Category Archives: Community

Fluoride, asthma and the Israeli Supreme Court

Spencer D Gear

Dental fluorosis (Google – public domain)

Here is an issue that you may want to take up with your local Council and State Government (if you live in Australia) where States and Councils are continuing to fluoridate or allow fluoridation of the water supply.

The Israeli Supreme Court, near the beginning of August 2013, ruled against adding fluoride to the water supply because of its negative health effects. It is requiring the nation of Israel to end fluoridation by the year 2014. See the article, ‘Israeli Supreme Court Backs Work of Irish Scientist on Fluoride‘ (Hot Press, 6 August 2013).

Here is some of the evidence from this article that seems to have influenced the Israeli high court to go against Israel’s minister of health and cancel the use of fluoride in the water supplies.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in Israel has ruled that all public water fluoridation in the state of Israel must cease by 2014.

The court’s ruling is remarkable in that it goes even further than – and thus overturns – the decision taken earlier this year by Israel’s Minister for Health, Yael German, who had legislated for an end to mandatory fluoridation, leaving the option open to local councils to fluoridate water supplies at their own discretion. Now, however, by order of the Supreme Court, fluoridation in Israel is definitively at an end. This is regarded as a crucial victory by anti-fluoridation campaigners, especially given the close diplomatic and economic links between Israel and the US – the original home of the policy of fluoridation.

The decision is a further vindication of the work of Irish scientist Declan Waugh, who has been directly involved in the campaign to end fluoridation in Israel.

Waugh had alerted the Israeli Minister for Health to the risks associated with fluoride, outlining how within less than a decade of commencement of water fluoridation, inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma had increased by 100% in young adults in Israel. Since commencement of water fluoridation in Ireland in the late 1960s, the prevalence of asthma has increased by 500% – it now affects approximately half a million people and one in five children 12 years of age in this country. Ireland now has one of the highest prevalences of asthma in the world, levels that are only to be found in fluoridated countries.

“Scientific studies have clearly demonstrated that Fluoride is a pro-inflammatory agent that can contribute to all inflammatory diseases, not just asthma,” Waugh told Hot Press.

If there has been an increase of 100% in the inflammatory respiratory diseases of Israel’s youth since the commencement of fluoridation, what is fluoride in our water supply doing to Australia’s incidence of asthma and other inflammatory respiratory diseases?

Advice from the Fluoride Action Network

In this article on the FAN website, ‘Israel Will End Fluoridation in 2014, Citing Health Concerns’, it was stated:

On July 29, 2013, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that new regulations require Israel to stop adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies in one year, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Izun Hozer Association for Dissemination of Health Education and Yaacov Gurman petitioned Israel’s highest court, November 12, 2012, demanding that the Ministry of Health order the cessation of fluoridation because it presents health dangers and its benefits are no longer widely accepted.

A 1974 regulation mandated fluoridation throughout Israel. But in April 2013, the Minister of Health,Yael German, created a new regulation removing that mandate.

“It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill,” including “people who suffer from thyroid problems,” German wrote in a letter addressed to doctors opposed to ending fluoridation.

The court ruled that the new regulations will not only bring an end to mandatory fluoridation in Israel in 2014 but will also put an end to any fluoridation – mandatory or voluntary. See translation of the Court’s ruling at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/israel_supreme_ct_july2013.pdf

Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, says, “Zealous fluoridation promoters try to convince the American public that ‘everyone drinks fluoridated water.’ But the opposite is true. An overwhelming number of countries do not fluoridate, including 97% of the European population. In fact, over half the people in the world drinking fluoridated water live in the US. We are the odd ones out.”

“Fluoridation is an outdated, unscientific, failed public health blunder,” says Connett. ”What I find remarkable here is that Health Minister German has been able to escape the unscientific belief system on fluoridation that traps so many public health bureaucracies in fluoridated countries.”

Many communities, over the last few years, stopped fluoridation in the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Recently, both Wichita, Kansas and Portland, Oregon rejected fluoridation 60% to 40%. Hamilton, NZ, councilors voted 7-1 to stop 50 years of fluoridation after councilors listened to several days of testimony from those for and against fluoridation

Windsor, Ontario, stopped 51 years of fluoridation. Sixteen regional councils have halted or rejected fluoridation in Queensland since mandatory fluoridation was dropped there in Nov 2012.

Meanwhile, New York City Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr continues in his effort to halt fluoridation in NYC.

Research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals indicates that fluoride ingestion is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health. See http://www.FluorideAction.Net/issues/health

Why is it that only about 5% of the world’s population has fluoridated water supplies? There are serious effects which many in the medical and dental profession don’t seem to want to admit. Why don’t you check out what is happening in other countries around the world. Here’s a starter:

fluoride photo: fluoride is toxic m_a3b8933c01e64f12785965a4019c8e3c.jpg

(courtesy photobucket)

Fluoridation status of some countries

Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns

Only about 5% of the world population is fluoridated and more than 50% of these people live in North America. The Danish Minister of Environment recommended against fluoridation in 1977 because “no adequate studies had been carried out on its long-term effects on human organ systems other than teeth and because not enough studies had been done on the effects of fluoride discharges on freshwater ecosystems.”

“In 1978, the West German Association of Gas & Water Experts rejected fluoridation for legal reasons and because ‘the so-called optimal fluoride concentration of 1 mg per L is close to the dose at which long-term damage [to the human body] is to be expected’ ” .[1]

At the time of writing this short article (7 August 2013), Moreton Regional Council, where I live, continues its forced medication of its entire people with fluoride in the water when we know the negative consequences of ingesting fluoride. See my articles:

New Fluoride Warning for Infants

More Fluoride Spin

Hazardous waste put in our water as fluoride

Anti-fluoride advocates provide ‘all sorts of wild, weird and whacky information’

Fluoride for politicians

Anti-Fluoride Propaganda Blitzes

Why can’t we have the benefits of freedom in our democracy and choose whether or not we want fluoride in our water?

If people want fluoride in their water supplies, they can voluntarily obtain fluoride tablets from Councils (if Councils make such available). However, forcing people to drink fluoridated water supply is not only against the spirit of freedom in our democracy, but it also is compulsorily medicating Queensland’s population with a deleterious medication over which there is no control of intake. We don’t know how much water is drunk by each person, so we do not know how much of this unauthorised ‘medicine’ is taken into the system.

For further information on the negative affects of ingested fluoride, see: The Fluoride Action Network.

Action needed

Please contact your local Councillor and State MP to advise them to act on your behalf to halt fluoridation of the water supply. You may use some of the above information.

If your Council will not remove fluoride from the water supply, I urge you to do what I have done. I have installed a reverse osmosis (RO) machine under my kitchen sink to provide fluoride-free water from just one tap in the house. This is what we use for all drinking water.

How does RO work? See the article based on its chemistry, ‘What Is Reverse Osmosis and How Does It Work?’

Notes:

[1] Quotes from: Hilleman B, “FLUORIDATION: Contention won’t go away,” Chemical and Engineering News, 1988 Aug, 66:31 (The [ ] brackets were in the original article).

The damage done by hoax email and misinformation on the Internet

Image result for boat people Indian Ocean to Australia public domain
(courtesy The Independent, 17 June 2014)

By Spencer D Gear

I was at a Bible study group on the morning of 31 July 2013 in an outer Brisbane suburb. There I received a scanned copy of a page that indicated that Centrelink benefits for an Australian aged pensioner and spouse were $16,068.00 annually compared with $56,680.00 annually for illegal immigrants/refugees living in Australia.

This is what was handed to the members of the group, not by the leader, but by a group member:

(image courtesy theantibogan)

What are the facts?

This image was located on this webpage in the article, ‘Asylum seekers: “Robert Bretton” liar & fraud’, March 15 2012.[1] It was also located HERE (on 31 July 2013).

When I was provided with this handout, I found these figures to be questionable and I ‘smelt a rat’. It would be unjust of the Australian government to promote this kind of inequity. I found the information to be somewhat unusual so I searched online. I’ve tried to verify the figures that were given in the handout. This is what I found:

Robert Bretton’s information shown to be a hoax

Vietnamese boat people (image courtesy Wikipedia)

1. ‘Hoax e-mails‘[2] (The Refugee Council of Australia, May 2012). This includes the hoax of the Centrelink benefits that were allegedly higher for refugees than for aged pensioners.

2. Refugees and asylum seekers receive higher social security payments than Australian aged pensioners (The Refugee Council of Australia, February 2011).[3] This article states:

“Refugees and asylum seekers receive higher social security payments than Australian aged pensioners.”

