Syrian chemicals incinerated in UK

The UK has destroyed chemicals taken from the regime of president Bashar Assad in Syria

The UK has destroyed chemicals taken from the regime of president Bashar Assad in Syria

First published in Sport © by

Almost 200 tonnes of Syrian chemicals have been destroyed in a UK incinerator, Foreign Office Minister Tobias Ellwood has announced.

The chemicals - an entire stockpile of one type known as "B precursors" and 44 tonnes of hydrochloric acid - arrived in Britain three weeks ago as part of international efforts to remove chemical weapons from the regime of president Bashar Assad.

Mr Ellwood said the work was an important step but warned there continued to be "credible reports" industrial chemicals such as chlorine were still being used in the Syrian civil war.

The destroyed chemicals were part of Syria's weapons programme and could have been used to manufacture nerve agent.

The UK committed to handling the destruction of 15% of Syria's stockpiles. Work has now been completed at Ellesmere Port, in a high-temperature incinerator operated by Veolio.

Mr Ellwood said: "By destroying these chemicals, the United Kingdom has played its part in the international effort to ensure that Assad's chemical weapons can never again be used against the Syrian people.

"The removal, and now the destruction in four countries, of the declared Syrian chemical stockpile show what can be achieved when the international community, including Russia, agrees to work together for the common good.

"The challenge remains to bring that same unity to bear in securing a political settlement to end this appalling conflict. Such a settlement is all the more urgent as the conflict continues to claim hundreds of lives each month, despite the efforts of the moderate opposition to protect the Syrian people from both Assad and extremists."

Mr Ellwood said there were still "gaps and inconsistencies" in Syria's declarations on chemical weapons and warned these must be resolved.

He said there were credible reports that some chemical attacks were still taking place and that the interim conclusions of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' fact finding mission suggested these were being "systematically orchestrated".

Mr Ellwood said: "The mission must leave no stone unturned in its investigation, and the perpetrators of such barbaric acts must be held accountable."

Chemicals have also been destroyed in the United States, Germany and Finland.

A further six tonnes of hydrogen fluoride will be destroyed by a second UK company later this year.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:07pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Dan Soton says...

,,

Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research..


These are the same guys who are so criminally eager to dump a classified NEUROTOXIN ( as used in Syria's chemical weapons) into our drinking water.



CONFUSION OVER BEST WAY TO BRUSH TEETH, STUDY FINDS.

8 August 2014 Last updated at 12:45.

The study found no agreement on the best technique for brushing teeth.

Advice on the best way to brush teeth for adults and children is confusing and inconsistent, according to University College London researchers.

THERE IS ALSO A LACK OF AGREEMENT ON HOW OFTEN TO BRUSH AND FOR HOW LONG, THEY SAID, BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF GOOD RESEARCH.

The researchers looked at advice given by dental associations, toothbrush companies and in dental textbooks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/health-2868988
7


I'm not surprised by the complete ( supposedly good ) absence of teeth brushing research.. and in the next few years I won't be surprised to hear of a multi million pound government grant going to theses guys (scammers ) for teeth brushing research..



,,
,, Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research.. These are the same guys who are so criminally eager to dump a classified NEUROTOXIN ( as used in Syria's chemical weapons) into our drinking water. CONFUSION OVER BEST WAY TO BRUSH TEETH, STUDY FINDS. 8 August 2014 Last updated at 12:45. The study found no agreement on the best technique for brushing teeth. Advice on the best way to brush teeth for adults and children is confusing and inconsistent, according to University College London researchers. THERE IS ALSO A LACK OF AGREEMENT ON HOW OFTEN TO BRUSH AND FOR HOW LONG, THEY SAID, BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF GOOD RESEARCH. The researchers looked at advice given by dental associations, toothbrush companies and in dental textbooks. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/health-2868988 7 I'm not surprised by the complete ( supposedly good ) absence of teeth brushing research.. and in the next few years I won't be surprised to hear of a multi million pound government grant going to theses guys (scammers ) for teeth brushing research.. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

10:39am Fri 15 Aug 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
,,

Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research..


These are the same guys who are so criminally eager to dump a classified NEUROTOXIN ( as used in Syria's chemical weapons) into our drinking water.



CONFUSION OVER BEST WAY TO BRUSH TEETH, STUDY FINDS.

8 August 2014 Last updated at 12:45.

The study found no agreement on the best technique for brushing teeth.

Advice on the best way to brush teeth for adults and children is confusing and inconsistent, according to University College London researchers.

THERE IS ALSO A LACK OF AGREEMENT ON HOW OFTEN TO BRUSH AND FOR HOW LONG, THEY SAID, BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF GOOD RESEARCH.

The researchers looked at advice given by dental associations, toothbrush companies and in dental textbooks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/health-2868988

7


I'm not surprised by the complete ( supposedly good ) absence of teeth brushing research.. and in the next few years I won't be surprised to hear of a multi million pound government grant going to theses guys (scammers ) for teeth brushing research..



,,
,,

Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research..



