Fluoridation: No Benefit, Another Study Shows
From New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
Dental examinations of 4800 South Australian ten- to fifteen-year-olds' permanent teeth reveal unexpected results - similar cavity rates whether they drink fluoridated water or not, reports Armfield and Spencer in the August 2004 "Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology"

August 16, 2004

http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/08/fluoride_fluoridation_no_benefit_another_study_shows.html

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
By Paul Connett, PhD
April 12, 2004

http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb
Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.

By Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths
July 1997

http://www.fluoridealert.org/WN-414.htm

Fluoride Damages the Thyroid, report shows
First-ever government review of fluoride/thyroid toxicology shows risk
May 19, 2008

http://www.pr-inside.com/first-ever-government-review-of-fluoride-thyroid-r596428.htm

Gordon Sinclair did ten minutes of news and comments on C.F.R.B. at 11:50 and 5:50 on weekdays for decades back in the middle of the last century.

One of his favorite hobby horses was fluoridation.  About once a week he would devote a minute or so of his program condemning the tiny amounts of fluoride added to the Toronto water supply as "rat poison". (0.8 p.p.m then and 0.6 p.p.m. now.)

He died in 1984 at eighty-four years of age.   It's amazing to hear from him again as "Brad" channels him to us from the Great Beyond.

Sinclair was wrong then, and he is wrong today.   He earned his reputation as a flake.  Apparently he is trying to cement it in the 21st century.

The U.S. Center for Disease control did a study in 2007 which concluded that:

"Several adverse health effects have been attributed to fluoride by people opposed to the addition of fluoride to drinking water. However, the body of credible scientific evidence world-wide, attests to the fact that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective."

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-3455.pdf

Is it not astounding that people can get fixated on erroneous information, and spend their time making themselves figures of fun in public forums?

Many of them are the same folk who are convinced that U.F.O's are spacecraft piloted by extra-terrestrials, and that global warming is a myth.

Thanks for the spelling correction.

It seems to me, our right not to be medicated is an illusion.  If we want to avoid fluoridated drinking water in most cases, we can buy bottled water.  So, there is a perceived choice......that is if you don't mind Bisphenol A.  The present government advocates democracy in this way......We will promote contamination of everything you can possibly put in your body.  You can take it or leave it! It's your democratic right.  My idea of democracy is if the government is going to contaminate what we ingest, then they should get "informed" consent from us before they approve these contaminants. 

Try this scenario:  an industry comes to your house and tells you they have some toxic leftovers that they want to glean more income from.  They have conducted their own (biased) studies and determined this toxic substance is actually good for you and your children.  They ask you to sign an irreversible contract to buy it from them and add it to your daily intake to a level they deem tolerable.  Would you buy in?

Now try this one......An industry who employs a large number of people in this country, armed with (biased) studies approaches the government and tells them they need help to market their trash because they are under pressure from shareholders to increase their profitability.  They will have to relocate to another country where the rules are more relaxed and the labour is cheaper if they can't make it work here.  The government starts up the propaganda machine and voila......That particular industry's toxic trash is transformed into a health product (fluoride) courtesy of some well paid marketers and a couple of government bureaucracies.  It's a win for industry; it's a win for the government (measured in votes and on their indicators charts), it's a win for spinoff industries (healthcare), and a lose for the unsuspecting consumer who is at this point powerless to reverse the damage.

Thanks for the links Calm.  They are very useful.  We should all be mad as h*ll that the government has managed to take toxic industry waste, add a little marketing and create the illusion of a  product that gives our children healthy white smiles.  Even that wouldn't be so bad if we had a choice.   In fact, when I was the parent of a young child, I can remember reading literature that implied you weren't being the best parent you could be unless you gave your children fluoride if you lived in areas where it was not or could not be added to the drinking water. 

http://www.fluoridation.com/caries3.htm

would be good enough to show us a large , independent study performed in areas where   dental care is readily available and oral hygeine practices are followed,  that shows a statistically signifcant benefit to injestion of fluoride.

Hopefully, he's not ONLY about proclaiming his faith, and then smearing those who are not "bleevers" in his U.S. -based "authority in charge".

...........SAY WHAT?????

