Choice group wants fluoride poll

21 Responses to “Choice group wants fluoride poll”

1. H on February 3rd, 2010 3:34 pm 1

   Um, Alex.. You do have a choice.. It’s called bottled water..
2. Pyrrho on February 3rd, 2010 5:01 pm 2

   Deja vu anyone?
   Does this mean that Mr. Young intends to mount a protest atop a wind tower??
   Or should the headline read
   “Choice group wants fluoride pole”?

   Perhaps the anti fluoridationist camp might consider this question. Historically, they have had a great deal of trouble coming up with an answer.

   Considering that artificial fluoridation has been in effect in many large towns and cities since the early seventies, and assuming that the claims of the anti fluoridation lobby (namely, artificial fluoridation at 1ppm is harmful, causing a net loss to the community) are correct, ( which is a very long way from being established) where are the expected adversely affected people?
   Surely they would have presented by now?

   Consider also;
   Why would a government deliberately and systematically poison its own voter base?
   For profit? Hardly. their are actually quicker and easier way to make a buck.

   Fluoridation is on of the greatest boons for public health to have been implemented in recent history.
   This statement alone has and will cause howls of derision, links to heavily biased and worthless web sites, accusations of being a “shill” for “big Pharma’ and sundry other conspiratorial favorites.

   Yet it wont find any spike in the numbers of fluoride associated pathology directly causal with the implementation of artificial fluoridation.
3. Ailsa Boyden on February 3rd, 2010 5:50 pm 3

   Phrrho overlooks the fact that those pushing fluoridation should have to prove the safety and efficacy of fluoridation beyond any doubt!

   They have never done this, because they can’t.

   That’s why they fudge the facts such as in Queensland when the current government used doctored dental data to promote fluoridation.
4. Ailsa Boyden on February 3rd, 2010 5:55 pm 4

   Research suggests that regular use of antibiotics reduces dental decay because it reduces colonization in the mouth by Streptococcus mutans, which contributes significantly to dental decay.

   Dehydration contributes to dental decay as can lead intake, vitamin C deficiency and a deficiency of magnesium and calcium.

   How about leaving fluoride out of the water because it contains lead; then adding antibiotics as well as vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, and more water!
5. Fletch on February 3rd, 2010 6:06 pm 5

   Have you been borrowing my lines again, “Pyrrho”?
   I will be requiring recompense!

   Seriously though, I agree 100%.
   I am getting thoroughly fed up with this issue. Listen to the Minister.
   Your horse has bolted. If you polled the people of Mt Gambier if they should not pay tax, I wonder what that would show?
6. Ebony Jackson on February 3rd, 2010 6:41 pm 6

   This issue has been done to death.
   Get over it and move on, please…or go live in a tent!
7. Pyrrho on February 3rd, 2010 7:47 pm 7

   @Fletch.
   Hardly old chum. I believe you stole most of my best material in the first place! If anything , its you that owe me some rentz! Heep up the good work, you pirate.

   @Ebony.You won’t get any argument from me on that score. I just hope others take your advise.

   @Ailsa. Perhaps you might know where all the “poisoned people” are. Re-read post #2.
8. Peter on February 4th, 2010 7:10 pm 8

   Come on, the Government wouldn’t give you a poison! yea? Still I can see your point, just because I drink fluoride doesn’t mean you have too.

   My smoking is a choice, but arrhhh, gee I wish they made me do that and paid for it. Ha Ha!
9. J on February 4th, 2010 8:00 pm 9

   I agree get over it guys.
10. Alex Young on February 4th, 2010 11:05 pm 10

    For nostalgia’s sake, good to see you back Pyrrho.

    OK in order:

    H: I do buy bottled water anyway. Strange that dont you think? Why would anyone be buying bottled water if their town water was not yet fluoridated? An answer to that is related to consideration 1 in my response to Pyhrro below.