CHEMICAL USED BY COLGATE TOTAL TOOTHPASTE TO FIGHT OFF GUM DISEASE IS LINKED TO CANCER

By LYDIA WARREN
PUBLISHED: 22:36, 11 August 2014 | UPDATED: 05:19, 12 August 2014

Colgate Total contains triclosan, which has been linked to cancer and growth malformations in animals

The toothpaste was approved by the FDA in 1997 - but the toxicology summary reveals the FDA used company-backed evidence to approve it
The documents were released earlier this year after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year


http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2722289/Chemical-use
d-Colgate-Total-toot
hpaste-linked-cancer
.html


,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research.. These are the same guys who are so criminally eager to dump a classified NEUROTOXIN ( as used in Syria's chemical weapons) into our drinking water. CONFUSION OVER BEST WAY TO BRUSH TEETH, STUDY FINDS. 8 August 2014 Last updated at 12:45. The study found no agreement on the best technique for brushing teeth. Advice on the best way to brush teeth for adults and children is confusing and inconsistent, according to University College London researchers. THERE IS ALSO A LACK OF AGREEMENT ON HOW OFTEN TO BRUSH AND FOR HOW LONG, THEY SAID, BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF GOOD RESEARCH. The researchers looked at advice given by dental associations, toothbrush companies and in dental textbooks. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/health-2868988 7 I'm not surprised by the complete ( supposedly good ) absence of teeth brushing research.. and in the next few years I won't be surprised to hear of a multi million pound government grant going to theses guys (scammers ) for teeth brushing research.. ,,[/p][/quote],, Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research.. CHEMICAL USED BY COLGATE TOTAL TOOTHPASTE TO FIGHT OFF GUM DISEASE IS LINKED TO CANCER By LYDIA WARREN PUBLISHED: 22:36, 11 August 2014 | UPDATED: 05:19, 12 August 2014 Colgate Total contains triclosan, which has been linked to cancer and growth malformations in animals The toothpaste was approved by the FDA in 1997 - but the toxicology summary reveals the FDA used company-backed evidence to approve it The documents were released earlier this year after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2722289/Chemical-use d-Colgate-Total-toot hpaste-linked-cancer .html ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
,,

Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research..


These are the same guys who are so criminally eager to dump a classified NEUROTOXIN ( as used in Syria's chemical weapons) into our drinking water.



CONFUSION OVER BEST WAY TO BRUSH TEETH, STUDY FINDS.

8 August 2014 Last updated at 12:45.

The study found no agreement on the best technique for brushing teeth.

Advice on the best way to brush teeth for adults and children is confusing and inconsistent, according to University College London researchers.

THERE IS ALSO A LACK OF AGREEMENT ON HOW OFTEN TO BRUSH AND FOR HOW LONG, THEY SAID, BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF GOOD RESEARCH.

The researchers looked at advice given by dental associations, toothbrush companies and in dental textbooks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/health-2868988


7


I'm not surprised by the complete ( supposedly good ) absence of teeth brushing research.. and in the next few years I won't be surprised to hear of a multi million pound government grant going to theses guys (scammers ) for teeth brushing research..



,,
,,

Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research..



CHEMICAL USED BY COLGATE TOTAL TOOTHPASTE TO FIGHT OFF GUM DISEASE IS LINKED TO CANCER

By LYDIA WARREN
PUBLISHED: 22:36, 11 August 2014 | UPDATED: 05:19, 12 August 2014

Colgate Total contains triclosan, which has been linked to cancer and growth malformations in animals

The toothpaste was approved by the FDA in 1997 - but the toxicology summary reveals the FDA used company-backed evidence to approve it
The documents were released earlier this year after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year


http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2722289/Chemical-use

d-Colgate-Total-toot

hpaste-linked-cancer

.html


,,
,,

Just scratching the surface.. Whistleblower says CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link


These are the same guys that from the gecko (1950s) have been promoting ( with a complete absence of research ) Fluoridation.. in 1999 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century



YOUTUBE VIDEO


SENIOR GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST BREAKS 13 YEARS OF SILENCE ON CDC’S VACCINE-AUTISM FRAUD


https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=sGOtDVil
kUc



,,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research.. These are the same guys who are so criminally eager to dump a classified NEUROTOXIN ( as used in Syria's chemical weapons) into our drinking water. CONFUSION OVER BEST WAY TO BRUSH TEETH, STUDY FINDS. 8 August 2014 Last updated at 12:45. The study found no agreement on the best technique for brushing teeth. Advice on the best way to brush teeth for adults and children is confusing and inconsistent, according to University College London researchers. THERE IS ALSO A LACK OF AGREEMENT ON HOW OFTEN TO BRUSH AND FOR HOW LONG, THEY SAID, BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF GOOD RESEARCH. The researchers looked at advice given by dental associations, toothbrush companies and in dental textbooks. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/health-2868988 7 I'm not surprised by the complete ( supposedly good ) absence of teeth brushing research.. and in the next few years I won't be surprised to hear of a multi million pound government grant going to theses guys (scammers ) for teeth brushing research.. ,,[/p][/quote],, Just scratching the surface.. a complete absence of research.. CHEMICAL USED BY COLGATE TOTAL TOOTHPASTE TO FIGHT OFF GUM DISEASE IS LINKED TO CANCER By LYDIA WARREN PUBLISHED: 22:36, 11 August 2014 | UPDATED: 05:19, 12 August 2014 Colgate Total contains triclosan, which has been linked to cancer and growth malformations in animals The toothpaste was approved by the FDA in 1997 - but the toxicology summary reveals the FDA used company-backed evidence to approve it The documents were released earlier this year after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2722289/Chemical-use d-Colgate-Total-toot hpaste-linked-cancer .html ,,[/p][/quote],, Just scratching the surface.. Whistleblower says CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link These are the same guys that from the gecko (1950s) have been promoting ( with a complete absence of research ) Fluoridation.. in 1999 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century YOUTUBE VIDEO SENIOR GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST BREAKS 13 YEARS OF SILENCE ON CDC’S VACCINE-AUTISM FRAUD https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=sGOtDVil kUc ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Fri 29 Aug 14

Dan Soton says...