No doubt the head of preventative dentistry at U of T is also a nattering nobody.  How  foolish of the doctor - to be in contradiction of  Ex T.'s opinion ! 

http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm

oh , Geez, another nattering nobody ~

In a presentation to the California Assembly Committee of Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Dr. Richard Foulkes, B.A., M.D., former special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia, revealed:

The [water fluoridation] studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were "selling," were either omitted or declared to be "bad science." The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self-interest of professional elites. Some of the basic "facts" presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity. We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced.^[35]

Well, no.   You are failing to distinguish between typos and spelling errors. I virtually never make a spelling mistake.

I edit everything as soon as I post it.  My typing skills were self-taught, and they are limited.

I wish that everyone would do the same.  We would not need to decode their carelessly typed submissions then. 

I think I ought to recommend you directly to The Tonight Show.   You have just the zany sense of humour that would contribute to Jay Leno's nightly monologues.

Imagine!  A right-wing crank calling a liberal, progressive soul like me a "fascist"!    Wonderful stuff!  I laughed until my sides ached.

Do your own research, Bluto.  (Unless you are willing to pre-pay my $100 an hour charge to do it for you.) 

Stop it.  If I laugh any harder, I'm likely to break a rib.

(Senile osteoporosis, you know.)

You are correct though. I certainly am thoughtful enough to show deference to constituted authority.  I take great interest in what the U.S. Center for Disease Control has to say.   I also do not refer health problems to my lawyer or legal matters to my doctor.  I respect individuals and organisation for their expertise.

Of course, I am not paranoid.  I do not look for threats where none exist.

You gain some pleasure from doing so, apparently.  What new conspiracy theory will you be unveiling for us next week?   Perhaps you subscribe to the old Ronald Reagan notion that acid rain is caused by forests?

In this instance, you edited after you noted the spelling error in your following  post, and that edit  was not directly after you submitted the original post.

that aside;  leftists are not immune from either fascist thinking, or from hypocrisy, as you amply demonstrate.

You constantly call for the censoring of others' posts, while engaging in precisely the same behaviours that you seek the authorities to act upon, in others' posts. There is no poster who more often  demands censorship than you, and yet you are possibly the biggest contributor to  unpleasant business going on here.

Nail

It costs less than a cent per week per person to fluoridate the water supply of a large Canadian city.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Health/Tapping+into+fluoridated+water+save+teeth/1476210/story.html  

I doubt that the major chemical corporations are holding a gun to the heads of government bodies in order to swell their profits by the relatively small sums involved here.

They make far more selling fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash - to the paranoid and non-paranoid alike.

Also delusional, are you?

You seem to be attempting to portray yourself not just as a moron, but as an imbecile.   And you are succeeding, Bluto.

Yes, I have told you that I re-edit my posts immediately after submitting them.  I also make it a habit to correct any typing errors that I may find on later readings.  No,  I never make spelling errors. I will also occasionally add whole paragraphs of additional information to a post with which I originated a thread.

At this point you are coming across as something of an ill-tempered crack-pot.   

Your original post was alarmist and inaccurate.  The more that you have to say on the matter, the more paranoid you sound.  I suggest that you give it a rest.

quoted: the Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto

Seems Ex T is all for increasing the amount of  lead that children needlessly are forced to consume.

Noted that you again used name-calling, Ex T, with terms that you have previously cried out to the censor to remove - when they are used in reference to you. 

We owe it to the forum and to other participants to disagree with others here without becoming viciously abusive.

That is why I have lodged a complaint with the administrator about a post which has attacked me - not my ideas or beliefs - it denigrates me personally.

We often find ourselves opposing one another's viewpoints, when we are convinced that they are wrong-headed or misinformed.

By all means, do disagree with people's ideas. In doing so, show at least a minimum level of personal respect.    

Otherwise, if people react explosively each time that they are contradicted, the forum will no longer attract thoughtful participants, who value civility.  It will turn into a zoo.

I frequently express differences of opinion with others here.  I often suggest that I have little use for their political loyalties. However, I do not assault their character or question their basic decency.  I trust that others will try to adopt a similar posting style.

Let us differ with people's ideas without reverting to the language  of the playground.

that you should desist from  demeaning all others who disagree with anything you believe. and you might just "magically" get a little more  respect in return.

Why else, would you imagine,  that several of YOUR posts have already been removed from this thread, huh ?

Perhaps you could find the strength of character to look inside and see what lies there, the thing  that demands that others be demeaned -  instead of only whining, reporting, and blaming others ?

I'll voluntarily remove any possible offenses against you. I would ask that you, in return, desist from demeaning others.

You seem to be very sensitive - but only about your own ego.