A refugee who has permanent residency in Australia receives exactly the same social security benefits as any Australian resident in the same circumstances. Refugees apply for social security through Centrelink like everyone else and are assessed for the different payment options in the same way as everyone else. There are no separate Centrelink allowances that one can receive simply by virtue of being a refugee.

Centrelink payments are calculated at exactly the same rate for both refugees and non-refugees. A single person with no dependent children applying for Special Benefit or the Newstart Allowance (whether or not he or she is a refugee) will receive $469.70 per fortnight, whereas a single person on an Age Pension payment will receive a fortnightly payment of $658.40. A single age pensioner therefore receives over $180.00 more per fortnight more than a single refugee (or a single Australian citizen or permanent resident) who qualifies for Special Benefit or Newstart. Australian citizens and permanent residents with dependent children on lower to middle incomes (including refugees) may also be eligible to receive Family Tax Benefits or Parenting Payments. However, none of these allowances are paid at a higher rate than the single age pension.

Asylum seekers are not entitled to the same forms of financial support as citizens or permanent residents. The Asylum Seeker Assistance (ASA) Scheme provides assistance to some eligible asylum seekers who are in the process of having their refugee status determined. The ASA Scheme offers income support to cover basic living expenses, at a rate below Centrelink benefits.

Please note that the figures on Centrelink payment rates quoted above are current as at February 2011 and are subject to change. For the latest payment rates, visit www.centrelink.gov.au

3. A House of Representatives Committee statement, dated 28 September 2012, ‘Australian Government assistance to refugees: fact v fiction‘.[4] This indicates that the information that was provided to the study group was a hoax and it is in emails that are circulating around the country/world.

4. The Refugee Council of Australia on March 9 2010 stated that these figures about the discrepancies between benefits for aged persons and refugees were false. See, ‘Response to outlandish claims about benefits to refugees: update‘.[5]

5. The Australian Red Cross issued a ‘Fact sheet Migration Support Programs: Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme’, part of which stated:

Australian Red Cross : The Power Of Humanity

Australian Red Cross

Our case workers can assist you in accessing financial assistance to cover:

• basic living expenses (89% of Centrelink special benefits)

• general healthcare

• protection visa health and character checks.[6]

6. Parliament of Australia, 13 February 2013, corrected this benefit misinformation in, ‘Asylum seekers and refugees. What are the facts?’[7] It states:

In recent years, a series of emails have been widely circulated throughout Australia claiming to describe higher social security entitlements for refugees, compared with those of other Australian residents. A common claim in these emails is that refugees in Australia receive higher social security benefits than age pensioners.

There is no truth to claims that refugees are entitled to higher benefits than other social security recipients. Refugees have the same entitlements as all other permanent residents—they do not receive special refugee payments or special rates of payment.

7. In a letter-to-the-editor to the Fraser Coast Chronicle (published 17 June, 2010), sent by Sandi Logan, National Communications Manager, Department of Immigration and Citizenship by the Australian Government, ‘Asylum seekers don’t receive Centrelink benefits‘, it was stated:[8]

The figure mentioned in the letter of a $50,000 benefit paid by Centrelink to asylum seekers is completely incorrect. Asylum seekers, while in detention undergoing the processing of their claims, are not entitled to Centrelink social security benefits.

Until such time as an asylum seeker is determined to be a refugee, as defined by the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), or returned home, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) is solely responsible for the care of detainees.

If an asylum seeker is ultimately found to be a refugee and granted a visa, they then become a permanent resident and have access to exactly the same entitlements as any other resident or citizen of Australia: no more, no less.

Another questionable email sent by Christians

On 10 August 2013, I received an email titled, ‘She was a Christian’ that began with these words and these font colours:

WARNING: THE PHOTO BELOW IS QUITE GRAPHIC….BUT VERY TRUE! IF YOU THINK YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STAND LOOKING AT IT THEN PLEASE DELETE THIS EMAIL.

What’s wrong with the Muslim world ???

HORRIBLE !!!!

SHE WAS ATTACKED – RAPED BY ABOUT 20 MUSLIMS AND AFTERWARDS MURDERED IN SYRIA.

WHAT WAS HER CRIME? “SHE WAS A CHRISTIAN”

MAY OUR DEAR LORD TAKE HER IN HIS ARMS…… AMEN!

Then followed what looks like Arabic writing and two photos, one of a beautiful teenage girl and beside her a photo of a murdered teen with the base of a cross shoved into her mouth and blood gushing forth (it’s too graphic for me to include on this page). The first thought that came to my mind was: Is this an accurate depiction from a credible source? Or is this another example of credulous Christians who pass on information without checking. So I went on a search, thanks to Google and some sites that check Internet hoaxes. This is what I found:

There are a number of reports in news items online of a 15-year-old Christian teenager in Syria who experienced multiple rapes from Muslim men. See:

cubed-redmatte Syria: 15-Year-Old Christian Girl Systematically Raped By Islamist …

cubed-redmatte Most victimized in Syria? Young Christian women – WND

cubed-redmatte List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians – TheReligionofPeace.com

cubed-redmatte Teenager in Syria raped & killed by 15 Islamist rebels

cubed-redmatte Rumors confirmed: Christian women being raped in Aleppo …

cubed-redmatte Members of ‘Free Syrian Army’ raped, killed girl in Syria, UN official …

cubed-redmatte Syria: 15-Year-Old Christian Girl Systematically Raped By Islamist …

cubed-redmatte Christian Girl Raped by 15 Islamists in Syria by the Side …

However, from where did this gory, bloody photo of a teenager with a cross being forced down the woman’s throat originate? I had doubts that this was genuine in referring to an actual Christian woman, so I sent an inquiry online to www.snopes.com to ask them to investigate if this is a hoax.

I did find this statement in a news item, ‘Support Remy Couture and You Support Violence Against Women‘. Part of it stated:

Quebec filmmaker, Remy Couture, was charged in 2009 under the Criminal Code obscenity law over material posted to his website, and went to trial in Montreal in December 2012. The material in question includes hundreds of photos and a pair of videos that depict gruesome murders, torture, simulated rape, extreme violence and necrophilia, all with young female victims. The sets viewed in court included titles like “Hook”, a series of photos depicting a woman being tortured with hooks by a masked man. Another picture set titled “Burn” involves a woman’s burned body being assaulted and mutilated.

The films, titled Inner Depravity I and II, feature Courture in the role of a serial killer who hacks off limbs and performs sex acts on his victims. Couture says the films are meant to depict the life of a serial killer, assisted by a 10-year-old boy, whose tendencies lead him to also have sex with his dead female victims. One sequence shows a woman bleeding after a crucifix was shoved down her throat. Another graphic scene shows a character carving out a victim’s organs (emphasis added).

The pictures that were supplied to be by email of this young woman and a cross being forced down a throat come from twicsy, the Twitter Pics Engine. I urged the person who sent the email not to pass these things on until they are verified as genuine. They may be genuine, but in a quick look on the www this morning, I cannot verify them as genuine from a woman who has been raped by Muslims in Syria, murdered, and then a cross shoved down her throat.

I came across this item from 20 March 2011,

‘**GRAPHIC** Body of Young Christian Woman, and Indonesian Jihadi Brutally Murdering Christians **GRAPHIC**‘ with other graphic images, but I don’t know if these are genuine. They could be, but I don’t know. However, a comment on this website confirmed that that picture of the woman with a cross down her throat is from the film ‘Inner Depravity’.

However, what about the other pictures at the bottom of the article? Are they also from a film and are fake? I don’t know how to confirm the authenticity. However, some of the pictures from the bottom of this article are labelled as ghostpics. I investigated to find the nature of ghostpics and found this article to confirm how ghostpics may be genuine pictures but they have been known to manipulate pictures electronically. See, ‘Best Ghost Pictures Ever Taken‘.

This picture of the cross down the throat is also found in Encyclopedia Dramatica, which seems to suggest that this is not a genuine photo.

I urge Christians and others not to forward these kinds of email until their content can be verified.

It is critical to check the facts before circulating

This information indicates that the figures provided in the handout this morning are from hoax emails that have been circulating. Would you please do all you can to put an end to this kind of email that misrepresents the situation should you come across these incorrect figures?

There are too many people who are falling victim to circulating Internet and email hoaxes about various subjects. Many of them can be checked out at various sites on the Internet that investigate possible hoax emails and Internet information. These are the ones I use regularly:

Snopes.com;

Urban Legends;

Hoax-Slayer; and

TruthorFiction.com.