,,

Just scratching the surface.. Whistleblower says CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link


These are the same guys that from the gecko (1950s) have been promoting ( with a complete absence of research ) Fluoridation.. in 1999 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century



YOUTUBE VIDEO


SENIOR GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST BREAKS 13 YEARS OF SILENCE ON CDC’S VACCINE-AUTISM FRAUD


https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=sGOtDVil
kUc



,,,
,, Just scratching the surface.. Whistleblower says CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link These are the same guys that from the gecko (1950s) have been promoting ( with a complete absence of research ) Fluoridation.. in 1999 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century YOUTUBE VIDEO SENIOR GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST BREAKS 13 YEARS OF SILENCE ON CDC’S VACCINE-AUTISM FRAUD https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=sGOtDVil kUc ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 2

5:52pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
,,

Just scratching the surface.. Whistleblower says CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link


These are the same guys that from the gecko (1950s) have been promoting ( with a complete absence of research ) Fluoridation.. in 1999 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century



YOUTUBE VIDEO


SENIOR GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST BREAKS 13 YEARS OF SILENCE ON CDC’S VACCINE-AUTISM FRAUD


https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=sGOtDVil

kUc



,,,
,,

These are the same guys that from the gecko (1950s) have been promoting ( with a complete absence of research ) Fluoridation..




CDC WHISTLEBLOWER CONFESSES TO PUBLISHING FRAUDULENT DATA TO OBFUSCATE LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM

Friday, August 22, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

A medical conspiracy of epic proportions stands to bring down the entire vaccine house of cards following the revelation that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) censored key data linking the MMR vaccine to autism. A top CDC researcher turned whistleblower has come forward with the truth about a study that the CDC has long claimed proves the safety of MMR, when in fact it actually shows the exact opposite.

CDC altered study sample size to obscure autism link, particularly in black boys

EARLY ON IN THE RESEARCH, IT WAS APPARENTLY DISCOVERED THAT AFRICAN AMERICAN BOYS WHO RECEIVED THE MMR VACCINE AT THREE YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER WERE 340 PERCENT MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP AUTISM THAN OTHER CHILDREN. This is obviously not what the CDC wanted to find, as it betrays the loyalty that the agency has to the vaccine industry. So the CDC basically scrubbed it by paring down the sample size, excluding children who did not have a State of Georgia birth certificate.

"CDC researchers excluded children that did not have a valid State of Georgia birth certificate -- reducing the sample size being studied by 41%," explains an FAF press release on this groundbreaking discovery. "By introducing this arbitrary criteria into the analysis, the cohort size was sharply reduced, eliminating the statistical power of the findings and negating the strong MMR-autism link in African American boys."


http://www.naturalne
ws.com/046566_autism
_MMR_vaccine_CDC_whi
stleblower.html



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, Just scratching the surface.. Whistleblower says CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link These are the same guys that from the gecko (1950s) have been promoting ( with a complete absence of research ) Fluoridation.. in 1999 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century YOUTUBE VIDEO SENIOR GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST BREAKS 13 YEARS OF SILENCE ON CDC’S VACCINE-AUTISM FRAUD https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=sGOtDVil kUc ,,,[/p][/quote],, These are the same guys that from the gecko (1950s) have been promoting ( with a complete absence of research ) Fluoridation.. CDC WHISTLEBLOWER CONFESSES TO PUBLISHING FRAUDULENT DATA TO OBFUSCATE LINK BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM Friday, August 22, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer A medical conspiracy of epic proportions stands to bring down the entire vaccine house of cards following the revelation that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) censored key data linking the MMR vaccine to autism. A top CDC researcher turned whistleblower has come forward with the truth about a study that the CDC has long claimed proves the safety of MMR, when in fact it actually shows the exact opposite. CDC altered study sample size to obscure autism link, particularly in black boys EARLY ON IN THE RESEARCH, IT WAS APPARENTLY DISCOVERED THAT AFRICAN AMERICAN BOYS WHO RECEIVED THE MMR VACCINE AT THREE YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER WERE 340 PERCENT MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP AUTISM THAN OTHER CHILDREN. This is obviously not what the CDC wanted to find, as it betrays the loyalty that the agency has to the vaccine industry. So the CDC basically scrubbed it by paring down the sample size, excluding children who did not have a State of Georgia birth certificate. "CDC researchers excluded children that did not have a valid State of Georgia birth certificate -- reducing the sample size being studied by 41%," explains an FAF press release on this groundbreaking discovery. "By introducing this arbitrary criteria into the analysis, the cohort size was sharply reduced, eliminating the statistical power of the findings and negating the strong MMR-autism link in African American boys." http://www.naturalne ws.com/046566_autism _MMR_vaccine_CDC_whi stleblower.html ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Fri 3 Oct 14

Dan Soton says...

,,


Could DENTIST'S be using fluoridation as cover for the disposal of their NEUROTOXIN Mercury and other Toxic Metals?



U.S. EPA PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE MERCURY POLLUTION FROM DENTIST OFFICES NATIONWIDE

Source: Press Release: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | September 25th, 2014
Location: United States, National USA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a proposal to eliminate mercury pollution from dental offices nationwide. These new Clean Water Act standards would cut discharges of dental amalgam – a mixture of mercury and other metals that dentists use to fill cavities. Under this proposal, dentists must use devices to remove mercury and other toxic metals before they go down the drain.

"THIS PROPOSED RULE WOULD CUT MERCURY AND TOXIC METAL DISCHARGES TO PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEMS BY AT LEAST 8.8 TONS A YEAR NATIONWIDE," said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Bay Area communities already require dentists to use amalgam capture devices and have seen their mercury pollution levels drop nearly 75 percent. Now the rest of California and the nation will see these same benefits.”

ABOUT HALF THE MERCURY THAT ENTERS PUBLIC WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS COMES FROM DENTAL OFFICES THAT DO NOT USE AMALGAM SEPARATORS. WHEN MERCURY FROM AMALGAM IS DISCHARGED INTO WATER BODIES, IT CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO METHYLMERCURY, A HIGHLY TOXIC FORM OF MERCURY THAT BUILDS UP IN FISH, SHELLFISH AND FISH-EATING ANIMALS. PEOPLE CAN BE HARMED BY METHYLMERCURY WHEN THEY EAT CONTAMINATED FISH AND SHELLFISH.