    Like Mr A Gurry’s Letter to the Editor today, the premise that just because a State Government introduces a toxic poison into a water supply should not automatically mean that we as citizens should be forced into other options, options that for some of us we simply cannot afford eg rainwater tank (does this remove fluoride from the shower water for example), reverse osmosis etc

    P: It can be shown historically P that even when evidence was put in front of you that rather than engage in a balanced and logical manner of the material, you simply choose to ignore it. You then engaged in character assassination. So be it. I wont be a party to that sort of behaviour.

    There is a wealth of information overseas on the toxicity of introducing the fluoride ion into the human body even at low concentrations of 0.88mg/L. The information is there for those that choose to do so. It is not one’s citizens fault that the science hasn’t been done or included here in Australia properly.

    The whole fluoridation argument can be summed up in one sentence — THE SOLUTION TO POLLUTION IS DILUTION. You may not agree P but some do.

    When one realises that the national mandate is for every town over 1,000 persons is to fluoridate, the low concentration of max 1.0 mg/L (1.5 mg/L max WHO) is a perfect balance achieved just so as that Australian health ministers who only go by professional recommendations, such as those put forward in the National/State Oral Health Plan. so as not to recognise or include the overseas studies that have been done and are being done, that will one day bring to fruition on a global basis, as other countries have done, that water fluoridation is a thing of the past and thus the onus of fluorides be shifted back to where it once was — the industries must be responsible for the wastes they create. If you think I’m joking consider two things:

    1. The percentage of the population who actually drink town water (low)
    2. The percentage of the population who drink town water compared to the amount of total daily water used. (0.5% max). Another words at minimum 99.5% of total daily water usage is not even consumed at all by any of us.

    What does that mean? It means, knowing that Mount Gambier uses some 10 million litres of water per day and that — “for sodium fluoride 100gms of NaF is equivalent to 44.4 gms of the fluoride ion. To achieve 1.0 ppm of the F ion (mg/L) approx 2.33 kg of NaF is used for every 1 million L of water. For Mount Gambier, this equates to 8.5 tonnes per annum. At $4000 a tonne this equates to $34,000 addition to the taxpayers.” If sodium fluorosilicates are used then the amount is 6.1 tonnes.

    If you like P you have an option to also place your comments on the Choice Mount Gambier forum. http://www.choicemountgambier.com then click the link on the top right. Be well.

    A: “Phrrho overlooks the fact that those pushing fluoridation should have to prove the safety and efficacy of fluoridation beyond any doubt!”

    This is spot on the money Ailsa. As water fluoridation (mobilising the fluoride ion or ionised fluorine) is the only thing in the world whereby a toxin/drug is distributed through potable water systems, foregoing consent of oneself being medicated for now (“dosing” is the term used in fluoride engineering systems literature), there is an onus of proof on behalf of the health authorities to provide such quantifiable information prior to fluoridation. This has not happened. That alone should cause anyone to doubt the veracity of any claims made by SA Health. The lack of professional ethics on behalf of SA Health is also compounded by the fact that personal autonomy or rights to choose and how we lead our lives is negated in the process.

    Fletch: Hello the Norman Stanley Fletcher may I presume? The same person who joined Facebook and who incidently joined the SAME and only TWO groups I had joined on Facebook up until recently — ChoiceMountGambier and SwineFlu. Of course I would not assume this unless I osberved a relationship that you and P have very similar styles of communication.

    “Norman Stanley FletcherAwaiting friend confirmation Add as Friend
    RECENT ACTIVITY
    Norman joined the group Swine Flu (H1N1) Hoax. · Join this GroupNorman joined the group Choice Mt Gambier. · Join this GroupNorman joined Facebook.”

    Ebony: You are right Ebony I too am sick and tired of non closure on this issue. The day is coming. Many people have said to us, you know, I’m not anti-fluoride nor am I pro-fluoride, but what I am is .… pro-choice (not related to abortion groups). Guess what — they too, like Ailsa, hit right on the spot.