Notes:

[1] Available at: http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/asylum-seekers-robert-bretton-liar-and-fraud/ (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[2] Refugee Council of Australia, available at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-email.php (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[3] Refugee Council of Australia, available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#centrelink (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[4] Parliament of Australia, available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustGovAssistRefugees (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[5] Available at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/releases/2010/100309%20Updated%20Response%20to%20email%20on%20Centrelink%20benefits.pdf (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[6] Available at: http://www.redcross.org.au/files/20120203_ASAS_Fact_Sheet_.pdf (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[7] Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AsylumFacts#_Toc348096472 (Accessed 31 July 2013).

[8] This online version of the letter is dated as 22 July 2010, available at: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters10/le100722.htm (Accessed 31 July 2013).

New Fluoride Warning for Infants[1]

Information about dental fluorosis

Courtesy QAWF

By Spencer D Gear

Does your drinking water contain added fluoride? If so, keep it away from infants under the age of one. This directive was issued recently by an unlikely source: the American Dental Association (ADA).

In a November 9th 2006 email alert sent to all of its members, the ADA noted that “Infants less than one year old may be getting more than the optimal amount of fluoride if their primary source of nutrition is powdered or liquid infant formula mixed with water containing fluoride.” The ADA went on to advise: “If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.”

The ADA issued this advice because babies exposed to fluoridated water are at high risk for developing dental fluorosis—a defect of the teeth which can result in staining and even corrosion of the enamel. In addition, on October 14th [2006], the Food and Drug Administration stated that fluoridated water marketed to infants cannot claim to reduce the risk of cavities.

Dental fluorosis is not the only risk stemming from a baby’s exposure to fluoride. In the same week that ADA issued its advisory, an article in the British journal, The Lancet, reported that fluoride may damage a child’s developing brain. The Lancet review described fluoride, along with the rocket fuel additive perchlorate, as an “emerging neurotoxic substance” due to evidence linking fluoride to lower IQs in children, and brain damage in animals.

8-month old twin sisters (Wikipedia)

“Newborn babies have undeveloped brains, and exposure to fluoride, a suspected neurotoxin, should be avoided,” notes Hardy Limeback, a member of a 2006 National Research Council panel on fluoride toxicity, and former President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research.

Fluoride is linked with other health problems as well, including weakened bones, reduced thyroid activity, and possibly, bone cancer in boys, according to a recent report from a team of Harvard scientists, the US National Research Council and other recent studies.

While most of western Europe has abandoned the practice of adding fluoride to water, most US water supplies remain fluoridated. In addition, some brands of bottled water sold in the US, such as Nursery Water, specifically market fluoridated water for young babies.

A recent investigation by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that over-exposure to fluoride among infants is a widespread problem in most major American cities. EWG’s study found that, on any given day, up to 60% of formula-fed babies in US cities were exceeding the Institute of Medicine’s “upper tolerable” limit for fluoride.

“Water is supposed to be safe for everyone. Why add a chemical that makes it knowingly unfit for young children? The US should follow Europe’s lead and end fluoridation,” says Michael Connett, Project Director of the Fluoride Action Network.

See also, ‘Is fluoride in baby nursery water safe for infant formula and newborns?’ (Angela Schnaubelt, Examiner.com, 16 July 2009).

For additional information, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org and http://www.ewg.org

Notes:

[1] Available from: Mothering Magazine, November 2006, at: http://www.mothering.com/sections/news_bulletins/november2006.html#fluoride (Accessed 9 Feb. 2008; however, this article was not available at this URL on 26 July 2013). This article was sourced from Fluoride Action Network (FAN) & Environmental Working Group (EWG), available at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/mothering_magazine/ (Accessed 26 July 2013).

Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free content. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version. This document last updated at Date:26 July 2013.

Anti-fluoride advocates provide ‘all sorts of wild, weird and whacky information’

Chelsea Green Publishing

By Spencer D Gear

Asking the Health Department or a dental or medical association member not to promote fluoride is like asking a Toyota service mechanic not to recommend Toyota vehicles (I drive a Toyota Camry).

Negative comments about opponents of fluoride

The Queensland Health Minister, Lawrence Springborg, has had some derogatory things to say against those who oppose the use of fluoride in a town’s drinking water.

I oppose fluoride in the drinking water because of scientific reasons and not because of Mr Lawrence Springborg MP’s claims, using a genetic logical fallacy, of “way out-there people” who get “all sorts of wild, weird and wacky information” (‘Queensland health minister Lawrence Springborg slams “way-out” flouride claims’, Courier-Mail/Quest, 14 December 2012).

Part of Lawrence Springborg MP’s claim in this newspaper article (online) was:

“On the internet you can get all sorts of wild, weird and wacky information because anyone can be an author and publish things as fact on anything.”

The comments follow Moreton Bay Regional Council’s decision to ask for a report on the issue after Cr James Houghton said fluoride was “poison’’.

Morayfield state Liberal National MP Darren Grimwade said: “I don’t know the science. I can’t really answer that one. I’m not paid to be a scientist.”

He said if he had to make a decision he would consult constituents and vote according to their views. “I’m paid to represent them.”

Pumicestone state Liberal National MP Lisa France said: “It’s been used in many other states for many, many years and doesn’t seem to have been a problem.”

Kallangur MP Trevor Ruthenberg said: “In terms of fluoride, I have no firm view. If Queensland Health says it is safe, then I trust their judgment.” Mr Ruthenberg said he had calls from his electorate supporting and opposing fluoride.

Pine Rivers MP Seath Holswich said: “I don’t know the science but I trust the professionals. But I understand that not every community feels that way, so I was pleased to see councils given the option (not to add fluoride to water supplies).”

Mr Springborg urged people to look for credible sources of information, such as Queensland Health.

I have written to each of these MPs to expose the weaknesses in their claims.

The science of fluoride

It’s time Mr Springborg read the science for the late 20th and early 21st century which tells me what fluoride can cause:

A Harvard University (hardly a dummy uni) research study, led by Dr. Elise Bassin, a dentist. In 2001, the PhD dissertation in 2001 for the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, found that “for males less than twenty years old, fluoride level in drinking water [about 1 part per million] during growth is associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma’ “boys who drank water with levels of fluoride considered safe by federal USA guidelines are five times more likely to have a rare bone cancer (osteosarcoma) than boys who drink unfluoridated water. This research was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Cancer Causes and Control. Bassin found that ‘young boys had a five-to-seven fold increased risk of getting osteosarcoma by the age of 20 if they drank fluoridated water during their mid-childhood growth spurt (age 6 to 8)’. See Bassin EB et al. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control. 17 (4): 421–28.

Research of bone cancer figures has shown a 40% elevated rate in the Republic of Ireland (fluoridated) compared to Northern Ireland (unfluoridated).

A study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback’s worst fears. “Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones.”

Dr Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS is Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, former consultant to the Canadian Dental Association, has stated, “Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never. In fluoridated areas, people should never use fluoride supplements. We tried to get them banned for children but (the dentists) wouldn’t even look at the evidence we presented.”

“97% of the western European population drinks non-fluoridated water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of both the United Kingdom and Spain”. Why have these countries ceased to force fluoride on their people? In Belgium, it was stated, ““This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that 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”. France’s position was, “Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations”. Of Germany, it was declared: “The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication”.

For more information on the science of why fluoride should not be added to our drinking water, see, Dr Paul Connett’s article, ‘50 reasons to oppose fluoridation’. Paul Connett PhD is a retired professor of chemistry (St. Lawrence University, NY, USA) who has been exposing the dangers of fluoride (based on the science) for some time.

Dr. Connett states that ‘Fluoridation is a bad medical practice’. His first 6 points of the 50 points are:

1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment.

2) Fluoridation is unethical.

3) The dose cannot be controlled.

4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability.

5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water.

6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient.

Dr Paul Connett

cubed-redmatte

Whyte House Graphics

Hazardous waste put in our water as fluoride

By Spencer D Gear

Photobucket

How is it possible that something that is labelled as ‘hazardous waste’ for a rubbish tip is placed in our water supply for the populace to drink?

I was provoked to consider more on this issue when I read this article. Please take a read of this news item from the central western town of Cowra in NSW (Australia), ‘Council counts high cost of unlawful waste disposal’[1] (Cowra Community Times, 7 June 2012). Here it reports how the Bourke Shire Council has been fined $10,000 and ordered to pay court costs of $14,000 for ‘unlawfully transporting and disposing of hazardous waste at its own waste depot’. In addition, it has been ordered to pay ‘clean-up costs and risk-assessment reports totalling more than $30,000’.

The Council admitted it was guilty.

What was this “hazardous waste”? What was it that was dumped by the Bourke Council for which it was fined? It was the very chemical that the Blyth Labor Government forced into Queensland’s water supplies –sodium fluoride. Yes, the fluoride that is in our water supply is a toxic poison. I have had to install a reverse osmosis machine under my kitchen sink to remove fluoride from my household water because of what the Blyth government did in forcing this toxin, hazardous waste, fluoride into our water supply.