METHYLMERCURY IS A NEUROTOXIN WHICH IMPAIRS BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTION.

Many states and local wastewater districts have started mercury pollution control programs that require amalgam separators in dentist offices. Amalgam separators remove 90 to 95 percent of mercury and other metal waste. Under the San Francisco Bay Regional Watershed Mercury control program, virtually all Bay Area cities and public water systems have successful mandatory dental amalgam separator programs, but this is not the case in most other communities and states.

EPA estimates that up to 120,000 dental offices in the U.S. use or dispose of amalgam fillings that contain mercury. Almost all of these offices discharge to sanitary sewers that flow to wastewater treatment plants. While most offices use some practices to reduce amalgam discharges to the sewers, they are not nearly as effective as amalgam separators. Because 40 to 50 percent of dentists across the country already use amalgam separators thanks to state and local programs, the new rule may result in installation of separators in up to 60,000 dental offices nationwide.

EPA estimates put the total annual cost of the proposed rule at 44 to 49 million dollars and a new streamlining proposal will cut state and local oversight costs by a similar amount. This action is one way the U.S. is meeting the goals of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international environmental agreement that addresses human activities contributing to widespread mercury pollution.

EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register and expects to finalize the rule in September 2015.

http://yosemite.epa.
gov/opa/admpress.nsf
/0/ad0a21871142e7028
5257d5e006f3b83?Open
Document


,

So much for DENTIST'S CARING about our drinking water and health..


,
,, Could DENTIST'S be using fluoridation as cover for the disposal of their NEUROTOXIN Mercury and other Toxic Metals? U.S. EPA PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE MERCURY POLLUTION FROM DENTIST OFFICES NATIONWIDE Source: Press Release: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | September 25th, 2014 Location: United States, National USA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a proposal to eliminate mercury pollution from dental offices nationwide. These new Clean Water Act standards would cut discharges of dental amalgam – a mixture of mercury and other metals that dentists use to fill cavities. Under this proposal, dentists must use devices to remove mercury and other toxic metals before they go down the drain. "THIS PROPOSED RULE WOULD CUT MERCURY AND TOXIC METAL DISCHARGES TO PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEMS BY AT LEAST 8.8 TONS A YEAR NATIONWIDE," said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Bay Area communities already require dentists to use amalgam capture devices and have seen their mercury pollution levels drop nearly 75 percent. Now the rest of California and the nation will see these same benefits.” ABOUT HALF THE MERCURY THAT ENTERS PUBLIC WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS COMES FROM DENTAL OFFICES THAT DO NOT USE AMALGAM SEPARATORS. WHEN MERCURY FROM AMALGAM IS DISCHARGED INTO WATER BODIES, IT CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO METHYLMERCURY, A HIGHLY TOXIC FORM OF MERCURY THAT BUILDS UP IN FISH, SHELLFISH AND FISH-EATING ANIMALS. PEOPLE CAN BE HARMED BY METHYLMERCURY WHEN THEY EAT CONTAMINATED FISH AND SHELLFISH. METHYLMERCURY IS A NEUROTOXIN WHICH IMPAIRS BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTION. Many states and local wastewater districts have started mercury pollution control programs that require amalgam separators in dentist offices. Amalgam separators remove 90 to 95 percent of mercury and other metal waste. Under the San Francisco Bay Regional Watershed Mercury control program, virtually all Bay Area cities and public water systems have successful mandatory dental amalgam separator programs, but this is not the case in most other communities and states. EPA estimates that up to 120,000 dental offices in the U.S. use or dispose of amalgam fillings that contain mercury. Almost all of these offices discharge to sanitary sewers that flow to wastewater treatment plants. While most offices use some practices to reduce amalgam discharges to the sewers, they are not nearly as effective as amalgam separators. Because 40 to 50 percent of dentists across the country already use amalgam separators thanks to state and local programs, the new rule may result in installation of separators in up to 60,000 dental offices nationwide. EPA estimates put the total annual cost of the proposed rule at 44 to 49 million dollars and a new streamlining proposal will cut state and local oversight costs by a similar amount. This action is one way the U.S. is meeting the goals of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international environmental agreement that addresses human activities contributing to widespread mercury pollution. EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register and expects to finalize the rule in September 2015. http://yosemite.epa. gov/opa/admpress.nsf /0/ad0a21871142e7028 5257d5e006f3b83?Open Document , So much for DENTIST'S CARING about our drinking water and health.. , Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Fri 3 Oct 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
,,


Could DENTIST'S be using fluoridation as cover for the disposal of their NEUROTOXIN Mercury and other Toxic Metals?



U.S. EPA PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE MERCURY POLLUTION FROM DENTIST OFFICES NATIONWIDE

Source: Press Release: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | September 25th, 2014
Location: United States, National USA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a proposal to eliminate mercury pollution from dental offices nationwide. These new Clean Water Act standards would cut discharges of dental amalgam – a mixture of mercury and other metals that dentists use to fill cavities. Under this proposal, dentists must use devices to remove mercury and other toxic metals before they go down the drain.

"THIS PROPOSED RULE WOULD CUT MERCURY AND TOXIC METAL DISCHARGES TO PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEMS BY AT LEAST 8.8 TONS A YEAR NATIONWIDE," said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Bay Area communities already require dentists to use amalgam capture devices and have seen their mercury pollution levels drop nearly 75 percent. Now the rest of California and the nation will see these same benefits.”