    Kind Regards
    Alex Young
11. Cynical on February 5th, 2010 10:36 am 11

    Look I’m not a fan of the flouride idea, and I most certainly do not trust the Government to do the right thing.
    I recall a conversation with my mother who told of students being sprayed with DDT as they went into school as part of a Government program in the early 50’s.

    Science moves on and maybe or maybe not the science behind flouride will move on.

    Is Flouride in Beer?
12. Ailsa Boyden on February 5th, 2010 12:37 pm 12

    Pyrrho,

    Via this link http://www.slweb.org/ftrcpersonalstories_cathy.html you can read how a ‘deadly remedy (fluoriated water)’ produced terrible effects in the animals of horse breeder, Cathy Justus in Colorado.

    In fact, the effects were so bad that Cathy led a successful campaign to stop fluoride being added to the Pagosa Springs water supply.

    As for fluoridated water poisoning people, it produces dental fluorosis which is a visible sign that the person has been chronically fluoride poisoned during the development of their teeth!

    When you are checking out Cathy’s story I suggest that you click on a side bar that can lead you to a story by medical student ‘Hilary P’ whose teeth were badly damaged as a result of chronic fluoride poisoning.

    And if you send me your email address I’ll forward to you a letter by a woman whose life was made hell by fluoridated water — so much so that she moved with her family to the then non-fluoridated south-east Queensland to escape from it.
13. Ailsa Boyden on February 5th, 2010 12:45 pm 13

    The mayor of Mackay, Col Meng, admitted on ABC radio that his wife is detrimentally affected by fluoridated water.

    In fact, he spoke of installing rainwater tanks so she can take avoidance measures.

    There are masses of people who have idiosyncratic reactions to all sorts of things.

    Why not fluoride?

    Elaine Valentine in Geelong is so fluoride sensitive that, during a placebo trial, in a clinical setting, by a respiratory specialist, her already compromised lung function dropped TO 25% after she drank just one glass of fluoridated water.

    It was deemed unwise to re-test Elaine for fear it might cost her her life!

    Elaine even collapsed when showering in fluoridated water.

    Is it fair that Elaine, and others like her, have to take avoidance measures — even for bathing purposes — because some do not practice better dental hygiene?

    Besides, fluoridation doesn’t work. If it does, why does heavily-fluoridated Tasmania have the highest rate of adult toothlessness in Australia?
14. Craig Ferguson on February 5th, 2010 3:02 pm 14

    We fill our water up with chlorine and that was used to kill people in the Great War.
15. Pyrrho on February 6th, 2010 12:40 am 15

    @Ailsa.
    Well and good, but unfortunately, only anecdote.

    @Alex Young.
    I didn’t think you would be too far away.

    “P: (Thats me, dear readers. My name is hard to spell, so we must grant Alex this wee indulgence) It can be shown historically P that even when evidence was put in front of you that rather than engage in a balanced and logical manner of the material, you simply choose to ignore it. You then engaged in character assassination.“
    You may recall, I didn’t ignore it. I simply didn’t agree with it. You might also recall that it was sourced primarily from anti– fluoridationist sites. Hardly a source of unbiased material. Similarly, the material I posted was hardly taken on board by you. A bit too “government”, was it? A bit to “dental establishment”? A bit too evidence based?
    I can see why you might have difficulty with it, after seeing what the anti lobby rates as good evidence.
    Besides, any evidence against a conspiracy is automatically part of that conspiracy, right Soulace? I’m just a shill for Big Pharma, an I not?

    Character assassination? I recall you fell on your own sword.

    Do tell. How are your anti– vaccination ideas coming along?
    And the faked moon landings?
    And the inside job 9/11 conspiracy?
    The Diana assassination settled?
    The holocaust revisionism?

