledge Base