ABOUT HALF THE MERCURY THAT ENTERS PUBLIC WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS COMES FROM DENTAL OFFICES THAT DO NOT USE AMALGAM SEPARATORS. WHEN MERCURY FROM AMALGAM IS DISCHARGED INTO WATER BODIES, IT CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO METHYLMERCURY, A HIGHLY TOXIC FORM OF MERCURY THAT BUILDS UP IN FISH, SHELLFISH AND FISH-EATING ANIMALS. PEOPLE CAN BE HARMED BY METHYLMERCURY WHEN THEY EAT CONTAMINATED FISH AND SHELLFISH.

METHYLMERCURY IS A NEUROTOXIN WHICH IMPAIRS BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTION.

Many states and local wastewater districts have started mercury pollution control programs that require amalgam separators in dentist offices. Amalgam separators remove 90 to 95 percent of mercury and other metal waste. Under the San Francisco Bay Regional Watershed Mercury control program, virtually all Bay Area cities and public water systems have successful mandatory dental amalgam separator programs, but this is not the case in most other communities and states.

EPA estimates that up to 120,000 dental offices in the U.S. use or dispose of amalgam fillings that contain mercury. Almost all of these offices discharge to sanitary sewers that flow to wastewater treatment plants. While most offices use some practices to reduce amalgam discharges to the sewers, they are not nearly as effective as amalgam separators. Because 40 to 50 percent of dentists across the country already use amalgam separators thanks to state and local programs, the new rule may result in installation of separators in up to 60,000 dental offices nationwide.

EPA estimates put the total annual cost of the proposed rule at 44 to 49 million dollars and a new streamlining proposal will cut state and local oversight costs by a similar amount. This action is one way the U.S. is meeting the goals of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international environmental agreement that addresses human activities contributing to widespread mercury pollution.

EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register and expects to finalize the rule in September 2015.

http://yosemite.epa.

gov/opa/admpress.nsf

/0/ad0a21871142e7028

5257d5e006f3b83?Open

Document


,

So much for DENTIST'S CARING about our drinking water and health..


,
,,


HYPOCRISY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER




1) Dentists release globally 340 tonnes of NEUROTOXIC MERCURY into environment every year.


2) The cost of a NEUROTOXIC MERCURY SEPARATOR is roughly £300 plus an annual mercury-recycling fee of another £300.


3 ) Walmart has been fined over £50 million for staff pouring hazardous waste such as nail polish and bleach etc down sinks..



http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2332722/Walmart-fine
d-82million-pleading
-guilty-dumping-HAZA
RDOUS-WASTE-sanitati
on-drains-California
--days-profits.html




So much for DENTIST'S CARING about our health and environment..



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, Could DENTIST'S be using fluoridation as cover for the disposal of their NEUROTOXIN Mercury and other Toxic Metals? U.S. EPA PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE MERCURY POLLUTION FROM DENTIST OFFICES NATIONWIDE Source: Press Release: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | September 25th, 2014 Location: United States, National USA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a proposal to eliminate mercury pollution from dental offices nationwide. These new Clean Water Act standards would cut discharges of dental amalgam – a mixture of mercury and other metals that dentists use to fill cavities. Under this proposal, dentists must use devices to remove mercury and other toxic metals before they go down the drain. "THIS PROPOSED RULE WOULD CUT MERCURY AND TOXIC METAL DISCHARGES TO PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEMS BY AT LEAST 8.8 TONS A YEAR NATIONWIDE," said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Bay Area communities already require dentists to use amalgam capture devices and have seen their mercury pollution levels drop nearly 75 percent. Now the rest of California and the nation will see these same benefits.” ABOUT HALF THE MERCURY THAT ENTERS PUBLIC WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS COMES FROM DENTAL OFFICES THAT DO NOT USE AMALGAM SEPARATORS. WHEN MERCURY FROM AMALGAM IS DISCHARGED INTO WATER BODIES, IT CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO METHYLMERCURY, A HIGHLY TOXIC FORM OF MERCURY THAT BUILDS UP IN FISH, SHELLFISH AND FISH-EATING ANIMALS. PEOPLE CAN BE HARMED BY METHYLMERCURY WHEN THEY EAT CONTAMINATED FISH AND SHELLFISH. METHYLMERCURY IS A NEUROTOXIN WHICH IMPAIRS BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTION. Many states and local wastewater districts have started mercury pollution control programs that require amalgam separators in dentist offices. Amalgam separators remove 90 to 95 percent of mercury and other metal waste. Under the San Francisco Bay Regional Watershed Mercury control program, virtually all Bay Area cities and public water systems have successful mandatory dental amalgam separator programs, but this is not the case in most other communities and states. EPA estimates that up to 120,000 dental offices in the U.S. use or dispose of amalgam fillings that contain mercury. Almost all of these offices discharge to sanitary sewers that flow to wastewater treatment plants. While most offices use some practices to reduce amalgam discharges to the sewers, they are not nearly as effective as amalgam separators. Because 40 to 50 percent of dentists across the country already use amalgam separators thanks to state and local programs, the new rule may result in installation of separators in up to 60,000 dental offices nationwide. EPA estimates put the total annual cost of the proposed rule at 44 to 49 million dollars and a new streamlining proposal will cut state and local oversight costs by a similar amount. This action is one way the U.S. is meeting the goals of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international environmental agreement that addresses human activities contributing to widespread mercury pollution. EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register and expects to finalize the rule in September 2015. http://yosemite.epa. gov/opa/admpress.nsf /0/ad0a21871142e7028 5257d5e006f3b83?Open Document , So much for DENTIST'S CARING about our drinking water and health.. ,[/p][/quote],, HYPOCRISY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER 1) Dentists release globally 340 tonnes of NEUROTOXIC MERCURY into environment every year. 2) The cost of a NEUROTOXIC MERCURY SEPARATOR is roughly £300 plus an annual mercury-recycling fee of another £300. 3 ) Walmart has been fined over £50 million for staff pouring hazardous waste such as nail polish and bleach etc down sinks.. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2332722/Walmart-fine d-82million-pleading -guilty-dumping-HAZA RDOUS-WASTE-sanitati on-drains-California --days-profits.html So much for DENTIST'S CARING about our health and environment.. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Sun 5 Oct 14

Dan Soton says...