    Alex says;
    “I’m not anti-fluoride nor am I pro-fluoride, but what I am is .… pro-choice“
    I find that stretches the imagination somewhat, given your posting history.
    So were you given a choice, you would note vote, as yo have no opinion on the matter, other than the ability to choose either, or presumably in your case, neither.
    Please Alex, remember that some of us are capable of using logic.

    So you have had plenty of time. Have you found any spike in the numbers of fluoride pathology since the introduction of artificial fluoridation in large Australian cities in the early ’70’s?
    There must be thousands of them, if your right.
    Oh, wait. Your only interested in the choice, not the result.
16. Fletch on February 6th, 2010 7:59 am 16

    I address Alex Young, whom I quote

    “Fletch: Hello the Norman Stanley Fletcher may I presume? The same person who joined Facebook and who incidently joined the SAME and only TWO groups I had joined on Facebook up until recently  —  ChoiceMountGambier and SwineFlu. Of course I would not assume this unless I osberved a relationship that you and P have very similar styles of communication.

    “Norman Stanley FletcherAwaiting friend confirmation Add as Friend
    RECENT ACTIVITY
    Norman joined the group Swine Flu (H1N1) Hoax. · Join this GroupNorman joined the group Choice Mt Gambier. · Join this GroupNorman joined Facebook.”

    And this is relevant because.….?
    As for style of communication, it may surprise you to know that there is more than one erudite person in the world who thinks the anti fluoride argument bunk.
17. Pyrrho on February 6th, 2010 11:06 am 17

    By the way, Alex. I know Fletch quite well. I am at his home right now. He has come to his decisions quite independently and judging by the posts you have made on your choice site and face book, warning about disruptive Pyrrho;

    ” I just caution members that a previous Border Watch entity who I shall name P may be lurking around and cause disruption. This person may assume a different name for different forums.”

    …that you seem to think everyone who disagrees with you is me.
    As Fletch accurately put it, there are plenty other than me who disagree with you. I just let you know it.
18. H on February 6th, 2010 12:42 pm 18

    I for one, on this issue side with Pyrrho!
19. Alex Young on February 6th, 2010 5:22 pm 19

    P: “I’m not anti-fluoride nor am I pro-fluoride, but what I am is .… pro-choice“ Please read both mine and your post again. The sentence was given in the context of what others, who aren’t swayed either way on the F issue, have said to me personally, that they recognize the importance of personal autonomy in this matter. In fact we all should. P you seem to have asserted the statement to myself personally and I quote:

    “I find that stretches the imagination somewhat, given your posting history.
    So were you given a choice, you would note vote, as yo have no opinion on the matter, other than the ability to choose either, or presumably in your case, neither.”

    With all due respect, I find that whole statement lacking direction, even if I were to respect you having a strong and total opposite stance to myself, which I do. It simply doesn’t make sense. Sorry mate, I tried really hard to find common ground with you but you shift that much, it makes it hard to establish anything concrete. I accept you don’t want us to question things, I accept you don’t want the community to come to a vote on the matter, I accept you don’t want choice involved. I even accept you wont accept lacking of pathological or scientific records done here in Australia nor the pointing to the records overseas.

    I cannot be any fairer than that Pyrrho/Norman/Fletch.

    Personally I recognize the rights of others to have a different point of view than myself on any topic, but what I also recognise is that everyone else should have a choice, even if they feel the issue of fluoridation is not for them. For a pro-F person to at least not acknowledge that, if you indeed have not, means what?

    P as for your pathology question, which you have raised on several occasions, I believe your question was answered by Ailsa who equally pointed out to you the fact “…that those pushing fluoridation should have to prove the safety and efficacy of fluoridation beyond any doubt!”

    For the sake of other readers who have been following or come in late, one must also take into consideration that such overseas information is available but was not included in the Oral Health Plan here in Australia. Doubt exists as there are a number of professionals who question and do not recommend swallowing fluoridated water.