By the way, not all in the Queensland Labor Party agreed with this decision. See, ‘Labor branch opposes fluoridation’.

It will save the new Newman LNP government millions of dollars if it is removed.

If you don’t believe me on the dangers of fluoride in our water supply, check out Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS. He is no dummy when it comes to dentistry and understanding the effects of fluoride. He is a practicing dentist, has two doctorates (biochemistry and dentistry) and is Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Since April of 1999, he has “publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay”.

He summarises his reasons in his article, “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water”.

Why is it that about 98% of Europe does not put fluoride in the water supply?

Dr. Limeback has stated that there is now a better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental decay. What little benefit fluoridated water may still provide is derived primarily through application to the teeth orally, through brushing. Fluoride does not need to be swallowed to be effective. It is not an essential nutrient.

See the interview with Dr. William Hirzy of the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA about the bone cancer and rare liver cancer associated with fluoride digestion by rats and mice.

Dr Limeback noted in 2002, “Here in Toronto we’ve been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver – which has never fluoridated – has a cavity rate lower than Toronto’s”.

Bourke Council has been fined for dumping the poisonous waste that we put into fluoridated water. What a paradox that we swallow it in water, but it is too toxic for the local waste dump.

To discover the dangers of sodium fluoride, you can Google ‘sodium fluoride + material safety data sheet‘ to find lots of information on the hazardous nature of sodium fluoride.

We should all spare a thought for the people of the Murrumba electorate and the rest of Queensland, whose water supplies have been dosed with Fluorodose: this is sodium fluoride that is put into public water-treatment tanks in 5 kg bags. The bags dissolve and the ‘lucky’ people of Queensland get to drink the dissolved bag as well as the poisonous fluoride – sodium fluoride that in the dump at Bourke NSW is considered hazardous waste.

This was an undemocratic decision forced on the people of Queensland by the Blyth government.

Appendix

Since articles come and go from newspapers on the www, here is the article as it appeared in the Cowra Community News:

Council counts high cost of unlawful waste disposal[2]

BOURKE Shire Council has been convicted and fined $10,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of $14,000 after pleading guilty to unlawfully transporting and disposing of hazardous waste at its own waste depot.

It’s also been ordered to foot clean-up costs and risk-assessment reports totalling more than $30,000.

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) brought the prosecution in Bourke Local Court after it became aware that council staff transported between 400 and 600kg of sodium fluoride, a hazardous waste, to the Bourke waste depot from its water treatment plant.

The court was told the incident occurred in October 2010 and that the waste depot was not licensed to accept hazardous waste.

The court found that while no environmental harm occurred on this occasion, there was potential for environmental harm and the actions of council employees had been careless.

EPA acting chief environmental regulator, Mark Gifford, says the case highlights the need for councils, in particular, to be aware of their legal obligations.

“In this case the evidence showed that council staff had considered the hazardous nature of sodium fluoride, but ultimately reached incorrect conclusions about how it should be disposed of,” Mr Gifford says in a statement.

“Sodium fluoride is classified as hazardous waste under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.

“As such, the Bourke Shire Waste Depot is not able to accept this product.

“The fact that council’s staff were directed to transport the waste to council’s own waste depot is most concerning.

“The EPA received information that council had disposed of the sodium fluoride in the waste depot, launched an investigation and issued (the) council with a Clean-Up Notice.

“The Clean-Up Notice required (the) council to arrange for the sodium fluoride to be excavated and removed from the waste depot and transported to a hazardous waste facility.

“On top of the fine and costs order, (the) council has had to pay for clean-up costs and risk assessment reports totalling more than $30,000.” Mr Gifford says.

Notes:

[1] See the Appendix for a copy of the full article.

[2] Available at: http://cowracommunitynews.com/viewnews.php?log=succ&newsid=672&id=3 (Accessed 7 June 2012).

Nudist beaches not smart idea for the Smart State

Welcome to Queensland –

the Smart State!

Courtesy Wikipedia

By Spencer D Gear

Surely there are beaches beyond measure in Australia for nudists! We should be able to find hundreds of secluded beaches around the country that would be ideal for nudists to use. We have thousands of kilometres of glorious coastline — 25,760 km to be exact. [2]

Why would anybody object to giving people the freedom they seek to engage in beach nudity? One nudist told ABC radio, “The ‘facts’ as put by the opponents of nude beaches are nearly always erroneous or based on religious teachings and leanings”. [3] Let’s check the facts to find if there are good reasons why nudist beaches do not serve the best interests of most Australians and why they are not a smart idea for the Smart State.

1. Children at risk at nudist beaches

On 15th February 1975, Maslin Beach, 40km from Adelaide’s CBD, became Australia’s first legal nudist beach.[4] In 2004, a 36-year-old male paedophile abducted three boys, aged 8, 9 and 10 at an Adelaide park, and took them for a naked swim at Maslin Beach. The boys were not found until the next day. The paedophile “pleaded guilty to abducting the boys and was found guilty of causing them to expose their bodies for his prurient interest” and was jailed for three years. [5]

One nudist went public in Qld., stating that “legal nude beaches have been a part of life in several Australian states and territories for many years without any problems.” [6] The Maslin Beach conviction refutes that stance. We will discover many other problems worldwide associated with nudist beaches.

2. Negative effects on local residents

A friend who lives at Coonarr Beach near Bundaberg (Qld., Australia) told me that she was walking alone on the beach in December 2005. Apparently a nude man had been sitting among the fallen trees near the beach and she hadn’t seen him when she walked one way along the beach. After she had walked past him, he apparently entered the ocean. On her return, he waited until she was almost to where he was, walked out of the water towards her, and was so close he could have touched her.

She was so frightened by this encounter as she couldn’t see another person anywhere on the beach. She has now discovered that he visits there frequently.

On another day, while walking with her husband on the beach, a nudist walked within 10 metres of them. She said that the man regularly walks nude on the beach, has shorts in hand and puts them on just to walk past the residences.

Recently a nudist couple was on the beach, only metres away from other beach-goers who were clad in swimwear. She said that the police were called but did not arrive for 1.5 hours.

A few weeks earlier another resident observed a nude man walking through the car park to the toilets. When confronted he replied, “But this is a nudist beach.” Nudist beaches are illegal in Qld.

Almost every day, this woman reports that there is a nudist visiting the beach. Most of them are men and she does not feel safe walking the beach near her house.

3. Clothing optional beaches are not family-friendly

The local councils prepared for the publicity when perverts are attracted to such beaches and their actions attract mass media attention? Why can’t all Qld. beaches be kept family-friendly with a reputation for the modesty they promote rather than the trendy idea of nudist beaches? Do councils want these kinds of headlines?

Dogging takes place on our nudist beach;

Indecent sexual behaviour on sand dunes at our nudist beach;

Cruising for sex with nudists;

Nudists want more – a beach for open-air sex!

Six nudists in the summer of 2005 were “fined in a crackdown on illegal naturism at a Merseyside [UK] beauty spot visited by families.” Nudists were arrested in sand dunes at Ainsdale, Mersyside and were fined £80 each “for public order offences.”

A spokesman for Mersyside police said that “after we received a number of complaints from both visitors and residents in the area, we decided to launch an operation to stop this type of behaviour. This type of activity is not acceptable to the many families with young children who like to go out and enjoy the sand dunes on a sunny afternoon.” A local councillor said that “naked sunbathers had been a problem in the past, but recently the dunes have been a haunt for ‘couples behaving inappropriately.’ This time it became even worse.” [7]

4. Nude beaches are not good for a tourist reputation

Is this the type of headline that a local Council wants to promote its region, “Sex in open air scandal”? The respectable seaside town of Budleigh Salterton, Devon, UK, has had its reputation tarnished by its nudist beach appearing on a pornographic website where it was promoted as a “dogging” site, “a hot spot where people go to have sex in the open.” “Dogging” is a colloquial term to describe an activity where couples and strangers meet to view others’ sexual activities. “The website claims the town’s beach is an ideal place to meet ‘exhibitionists and gays’ and also attracts couples who are willing to join others in sexual activities.” [8]

“Dogging” is not an isolated example of what happens at nudist beaches. It is reported at Brittas Bay, Ireland. [9]
Naturists in the Florida Keys are pushing for a legal clothing-optional beach in their region. Part of their argument is, “Like it is with Haulover [Miami, FL], the local chapter plans to have beach patrols or ‘beach buddies’ who would maintain a wholesome family atmosphere on the beach. ‘Everybody knows it’s about family, not about sex,’ he said of the group’s nudity.” They claim that they “lose quite a bit of European tourist business. They call, find out there is not nude sunbathing in the Keys, and they go to Haulover.” [10]

This is a feeble excuse to promote nudism as there are nudist beaches around the world, including Europe, that are experiencing dogging, voyeurism and exhibitionism.