,,


Peggy T says... Five systematic reviews have all found this fluoridation safe and cost effective.

That's all well and good and your welcome to your opine.. but I'll have to burst your bubble, you haven't been privy to all the peer-reviews..

Hampshire County Council has been privy to all the reviews and they concluded... the projected costs are not sufficiently robust and an optimal therapeutic dose of fluoride is pure bunkum..

IN SUMMARY...Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the recommended level in drinking water.

Extracts below...

http://www.qve.qc.ca
/afq/audio-video/Ham
pshire-report-water-
fluoridation.doc




HAMPSHIRE REPORT OF THE WATER FLUORIDATION PANEL

IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH:

_ Overall fluoride does have a beneficial impact on the prevalence of caries and improves oral health. In particular there is wide ranging evidence that the topical (surface) application of fluoride is beneficial.

_ THE REVIEW PANEL IS NOT HOWEVER OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE PUT FORWARD IN THE SHA CONSULTATION DOCUMENT IS CONVINCING IN ITS ARGUMENT THAT ADDING FLUORIDE TO DRINKING WATER IS THE ONLY WAY TO IMPROVE THE ORAL HEALTH OF 7 OF THE 11 DEPRIVED COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHAMPTON CITY. IN PARTICULAR THE REVIEW PANEL IS CONCERNED THAT:

- There is little evidence of suitable quality to support the assertion that this action will reduce health inequalities.

- Alternatives exist that are less intrusive and coercive.

- The total exposure to fluoride in the population has not been evaluated and taken into account. The importance of this point has been emphasised by all the authoritative reference documents identified by the Review Panel as well as the WHO.

- THE INTRODUCTION OF FLUORIDE TO DRINKING WATER WILL RESULT IN SOME CHILDREN WITHIN THE POPULATION THAT HAVE OTHERWISE HEALTHY TEETH EXPERIENCING FLUOROSIS. The extent to which this would be severe enough to be of aesthetic concern is disputed in the evidence, but a conservative (1 in 22) estimate based on the under nine population in the areas covered by the 2 schemes (source: Atkins) suggests that a total of 846 children in the area, of which 171 would be from south west Hampshire, could be affected by fluorosis of aesthetic concern. Taking a figure of 1 in 8 , which is cited by the York Review, the number of children affected in this way would increase significantly.

EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE:

_ EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ADDING FLUORIDE TO WATER AT 1PPM EQUATES TO INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING AN OPTIMAL THERAPEUTIC DOSE. CURRENT DAILY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE FROM OTHER SOURCES MAY ALREADY EXCEED THE EQUIVALENT OF 1PPM IN WATER.

_ The recent decision of the Republic of Ireland to reduce the longstanding accepted dose for adding fluoride to water from 1 ppm to 0.7ppm brings into question the level of dosage for England as set out in the current legislation.

_ Individual exposure will be affected by the addition of fluoride to drinking water at 1ppm as well as other sources.

_ The conflicting information about using fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula reinforces previous conclusions about the need to adopt a precautionary approach.

NATURE OF FLUORIDE:

_ There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this.
_ There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride.

LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES:

_ The technical appraisals show that the options presented by the SHA for introducing fluoride to the water supplies of the full target population are neither viable nor effective.
_ THE PROJECTED COSTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY ROBUST.

_ The conflicting evidence received makes it difficult to determine if there are additional legal issues that need to be taken into account.

CONCLUSION: GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS SET OUT ABOVE THE REVIEW PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT

_ Effective alternatives to adding fluoride to water do exist, with the potential to target those affected rather than the population as a whole.

_ Particular opportunities exist for the creative use of skill mix to provide targeted support to vulnerable groups and using existing skills, such as those of health visitors more fully.

MOST SIGNIFICANTLY THE REVIEW PANEL HAS BEEN PERSUADED NOT TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL BY THE LACK OF ROBUST AND RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PRODUCED TO SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are `unknowns' with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

4 TECHNICAL DETAILS

4.1 Southampton's population is currently served through 5 water distribution zones. The Atkins feasibility study (14) evaluated 9 possible schemes for fluoridating the water at different points, and short listed 2 viable schemes, which together would supply approximately 160,000 residents of Southampton. (67% of the population of SCPCT).

4.2 SCPCT has identified 11 neighbourhoods which are considered a priority for fluoridation because of the level of tooth decay. The 2 viable schemes together cover 7 of these. According to the report presented to THE SHA BOARD `SCPCT IS PLANNING ADDITIONAL ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION INITIATIVES FOR THOSE PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOODS NOT COVERED BY THE 2 SCHEMES' , THOUGH NO FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS IS PROVIDED.

8 EVIDENCE BY THEME

9.7 There is evidence of significant improvement over the past 30 years in oral health across populations regardless of whether they have fluoridated water. This trend is continuing, particularly in permanent dentition (5,7, 8). It is not clear if this has any implications for the case made for adding fluoride to water supplies, although the York Review noted that `the greater the population prevalence of tooth decay at the baseline examination the greater the effect of water fluoridation in decreasing this decay'. This point is particularly important in the context of the proposals from SCPCT and the economic modelling that has been undertaken to support the current consultation.

9.8 In some countries water fluoridation schemes have been withdrawn. These include Germany, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Systematic information on the rationale behind these decisions is not available. However, it is suggested that in the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, the fluoridation scheme was withdrawn in 2003 after 41 years of operation in part because other measures were considered of `comparable effectiveness' to `compulsory medication' (6).