    One of these people is Dr Andrew Harms, one time President SA ADA, who was part of the drafting of the Oral Health Plan in the 1990’s. Another is Professor Mark Diesendorf who incidently was here in Mount Gambier the other night giving a lecture on alternative energies. Choice spoke with him after the lecture so as to not overlap the reason for his visit. I spoke to Mark the week before. Readers are encouraged to read Professor Diesendorf articles on fluoridation below.

    http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/staff/mark.html &
    http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/FluoridePublics.html

    I also have spoken to a chemist here in Mount Gambier and they do not believe in water fluoridation. We had a short discussion on the rule of the halogens which in itself is a reason why fluoride as a free ion should not be swallowed.

    There are many people out there who don’t want it and say so personally (even publically like our Mayor did at the Rally) but for some reason(s) cannot or choose not too because of employment etc Choice respects that .

    Equally important is the question “Surely if the pro-fluoridation lobby is correct, then there will be a corresponding plateau in conditions with no clear fluoride pathology?” This is not what is happening overseas as the studies have been done there which shows fluoride in low concentrations to be problematic and those studies or similar NEED to be done here so as to quantify information pertinent to Australia.

    It not UNREASONABLE for SA Health to allow an opportunity for that information to be made known that they claim to have (the studies that have supposedly been done here in Australia) to be presented before public scrutiny? Why the hush? Why the keep pointing to an inadequate 2005 meeting? Why not hold another one to allow for the possibility of new information and new studies?

    Any one who does not acknowledge this at least on the fundamental level cannot be truly a citizen with community interests at heart. Don’t get me wrong, one can truly have community interests at heart and be totally wrong on an issue. I am as are other health professionals and others would simply like an opportunity to be proven wrong in an appropriate forum (not ones like this which no real again is made). But as we have consistently seen it is SA Health who does not come to the party.

    One who has a truth does not keep their light under a bushel.

    It should be made clear that the ultimate aim of Choice Mount Gambier is twofold:

    1. To make aware to our Government that a forum is required so that an opportunity is available to present their material to the public and be debated upon and geld under public scrutiny.

    2. To conduct a poll and ascertain the wishes of the Community in the matter and that be recognized in Parliament.

    Choice as a group aims, should SA Health come to the party, is for not laypersons to speak as qualified professionals nor replace the need for qualified professionals, citing scientific information with an supposed air of superiority so to speak, far from it — but all Choice can do is what any other group can do and has tried to do in Australia on this issue — to bring together two opposite schools of thought so that professionals in both fields can bring to the public information either way. A debate would be preferable. And like others I would like closure in this issue.

    Readers are encouraged to post their comments in the Choice Mount Gambier forum (link at top of page) as SMF based forums provide for more flexibility and posting options. All views are supported.

    All that I ask is that readers is have a look at the pro-F people who have spoken, how they address people who don’t think like them e.g. (who joke that polls become poles), who negate even the common factor of choice or personal autonomy on this whole issue.

    There is a time for jokes and a time to be serious. When people’s health are at stake and a Government who pushes something WITHOUT addressing the needs of the People, then that for me as a member of this community and as a person is a very real concern as it should be for everyone.

    Yes the horse may have bolted, but so did its rider. Its rider was Minister John Hill, whose alleged obligations are to the South Australian public. I guess the Mayor is right when he said like many other issues, all too often it feels like Mount Gambier is left on the backbench. But this is not entirely true as health authorities nationwide show the same contempt for both layman and professional person alike, that on the introduction of the ionized fluorine ion to the body via water fluoridation, that there need not be no concerns. Okay come and prove it then — if you wont then we shall do our best to ask the community to vote on the matter.

    That’s the bottom line.

    Kind Regards
    Alex
20. Pyrrho on February 6th, 2010 6:49 pm 20

    Alex says:
    “P: “I’m not anti-fluoride nor am I pro-fluoride, but what I am is .… pro-choice“ Please read both mine and your post again. The sentence was given in the context of what others, who aren’t swayed either way on the F issue, have said to me personally, that they recognize the importance of personal autonomy in this matter. In fact we all should.”