5. Nudists promote breaking the law

A visit to the Free Beaches of Australia Inc. website [11] reveals how this organisation promotes legal and “unofficial” (i.e. illegal) nudist beaches across Australia. The website gives descriptions on how to reach the beach locations. These nudists are encouraging the breaking of the law.

The Brisbane Courier-Mail reported that “Bargara (near Bundaberg) nudist and Free Beach Australia spokeswoman, Patsy Brown, said Coonarr [Beach] had been used as a de facto nude beach for more than 10 years now with no problems and no arrests.” [12] However, nudist beaches are illegal in Queensland.

6. Nude beaches create problems we do not need

There are reports around the world of the deleterious consequences associated with nudist beaches.

a. In Oslo, Norway, nudists at an “open beach” at Huk “are being increasingly harassed by photographers, flashers and vulgar requests and police have had to respond several times” in the summer of 2005. “I don’t go to Huk any more,” said a 52-year-old woman who wanted to remain anonymous. She called the police “after feeling threatened by a man on the beach.” [13]

b. Nudists want more than just beaches for swimming and sun baking. A beach for public sex is now wanted: “The Dutch Naturists Federation (NFN) has called on the government to set aside certain beaches for people who like to have sex in public. Naturists feel that displays of public sex do not belong on regular nudist beaches, a spokesperson for the NFN said in a radio interview. Public sex involving couples and orgies in the open air are also said to [be] a growing phenomenon.” [14]

7. Police don’t need the extra work

I commend the superb work of the police force in Qld. Police have their hands full in dealing with illegal activities. They don’t need the additional pressure of pursuing nudist crimes.

BBC News reported: “Police strip to halt nudist crime” Why? “To try to help catch prowlers who are demanding sex from bathers on a nudist beach” at Studland Beach, Dorset. However, police chiefs said that the “undercover constables may wear swimming costumes or trunks and will not be naked” to try to deal with “the activities of several predatory males and concern from nudists that they were being approached.” [15]

A New Zealand nudist beach has caused extra work for police who “will begin patrolling a popular Bay of Plenty nudist beach after complaints about the behaviour of gay men in the sand dunes” where a man has been charged “with committing an indecent act in a public place after police visited Papamoa Beach.” [16]

8. Nudity is for private, not public, expression

It is common to hear nudists blast religious people for opposing public nudity, as one nudist did on ABC radio, “The ‘facts’ as put by the opponents of nude beaches are nearly always erroneous or based on religious teachings and leanings.” [17] As this document shows, reasoned arguments against nudism can be made without any reference to religious literature.

However, it’s important to note that the human body is not condemned or ignored in the Bible. The body has dignity as it is called “God’s temple” [18] for the Christian. This implies something special about the view of sex and the human form. The Bible is not prudish (read Song of Solomon), but the biblical emphasis is on modesty and decency, thus eliminating any indiscriminate display of public nudity.

Public nakedness should be a source of shame and embarrassment. Perhaps the resurgence and promotion of public nudity says more about our degenerate morality than its attempt to promote freedom.

Nudity is meant for private and not public display.

9. The Qld. Premier says that nude beaches are not wanted by the public

In a letter to a Coonarr Beach resident, dated 11th November 2005, the Chief of Staff of the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, wrote:

“The Premier does not support nude bathing. While the Premier is aware that there are some members of the community who would like to see the Government legalise the practice of nude bathing, he does not believe that the majority of Queenslanders support the introduction of clothing optional beaches.

“The Premier is not satisfied that the benefits for those Queenslanders who want clothing optional beaches are sufficient to justify the potential negatives of such a proposal. The Premier is also concerned that the introduction of clothing optional beaches could create safety issues for people legally using the beaches, as well as others who live nearby.

“Queensland beaches should be available to be enjoyed by all Queenslanders and visitors to our State.” [19]

The Qld. Premier highlighted an incident on ABC radio “in which a child was assaulted at Brisbane’s South Bank to exemplify his concerns about nude beaches. While the beach at South Bank is not a nude beach, the Premier says he is not convinced people attending such beaches would be safe from sexual assaults.” [20]

Why did the Burnett Shire Council near Bundaberg, Qld., reject the nudist beach proposal? Free Beaches of Australia reported that “a letter from the Premier’s office to a resident of Coonarr [Beach] was tabled stating that the Premier was not in favour of legalising nude beaches. The councillors voted 100% against and the matter was closed, all over and done within about three minutes.” [21]

10. Governments are trying to reduce health hazards, not sponsor them

“Queensland has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world.” [22] This means that “every seven minutes a Queenslander is diagnosed with skin cancer” according to a TV advertising campaign” [23]

Having a deep summer tan on much of the body was considered a healthy Aussie summer look. Not any more! Governments have promoted the “slip, slop, slap” message and the wearing of sun-smart clothing to reduce the risk of sun cancer.

At such a time when the dangers of skin cancer [24] are well known in Australia, I believe it is irresponsible for governments to legalise nudist beaches that encourage greater exposure to the sun and elimination of protective clothing.

Nudism is a public health hazard.

11. Nudist beaches are world-wide, but that doesn’t make them right or good

Because nudist beaches may be happening on a worldwide basis, this is not a good reason for legalising them. This research has shown the problems associated with some nudist beaches. Because many are doing it does not make it correct. Our governments, having a duty of care for all their people, should take the responsible role and not legislate anything that allows or promotes activities that are a threat to people and involve more responsibilities for an over-worked police force.

12. Discrimination redefined

A nudist told ABC radio that local and state governments that reject nudism are law breakers. His reasoning was: “We are part of the fabric of society but as a group we have been discriminated against in this state for too long and it must stop. Discrimination is illegal in Australia, and the failure of local and state governments to provide legal nude beaches for us and many tourists to enjoy is quite frankly against the law.” [25]

The public relations officer of the Free Beach Association of Queensland, Anita Grigg, promotes the same view, calling on a Qld. MP “to take a stand against discriminatory laws on nudism.” [24]

This is an interesting twist to the meaning of discrimination. Can’t the nudists see that it is they who are discriminating against those who want to wear clothing on beaches? If we accept the nudists’ line of reasoning, it means that many laws discriminate against several kinds of people. Couldn’t the paedophile, thief and murderer accuse the government of discrimination against them also? This is an extreme attempt by nudists to draw attention to their cause.

The nudists are breaking the law in Qld. As this article indicates, there are reasonable arguments for governments to reject public nudism.

13. Conclusion

We have traversed the landscape of some nudist beaches and discovered that all is not well for the promoters of naturist freedom. Children and adults are at risk and illegal activities are promoted. As a duty of care to all people, the smart idea in the Smart State is never to legalise nudist beaches.

Here I have presented reasonable reasons to support the view of Qld. Premier, Peter Beattie, that he “is not satisfied that the benefits for those Queenslanders who want clothing optional beaches are sufficient to justify the potential negatives of such a proposal.” [27]

“Even the most rational approach to ethics is defenseless if there isn’t the will to do what is right” (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) [28]

Notes

[2] Wikipedia, available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia [cited 25 January 2006].

[3] Paul McCarragher, “Clothing-optional beaches: a nudist’s perspective,” 21 December 2005, ABC (radio) Wide Bay, available from: http://www.abc.net.au/widebay/stories/s1535831.htm [cited 26 January 2006]. This link was unavailable on 27 January 2016, but the story was available at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.nude/DWhiDufMnMg (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[4] Free Beaches of Australia Inc., available from: http://www.freebeach.com.au/nude-beaches/fba-origins/ (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[5] See the stories in the Adelaide Advertiser, 24 March 2004, 30 March 2004, 6 July 2004, 13 July 2004, 2 July 2005. For a report of the verdict and sentencing, see ABC South Australia (Online), “Man jailed for three years for triple abduction,” Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-07-08/man-jailed-for-three-years-for-triple-abduction/2054254 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[6] Paul McCarragher op cit.

[7] Jessica Shaughnessy, “Six fined for sunbathing in the nude” (Online) Jul 21 2005, Daily Post Staff, Liverpool.co.uk [Accessed 3 February 2007]. It is now available at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Six+fined+for+sunbathing+in+the+nude.-a0134234099 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[8] “‘Sex in open air’ scandal,” Devon 24 (Online), 08 September 2005 (Online), [cited 3 February 2007]. This link was no longer available online, 27 January 2016.