9.9 A RECENT ARTICLE IN THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL REPORTED THAT `LEVELS EVERYWHERE HAVE FALLEN GREATLY IN THE PAST THREE DECADES, AND NATIONAL RATES OF CARIES ARE NOW UNIVERSALLY LOW. THIS TREND HAS OCCURRED (SEE FIGURE 1 BELOW) REGARDLESS OF THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN WATER OR THE USE OF FLUORIDATED SALT, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition'

CONCLUSIONS: GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS SET OUT ABOVE THE REVIEW PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT

_ Overall fluoride does have a beneficial impact on the prevalence of caries and improves oral health. In particular there is wide ranging evidence that the topical (surface) application of fluoride is beneficial.

_ The Review Panel is not however of the view that the case put forward in the SHA consultation document is convincing in its argument that adding fluoride to drinking water is the only way to improve the oral health of 7 of the 11 deprived communities in Southampton City. In particular the Review Panel is concerned that:

- There is little evidence of suitable quality to support the assertion that this action will reduce health inequalities.

- Alternatives exist that are less intrusive and coercive


CONCLUSIONS: GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS SET OUT ABOVE THE REVIEW PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT

_ Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water at 1ppm equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the equivalent of 1ppm in water.

_ The recent decision of the Republic of Ireland to reduce the longstanding accepted dose for adding fluoride to water from 1 ppm to 0.7pmm brings into question the level of dosage for England as set out in the current legislation.

_ INDIVIDUAL EXPOSURE WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO DRINKING WATER AT 1PPM AS WELL AS OTHER SOURCES.

_ The conflicting information about using fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula reinforces previous conclusions about the need to adopt a precautionary approach.

- THE TOTAL EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE IN THE POPULATION HAS NOT BEEN EVALUATED AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS POINT HAS BEEN EMPHASISED BY ALL THE AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW PANEL AS WELL AS THE WHO.

13.5 Research published in 2006 suggests that the average dietary intake per person of fluoride in the United Kingdom is estimated to be 1.82 mg per day-. Beverages account for 71% of the total dietary intake and tea contributes most to the intake from the beverages group. Above average consumption of tea, as recorded in Great Britain, could result in fluoride intakes as high as 8.9 mg per day-. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT TAP WATER CONTAINING 1 MG OF FLUORIDE PER LITRE COULD INCREASE NORMAL DIETARY INTAKES BY 54%. INDIVIDUAL FOODS WERE ANALYSED AND THE RESULTS SHOW THAT TEA INFUSIONS AND FOODS CONTAINING SKIN OR BONE HAVE HIGHER FLUORIDE CONCENTRATIONS THAN OTHER FOODS.

13.6 THE YORK REVIEW NOTES THAT `BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL TOXICITY OF VERY HIGH DOSES OF FLUORIDE, IT WOULD SEEM SENSIBLE THAT ANY FUTURE STUDIES SHOULD ATTEMPT TO MEASURE TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE IN AREAS being researched' and that `exposure to fluoride from sources other than water may alter the amount required in water for optimum caries reduction' (1, 12.7). Additionally `because sources of fluoride exposure vary, this may be a difficult issue to examine, in that exposure would need to be measured at the person level, rather than at the population level' .

13.7 Other reports follow with similar calls for further research `because of the wide use of toothpastes and other dental health care products containing fluoride, and the potential for fluoride exposure from a number of other sources, it is especially important to understand better the total exposure that individuals are experiencing' (3, lay summary) and that `in order to assess the specific benefits and/or hazards that might arise from the fluoridation of water, it is necessary to take account of the different sources and routes of human exposure to fluoride and to understand the absorption, distribution and metabolism of fluoride in the human body. This information is relevant for several reasons:

- ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT OF WATER FLUORIDATION ON TOTAL EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE MAY OTHERWISE BE INACCURATE OR MISLEADING

- The effects of water fluoridation might be confounded or modified by exposure to fluoride from other sources.

13.12 THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE IMPACT ON INFANTS BEING FED ON FORMULA RECONSTITUTED WITH FLUORIDATED WATER WAS CONTRADICTORY AND FOR THE REVIEW PANEL IMMENSELY FRUSTRATING GIVEN THAT THIS REPRESENTS SUCH A VULNERABLE POPULATION. THE MRC MAKES THE POINT THAT `BREAST FED CHILDREN IN FLUORIDATED AREAS ARE LIKELY TO HAVE BELOW OPTIMAL INTAKES OF FLUORIDE. The individuals most likely to have above optimal fluoride intakes are formula fed infants in fluoridated areas, infants in non fluoridated areas fed on high fluoride containing formula and individuals with excessive toothpaste ingestion and use'. (3,3.4). It is not clear what the `optimal fluoride intake' is for infants or the point at which this would cease to be therapeutic. OTHER RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT INFANTS UP TO SIX MONTHS SHOULD NOT BE EXPOSED TO FLUORIDE.

13.13 The American Dental Association changed its policy in 2006 to recommend that fluoridated water not be used for preparing infant formula; their policy is (with breast feeding as the best option)`Ready-to-fee
d formula is preferred over formula mixed with water containing fluoride during the first year of life to help ensure that infants do not exceed the optimal amount of fluoride intake.' (29). The Irish Fluoridation Forum simply suggests that water used to make up infant formula is boiled (17).

13.14 The British Fluoridation Society briefing on this issue notes that `the difference in unsightly fluorosis in bottle fed as against breast fed children in fluoridated districts in the UK is not known and should be researched. Until such data are available for the UK it would probably not be justified to run a public awareness campaign in fluoridated districts'. If approached by parents on this issue the BFS suggest that advice from dental health professionals includes the following points.