    Let us examine your words.

    “Ebony: You are right Ebony I too am sick and tired of non closure on this issue. The day is coming. Many people have said to us, you know, I’m not anti-fluoride nor am I pro-fluoride, but what I am is .… pro-choice (not related to abortion groups). Guess what  —  they too, like Ailsa, hit right on the spot.”

    Well I guess that I miss-interpreted that paragraph.
    I must have read it thus.
    ”” .…The day is coming, many people have said to us. You know, I’m not anti-fluoride nor am I pro-fluoride, but what I am is .… pro-choice (not related to abortion groups).
    .….
    My mistake. Apologies, Alex. It was quite late..
    Onwards

    “I cannot be any fairer than that Pyrrho/Norman/Fletch.”

    So you think I am three people now?? No comment required.

    “P as for your pathology question, which you have raised on several occasions, I believe your question was answered by Ailsa who equally pointed out to you the fact “…that those pushing fluoridation should have to prove the safety and efficacy of fluoridation beyond any doubt!”

    Yet another dodge.
    I was thinking something a little more local, a little more relevant and a little less anecdotal
    So thats a “no” then. No change.
    I hope that doesn’t go un-missed by anyone left who cares.

    Here it is in caps.

    ANTI FLUORIDATIONISTS CANNOT FIND EVIDENCE OF FLUORIDE DAMAGE, DESPITE CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY.

    I have said this before, and here it is again for those that came in late.
    I don’t give two hoots for the politics. I care about the spreading of misinformation and scaremongering by the anti crowd.
    The lack of pathology alone settles this argument, never mind the reduction in dental caries.

    You know Alex, if the stopped fluoridation tomorrow, and there was no significant change in dental health, then that could mean
    A) Habits have changed, leading to better health
    B.) It had no beneficial effect.
    C.) Suddenly everyone will live to be 150 years old
    Were that the case, I would say” Fine”, I guess I was wrong, but for the right reasons.
    The first step is to find those that it has damaged, and prove that link. Like with asbestos. Like with tobacco. Like with thalidomide.Three substances with real, fully traceable pathology. How quickly was thalidomide (still a useful drug, by the way, just not for morning sickness. Very effective for treating leprosy) withdrawn from pregnant women? Four years I believe. Surely in near forty years there should be a significant and very noticeable problem?

    The burden of proof is YOURS Alex, and always has been, despite your protestation.

    “All that I ask is that readers is have a look at the pro-F people who have spoken, how they address people who don’t think like them e.g. (who joke that polls become poles), who negate even the common factor of choice or personal autonomy on this whole issue.”

    As I said, I care not a jot about the politics of choice. This is a common ploy of many anti whatevers. The cry foul when their clearly deficient arguments are not treated as equals.
    You produce the evidence, ( not dodgy anecdotes about American horses) I am all ears. That is the scientific method in action, Alex.

    Where are the damaged people? Not just the odd case of fluorosis. As I am sure you are aware, Alex, many areas have naturally occurring ground water above 1ppm. Sometimes significantly so. Fluoridation plants also take out excess levels, down to 1ppm, should that be required. Fluorosis (dental is not unheard of, but where is the link to an increase coinciding with artificial fluoridation?) How can naturally occurring fluorides be discounted?

    I hope that readers are getting the point of this line of logic. iI is the game stopper for this debate. Surely Alex as the intelligent fellow that he is, Alex must see this flaw in the anti-lobbys reasoning?

    Can you supply the figures? Yes or no. No prolix ducking and weaving.
21. Editor on February 6th, 2010 6:56 pm 21

    Comments on this article are now closed. Discussion about fluoride issues in Mount Gambier may be continued on the Choice Mount Gambier forum, which is not associated with The Border Watch.