[9] Available at: https://www.fabswingers.com/forum/ireland/25838 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[10] Alyson Matley, “Bare truth: Naturists want beach,” 19 May 2005, Available from: http://www.keynoter.com/articles/2005/05/18/news/news03.txt [cited 23 January 2006]. This link was no longer available online on 27 January 2016.

[11] Available at: http://www.freebeach.com.au/nude-beaches/ (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[12] Glenis Green, “Submissions sought on legal nude beach,” The Courier-Mail, 25 October 2005, p. 6.

[13] ‘Flashers pester nudists’, Aftenposten: News from Norway (online), 12 August 2005. Available at: http://hippiehollow.com/news/news_comments.php?id=44_0_2_0_C (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[14] Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10 August 2005, ‘Not under our boardwalk, we’re naturists’ (Dutch naturists want beach for sex in public). Available at: http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/country-news/Not-under-our-boardwalk-were-naturists_131516.html (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[15] BBC News, 20 July 2005, available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4700457.stm
[cited 23 September, 2005].

[16] Police watch on popular nudist beach. nzherald.co.nz, May 2, 2002. Available at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1843042 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[17] Paul McCarragher op cit.

[18] I Corinthians 3:16.

[19] I have a copy of this letter, but for the privacy of the people concerned, I withhold their names and addresses.

[20] “Beattie exposes nude beach fears,” 1 February 2005, ABC Sunshine & Cooloola Coasts, Queensland, Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/news/australia/qld/sunshine/200502/s1293453.htm (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[21] Patsy & Richard Brown, “Quest for Nude Beach at Bundaberg Fails,” Available from: http://www.freebeach.com.au/bundaberg%20report.htm [cited 26 January 2006]. This link was no longer available at 27 January 2016.

[22] Southbank Corporation, “Protecting Queenslanders Under the Sun,” Sponsor Profile – Suncorp, Available from: http://www.southbankcorporation.com.au/partners/profile-_suncorp [cited 27 January 2006]. On 27 January 2016 this link was no longer available.

[23] Heard on WIN TV, Bundaberg, Qld., Friday, 27 January 2006, at approx. 6.15pm during the Channel 9 National News.

[24] “Skin Cancer Prevention”, Available from: http://www.guide4living.com/skincancer/prevention.htm
[cited 26 January 2006].

[25] Paul McCarragher op cit.

[26] “Govt urged to relax nude beach laws,” ABC News Online, 27 January 2005. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-01-27/govt-urged-to-relax-nude-beach-laws/626320 (Accessed 27 January 2016).

[27] Peter Beattie op cit.

[28] Alexander Solzhenitsyn Quotes & Sayings (Accessed 27 January 2016).

Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things (Philippians 4:8).

cubed-redmatte

More Fluoride Spin

Examples of dental fluorosis in 8- and 9-year old children who grew up in fluoridated Auckland, New Zealand

By Spencer D Gear

It is interesting to observe what one professional did to support the status quo in dentistry in promoting the addition of fluoride to a city’s water supply. Take a read of this Australian dental professional’s letter to my local newspaper.

Dental President’s push for fluoride

This letter-to-the-editor appeared in the Bundaberg NewsMail (Queensland, Australia), Wednesday, October 26, 2005, p. 6.

False claims on fluoride
I was horrified to read the arguments against fluoridation recently printed in the NewsMail.

They falsely claimed or implied that water fluoridation caused a whole range of diseases and medical problems.

Would the World Health Organisation, US-based Centres for Disease Control, the UK Medical Research Council, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council and more than 100 of the world’s leading health and
scientific authorities endorse water fluoridation if it cased (sic) health problems?

Of course not; the suggestion is ludicrous.

An independent 2002 cost benefit analysis showed that the state would save more than $1 billion over the next 30 years if Queensland’s larger towns were fluoridated.

That’s in 2002 dollars and takes into account all capital and ongoing costs.
Rather than costing money, water fluoridation has a massive cost benefit.

Why do we put up with the worst teeth in the country and the most expensive public dental system in the country?

Why are more than 140,000 Queenslanders (more than all the surgical and “secret” waiting lists combined) on public dental waiting lists?

Why do our pensioners and low income earners have to wait for years for a dental check up?

Every other state and territory fluoridated their drinking water decades ago and they have reaped the financial and health benefits ever since.

The Australian Dental Association and other health authorities look forward to working with state and local government bodies to implement what was recently described by the US Centres for Disease Control as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

DR MICHAEL FOLEY
President
Australian Dental Association
Queensland Branch

My response to the Bundaberg News-Mail

How does one respond to a dental professional who seems to have the dental status quo on his side? After all, he wrote: “Would the World Health Organisation, US-based Centres for Disease Control, the UK Medical Research Council, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council and more than 100 of the world’s leading health and scientific authorities endorse water fluoridation if it cased (sic) health problems?”

Dear Editor,

Dr Michael Foley, as President of the Australian Dental Association (Qld.), is lauding the benefits, especially the cost benefits, of adding a toxin (fluoride) to our water supply [2]. He quotes the authorities that he wants but ignores others.

He omitted telling us that 98% of Europe does not drink fluoridated water. Apart from 10% of the UK and 3% of Spain, virtually every European country has either ceased or rejected outright water fluoridation as a health program. [3]

Dr. Hardy Limeback is no dummy in dentistry, as head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, Canada, and was once an ardent supporter of the benefits of fluoride – but no more.

He says that “mass medicating” the public through the water supply is dangerous and unnecessary, stating that the benefits are “exaggerated” and there is growing evidence of the results of overexposure from fluoridated toothpaste and other sources.

He wrote, “On the risk side, so many people will end up with ruined teeth, fragile bones, acute sensitivities, thyroid problems and an increased risk for cancer, all in the name of preventive dentistry.”

He admits, “I am ashamed for my profession and can no longer take part in the charade.” [4]

Nobel Laureate in Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlson of Sweden wrote: “I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history.” [5]

Why is it that The Harvard School of Dental Medicine announced in July 2005 that it would investigate the work of one of its faculty members after an environmental watchdog group accused the professor of ignoring research conducted by one of his own students that linked fluoride to bone cancer in boys? [6]

But Dr. Foley is “horrified” about the anti-fluoride letters in the NewsMail and claims the link with diseases and medical problems is false. Try telling that to the Harvard University dental researcher and the European countries that contradict Foley’s claims.
Sincerely,
Spencer Gear

P. S. A very abbreviated version of my letter was published.

Various levels of fluorosis (Fluoride Action Network)

My Response to the Fraser Coast Chronicle

I responded to a letter from Maryborough, Qld., medical practitioner, Dr. Cotton. I am not aware that this letter was published.

19 April 2006

Dear Editor,

I applaud Dr. Cotton’s (Forum, 15 April 2006) call: “What we need is leadership on the issue [of fluoridation].” But it must be truthful leadership about fluoride’s effects.

Dr. Hardy Limeback is no dummy in dentistry. He’s Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Canada. He used to be a leading advocate for fluoride and pushed for it in Ontario. Now he is opposed.

This is the leadership needed on the Fraser Coast. A study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback’s worst fears. “Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones.”

Skeletal fluorosis is a severe condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. What are the earliest symptoms?

According to Dr. Limeback, they are mottled and brittle teeth. He said that in Canada they were now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than on treating cavities. And that includes his own dental practice.

Dr. Limeback compares two Canadian cities. “Here in Toronto we’ve been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver, which has never fluoridated, has a cavity rate lower than Toronto’s.”

This is the type of leadership needed!

Yours sincerely,
Spencer Gear
Bundaberg

It’s time that we got the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the fluoride debate.

LINKS

1. “Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation,” by John Colquhoun, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1, Autumn 1997, available from: http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm (John Colquhoun was from the School of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand).

2. Dr. Hardy Limeback, “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water,” available from the Fluoride Action Network at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm [14th August 2004]. Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5G-1G6. E-mail: [email protected].

3. I highly recommend the Fluoride Action Network and its range of articles, reports on scientific research, to provide information about the status of fluoride that you will not find in conventional medical or dental circles.

Notes

2.    Bundaberg NewsMail, 26 Oct., 2005, p. 6.
3.   “Why is the Media Finally Paying Attention to Fluoridation?” 14 March 2001, Canton, New York. Fluoride Action Network, available from PR-Archive.com at: http://public-utilities.pr-archive.com/en/pr42418.htm (Accessed 26 October 2005).
4.    Ken Macqueen, “Biting Back Against Fluoride: The long campaign against treated water is gaining new adherents,” Macleans, November 25, 2002, available from the Canadian Encyclopedia at: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012369 (Accessed 26 October 2005).
5.    “Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine (2000), Opposes Fluoridation,” Available from the Fluoride Action
Network at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm (Accessed 14th August 2004).
6.    Brendan R. Linn, Crimson Staff Writer, “Dental School Begins Investigation of Prof: School probes accusations that Douglass misreported findings of cancer study Published on Friday, July 01, 2005, Harvard Crimson, Harvard University’s newspaper, Available from: http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article508199.html (Accessed 2 July 2005).

Why should we oppose homosexual marriage?

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)

Spencer D Gear

My local freebie newspaper [1] had 3 letters in favour of homosexual marriage in its ‘Speak up’ (letters to the editor) section, under the heading, “Pollies are under fire over gay rights”. This was an opportunity for the newspaper to print 3 pro-homosexual marriage letters. There was not any letter opposing homosexual marriage.[2]

Let’s summarise what these letters promoted:

1. One said that it was amazing that government agencies, Centrelink and the tax department, allow same-sex relationships but ‘the government will not allow it’. This person found this to be a contradiction and considered that it was discrimination against homosexuals. Pollies need to ask: “Would they be in government without the votes of homosexual citizens?” This person did not think so.

2. The line taken by the second person, a father, was that he supported gay marriage because his son is gay and has found his ‘soul mate’. This son and his partner are organizing a wedding in Sydney for next year. Both families support this union ‘wholeheartedly’ and believe they should have the same right to marriage as anyone. Homosexuals can’t change and it’s a hard road when they experience so much discrimination. This son and his male partner will marry whether it is legal or not and celebration will be with family and friends. This Dad is ‘proud’ of his homosexual son and the son will live with his partner ‘as a gay married couple’.

3. We need to ‘move with the times’ and legalise same-sex marriage, said the third advocate of gay marriage. Because marriage has always been a heterosexual union, doesn’t mean it should continue to be that way. There were no votes for women, no IVF, etc, but “we live in the 21^st century” and we should allow same-sex marriages, with the legal protections of a heterosexual couple.

A. How should we respond to the promotion of gay marriage?

1. Not one of these writers or I would be here if same-sexual relations were the norm. It takes an ovum and a sperm (woman and man) to create a human being. Same-sex marriage will not do it. A contribution from the opposite sex, whether through sexual intercourse or IVF, is necessary for a child to be born.

A zygote is the initial cell formed when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm. An ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male are needed to create a new human being. A zygote contains DNA that originates from the joining of the male and female. It provides the genetic information to form a new human being. Two males can’t achieve a zygote; neither can two females. It requires a joining of a male and a female in sexual union or through IVF. Shouldn’t this need for the genetic material from a male AND a female send an important message? Gay marriage will not do it!

2. Besides, from a biological point of view, the vagina was designed for sexual penetration. The anus and rectum were not. A 1982 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals was up to 50 times higher than the normal rate.[3] The New England Journal of Medicine (1997) showed the “strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact”.[4]

Why? The lining of the anus is very much thinner than the much thicker lining of the vagina. The anus tears readily and thus makes that region of the anatomy more vulnerable to viruses and bacteria.

The human body was not designed for anal penetration. But the politically correct speak would not want us to know that.

No matter how much some want to make same-sex marriage appealing, from the beginning of time marriage has involved the union of a man and a woman. If that link is broken, we don’t have marriage. It’s as simple as that. No claims like “I have a gay son”, “we must move with the times”, or “we live in the 21st century”, will change the fact that marriage is a heterosexual union.

B. The intolerance of tolerance

During the 2019 Australian Open Tennis Grand Slam, Anna Wintour, fashion editor with Vogue, raised her disagreement with champion tennis player, Margaret Court, over the homosexual issue.

Dame Anna Wintour DBE dived into the ‘intolerance’ issue against homosexuals. Her target was tennis champion, Margaret Court.

(Wintour at the September 2013 Milan Fashion Week, photo courtesy Wikipedia)

The Canberra Times reported that Wintour ‘has thrown her support behind the push to rename Margaret Court Arena over the tennis champion’s opposition to same-sex marriage’.

Wintour stated, ‘I find that it is inconsistent with the sport for Margaret Court’s name to be on a stadium that does so much to bring all people together across their differences”’, in a speech delivered at the Australian Open Inspirational Series in Melbourne on Thursday, to applause.

She continued: ‘This much I think is clear to anyone who understands the spirit and the joy of the game. Intolerance has no place in tennis” (Singer 2019, emphasis added).

I find it interesting when a person opposes the ‘intolerance’ of Margaret Court on the subject of homosexuality and doesn’t see her own intolerance towards Court’s view.

B.1 Anti-Margaret Court intolerance

The Collins’ Dictionary (online) defines ‘intolerance’ as an ‘unwillingness to let other people act in a different way or hold different opinions from you’ (2019. s.v. intolerance).

Therefore, to accuse Margaret Court of intolerance because she didn’t support same-sex marriage is to engage in an act of intolerance towards Court. When will the supporters of homosexual relationships wake up to the fact that to accuse opponents of being intolerant, is to engage in an act of intolerance perpetrated by themselves?

That’s what happened with this example from Anna Wintour and her opposition to Margaret Court’s view on same-sex marriage.

It is a self-contradictory statement to accuse another person of intolerance while perpetrating intolerance oneself.

Image result for clipart intolerance homosexuality

(image courtesy Brotherhood News: Facebook censors biblical posts against homosexuality)

C. What about these issues?

(1) Mother and father are important for a child’s up-bringing. This Millennium Cohort Study: Centre for Longitudinal Studies in the UK found that

“children in stable, married families were said to have fewer externalising problems at age 5 than virtually all of those with different family histories. The most marked differences were seen for children born into cohabiting families where parents had separated, and to solo mothers who had not married the natural father. These children were three times more likely than those in stable, married families to exhibit behavioural problems, judging by mothers’ reports”.

See Bill Muehlenberg’s summary of this study of the need for both a heterosexual mother and father in, ‘Why children need a mother and father‘.

(2) God’s design from the beginning of time was for marriage of a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24-25, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (ESV).

Jesus Christ affirmed this passage according to Matthew 19:4-6, “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate’ (ESV).

(3) Paul, the apostle, was able to speak of ‘men who practice homosexuality’ as being among those who were among ‘such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God’ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). In this list, homosexuals were placed among the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers who were the ‘unrighteous’ who would not inherit God’s kingdom. But Jesus changes all of these people – even homosexuals. If you don’t believe me, read my interview with a redeemed lesbian, Jeanette Howard, “One woman’s journey out of lesbianism: An interview with Jeanette Howard“. I recommend her book, Out of Egypt: Leaving lesbianism behind.

Here are some more reasons to oppose homosexual marriage.

The homosexual sexual act is a revolt against nature. For procreation to allow for the continuation of the human race, a heterosexual liaison is needed. If homosexual sex were normal and practised extensively, the human race would be greatly diminished.

There is a natural factor: Which part of the body lubricates when stimulated: The vagina (through clitoris) or the rectum? The answer is obvious. The vagina is meant for penetration; The anus isn’t.

See my article: The dangers of anal sex and fisting

Other resources

Genetic cause of homosexuality?

Governments may promote gay marriage: Should we as evangelical Christians?

Polyamory: Poly leads to society’s destruction.

Works consulted:

Singer, M 2019. ‘Intolerance has no place in tennis’: Wintour criticises Margaret Court’, The Canberra Times (online), 24 January. Available at: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/intolerance-has-no-place-in-tennis-wintour-criticises-margaret-court-20190124-p50tcs.html#comments (Accessed 25 January 2019).

Notes:

[1] Northern Times (Pine Rivers edition), September 2, 2011, p. E8.

[2] I sent a letter-to-the-editor to this newspaper, opposing homosexual marriage, but it was not printed.

[3] These details are in the article ‘The unhealthy homosexual lifestyle’, available at: http://home60515.com/4.html (Accessed 26 September 2011).

[4] Ibid.

There are many scientific reasons to oppose fluoridation of Queensland’s water supply

By Spencer D Gear

Yes, fluoride is more acutely toxic than lead. See HERE. See also, “Silicofluorides & Higher Blood Lead: Statement from Dr. Roger Masters”.

Moderate/Severe Fluorosis
Photo by David Kennedy, DDS

On 7th February 2008, I wrote this letter to:

The Hon. Andrew McNamara MP,

Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation,

Member for Hervey Bay

Dear Mr. McNamara,

Thank you for your letter of 30th January 2008, presenting your government’s one-eyed perspective on fluoridation. Your letter was a template of your government’s way to provide only one side of the fluoride debate and censor the other negative information about fluoride.

I could take up many of the points made in your letter and challenge them with scientific and logical information, but I don’t have the time because I work for a living. I will challenge one of your points: “There is no credible evidence to link water fluoridation with adverse health effects” (p. 3).

The very latest edition of Scientific American, January 2008, has an article by Dan Fagin, “Second Thoughts about Fluoride” (pp. 74-81) that challenges some of your government’s views.[1] Here is a dot point summary of some of the information from this article that contradicts your statement that there is no credible evidence to link use of fluoride in the water supply with adverse effects:

Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.
A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government [USA] lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults.
Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study (p. 75).
TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: Fluoride is in many foods, beverages and dental products. The ubiquity of the cavity-fighting chemical can result in overconsumption, particularly among young children (p. 75).
Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift in the country where the practice began (p. 78).
But enamel fluorosis, except in the severest cases, has no health impact beyond lowered self-esteem: the tooth marks are unattractive and do not go away (although there are masking treatments). The much more important question is whether fluoride’s effects extend beyond altering the biochemistry of tooth enamel formation. Says longtime fluoride researcher Pamela DenBesten of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Dentistry: “We certainly can see that fluoride impacts the way proteins interact with mineralized tissue, so what effect is it having elsewhere at the cellular level? Fluoride is very powerful, and it needs to be treated respectfully” (p. 79).
Clashes over the possible neurological effects of fluoride have been just as intense. Phyllis Mullenix, then at the Forsyth Institute in Boston, set off a firestorm in the early 1990s when she reported that experiments on lab rats showed that sodium fluoride can accumulate in brain tissue and affect animal behavior. Prenatal exposures, she reported, correlated with hyperactivity in young rats, especially males, whereas exposures after birth had the opposite effect, turning female rats into what Mullenix later described as “couch potatoes.” Although her research was eventually published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, it was attacked by other scientists who said that her methodology was flawed and that she had used unrealistically high dosages. Since then, however, a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ, and research has also suggested a possible mechanism: the formation of aluminum fluoride complexes—small inorganic molecules that mimic the structure of phosphates and thus influence enzyme activity in the brain. There is also some evidence that the silicofluorides used in water fluoridation may enhance the uptake of lead into the brain (p. 80).
The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored” (p. 80).
“What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant” (pp. 80-81).
Opponents of fluoridation, meanwhile, have been emboldened by the NRC report. “What the committee did was very, very important, because it’s the first time a truly balanced panel has looked at this and raised important questions,” says Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University and the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, one of the most active antifluoridation groups world-wide. “I absolutely believe it’s a scientific turning point because now everything’s on the table. Fluoride is the most consumed drug in the U.S., and it’s time we talked about it” (p. 81).

The following are some of the points in your letter to me that could be challenged if I had the time:

1. “Fluoridation of our water supplies represents one of the Bligh Government’s most significant public health initiatives” (p. 1).

2. “Research has semonstrated that fluoridation – together with oral hygiene and good nutrition – can reduce tooth decay by up to 40%. We cannot ignore the extensive scientific evidence which shows that fluoridation is a safe and effective means of improving oral health” (p. 2)

3. “In June 2007, Australia’s highly respected National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) released an extensive review about the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation” (p. 2)

4. “The decision is about responding to the very clear wishes of the majority of Queenslanders who support the fluoridation of public water supplies” (p. 2). [with 60-70% support of Queenslanders]

5. “The Government has long supported water fluoridation as a safe and effective means of combating tooth decay” (p. 2)

6. “Fluoridation of drinking water is not mass medication, but is simply adjusting the levels of a naturally-occurring compound to provide substantial health benefits” (p. 2).

7. “Fluoride is a naturally occurring compound found in water, plants, rocks, soil, air and food” (p. 2). Arsenic is also a “naturally-occurring compound” in some water supplies (see “Managing arsenic in water supplies“).

8. “There is no credible evidence to link water fluoridation with adverse health effects” (p. 3).

9. “While fluoride can cause a slight increase in dental fluorosis – a barely detectable condition which does not damage the teeth – there is no scientifically or medically documented cases involving adverse health effects in these states [of Australia that have fluoridated water]” (p. 3).

10. “Fluoride will only be added to our water supplies at low levels which are not toxic for humans or animals” (p. 3).

11. “I would also encourage you to explore the Australian Dental Association’s website at www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/finfront.aspx for further information on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation as a means of promoting good oral health” (p. 3).

12. You recommend the US Centers for Disease control website “for further information on rigorous, peer reviewed scientific studies which have demonstrated fluoridation to be safe and effective” (p. 3).

13. “Reviews of peak health bodies around the world . . . have found there is no redible scientific evidence to link water fluoridation with allergies or other ill health effects wuch as cancer or asthma” (p. 3).

14. The Victorian Government’s Dept. of Human Services and the Cancer Council of Victoria “found no link between fluoride and bone cancer” (p. 3).

15. “While people of all ages benefit from drinking fluoride throughout their lives. . .” (p. 3)

16. “. . . a key prevention strategy such as water fluoridation . . .” (p. 4)

17. “The Government’s decision is not intended to disadvantage those opposed to fluoridation . . .” (p. 5).

That your government should choose to mass fluoridate Queensland when there is credible scientific evidence opposing your views, amazes me.

“In most European countries, where community water fluoridation has never been adopted, a substantial decline in caries [i.e tooth decay] prevalence has been reported in the last decades, with reductions in lifetime caries experience exceeding 75%.”[2]

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel laureate in medicine in the year 2000, wrote this about adding fluoride to the water supplies:

“I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history. . . The fact that in this situation a poison should deliberately be distributed throughout our environment in enormous quantities represents an ill-considered action. . . Water fluoridation also goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy. . . The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy. . . The dose cannot be adapted to individual requirements.”[3]

I urge your government to become responsible, in light of the BRIEF challenges I have provided to your position to mass medicate Queenslanders with fluoride. Dr. Carlsson, who is no medical idiot, has clearly stated the case against your view that “fluoridation of drinking water is not mass medication” (p. 2 of your letter). Dr. Carlsson’s medical statement is: “The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy. . . The dose cannot be adapted to individual requirements.”[4]

Yours sincerely,

Spencer Gear,

Hervey Bay 4655

Notes

[1] This information is made available by the Fluoride Action Network at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/sc.am.jan.2008.html[cited 7 February 2008].

[2] Pizzo G, et al. (2007). “Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review,” Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.

[3] “Dr Arvid Carlsson, “Nobel Laureate in Medicine (2000), Opposes Fluoridation,” available from: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm [cited 7 February 2008].

[4] Ibid.

I object strongly to the Queensland government forcing Queenslanders to ingest fluoride

Spencer D Gear

I wish to register my strong objections to the Queensland (Australia) government forcing local councils to place fluoride in our water supply. I object for these reasons:

1. We know the case against ingesting fluoride has been substantiated by scientific evidence. The scientific research shows the negative effects of fluoride on the brain, bones, thyroid, kidneys, links with cancer, birth defects and fluorosis.

See http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html for a bibliography of the scientific case against fluoride.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry University of Toronto, Canada, moved from supporting fluoride to one officially opposed since 1999 because of new evidence showing the lack of effectiveness of fluoride in water (see: http://www.citizenshealth.org/limeback.htm).

2. At a time when we know the damaging effects on human beings of asbestos, DDT and other chemicals, I believe it is an irrational move by the Qld. government to introduce fluoride to our cities’ water supplies when we know the scientific evidence against mass medicating the population with this toxic chemical.

3. Adding fluoride to Queensland’s water violates one of our most fundamental rights — informed consent to medication. As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion” (cited in: “Overview of Reasons to Oppose Water Fluoridation“).

4. No Qld. Council will be able to control the dose of fluoride ingested by each Queenslander who is forced to ingest fluoride as the amount of water ingested by a person varies individually. Therefore . . .

5. Each Council cannot track each person’s response to ingesting fluoride. This Qld government legislation ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.

6. Compulsorily adding fluoride to our water supplies, violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation which forbids human experimentation without the informed consent of the patient.

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2000, stated it clearly:

“I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history…Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy” (see http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm).

7. Some recent studies by eminent researchers strongly suggest that fluoride works best by direct action on the surface of the teeth through toothpaste, or gels used in dental treatments.

I object strongly to your government’s forcing Queenslanders to ingest the medicinal fluoride, without their consent, and especially when we know the deleterious consequences of ingesting fluoride.

Yours sincerely,

Spencer Gear,

Hervey Bay 4655

P.S. I included my Hervey Bay postal address but no longer live in Hervey Bay so it is no longer applicable.

Whytehouse Graphics