- THAT BREAST FEEDING IS THE BEST OPTION

- That ready to use infant formula has a low fluoride content

- That powdered formula could be made up with suitable bottled water

13.15 The Review Panel were of the view that this conflicting advice was deeply unhelpful, particularly given the vulnerability of mothers in the more deprived areas that may be affected by the proposals. It was also of concern to note that the public in fluoridated districts may not be made aware of this as a potential effect of fluoridation that may affect their children.

CONCLUSIONS: GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS SET OUT ABOVE THE REVIEW PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT

_ There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this

_ There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride

15 Legal and Technical Issues

15.1 A number of concerns were raised with the Review Panel about the way in which fluoride is classified, particularly in relation to whether it is a medicine or a food.

CONCLUSION: IN CONSIDERING THE ABOVE POINTS THE REVIEW PANEL CAME TO THE VIEW THAT:

_ The technical appraisals show that the options presented by the SHA for introducing fluoride to the water supplies of the full target population are neither viable nor effective.

_ The projected costs are not sufficiently robust.

_ The conflicting evidence received makes it difficult to determine if there are additional legal issues that need to be taken into account.

THE REVIEW PANEL HAS EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO THE SHA ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT AND THE LACK OF BALANCE contained in the information this provided for consideration by local people (see Appendix Five). Members are aware that similar concerns have been raised with the SHA by other stakeholders and in a detailed critique of the consultation document that was published by Earl Baldwin, member of the York Review Advisory Panel and co-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation (25). In particular, references in the SHA document to research that were not considered of suitable quality to be included in the York Review were deeply unhelpful and gave a significant bias to the information presented.

16.2 TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE REVIEW PANEL, THE ISSUE OF FLUOROSIS WAS DEALT WITH IN A SUPERFICIAL AND INACCURATE MANNER. The way in which the document gave assurances relating to other plausible harms that may be associated with the fluoridation of drinking water was misleading and took no account of the work of the NAS (4) in this area or other relevant research. It was helpful to have an assurance from the SHA at the Hampshire PCT Board meeting that the NAS work would be included in feedback to the SHA Board, but this is too late to ensure that local people are aware of these issues, and the dismissive way in which questions related to this research were dealt with by the SHA at the Review Panel's evidence day on 6 October was cavalier and inappropriate.




,,
,, Peggy T says... Five systematic reviews have all found this fluoridation safe and cost effective. That's all well and good and your welcome to your opine.. but I'll have to burst your bubble, you haven't been privy to all the peer-reviews.. Hampshire County Council has been privy to all the reviews and they concluded... the projected costs are not sufficiently robust and an optimal therapeutic dose of fluoride is pure bunkum.. IN SUMMARY...Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the recommended level in drinking water. Extracts below... http://www.qve.qc.ca /afq/audio-video/Ham pshire-report-water- fluoridation.doc HAMPSHIRE REPORT OF THE WATER FLUORIDATION PANEL IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH: _ Overall fluoride does have a beneficial impact on the prevalence of caries and improves oral health. In particular there is wide ranging evidence that the topical (surface) application of fluoride is beneficial. _ THE REVIEW PANEL IS NOT HOWEVER OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE PUT FORWARD IN THE SHA CONSULTATION DOCUMENT IS CONVINCING IN ITS ARGUMENT THAT ADDING FLUORIDE TO DRINKING WATER IS THE ONLY WAY TO IMPROVE THE ORAL HEALTH OF 7 OF THE 11 DEPRIVED COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHAMPTON CITY. IN PARTICULAR THE REVIEW PANEL IS CONCERNED THAT: - There is little evidence of suitable quality to support the assertion that this action will reduce health inequalities. - Alternatives exist that are less intrusive and coercive. - The total exposure to fluoride in the population has not been evaluated and taken into account. The importance of this point has been emphasised by all the authoritative reference documents identified by the Review Panel as well as the WHO. - THE INTRODUCTION OF FLUORIDE TO DRINKING WATER WILL RESULT IN SOME CHILDREN WITHIN THE POPULATION THAT HAVE OTHERWISE HEALTHY TEETH EXPERIENCING FLUOROSIS. The extent to which this would be severe enough to be of aesthetic concern is disputed in the evidence, but a conservative (1 in 22) estimate based on the under nine population in the areas covered by the 2 schemes (source: Atkins) suggests that a total of 846 children in the area, of which 171 would be from south west Hampshire, could be affected by fluorosis of aesthetic concern. Taking a figure of 1 in 8 , which is cited by the York Review, the number of children affected in this way would increase significantly. EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE: _ EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ADDING FLUORIDE TO WATER AT 1PPM EQUATES TO INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING AN OPTIMAL THERAPEUTIC DOSE. CURRENT DAILY INTAKE OF FLUORIDE FROM OTHER SOURCES MAY ALREADY EXCEED THE EQUIVALENT OF 1PPM IN WATER. _ The recent decision of the Republic of Ireland to reduce the longstanding accepted dose for adding fluoride to water from 1 ppm to 0.7ppm brings into question the level of dosage for England as set out in the current legislation. _ Individual exposure will be affected by the addition of fluoride to drinking water at 1ppm as well as other sources. _ The conflicting information about using fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula reinforces previous conclusions about the need to adopt a precautionary approach. NATURE OF FLUORIDE: _ There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this. _ There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride. LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES: _ The technical appraisals show that the options presented by the SHA for introducing fluoride to the water supplies of the full target population are neither viable nor effective. _ THE PROJECTED COSTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY ROBUST. _ The conflicting evidence received makes it difficult to determine if there are additional legal issues that need to be taken into account. CONCLUSION: GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS SET OUT ABOVE THE REVIEW PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT _ Effective alternatives to adding fluoride to water do exist, with the potential to target those affected rather than the population as a whole. _ Particular opportunities exist for the creative use of skill mix to provide targeted support to vulnerable groups and using existing skills, such as those of health visitors more fully. MOST SIGNIFICANTLY THE REVIEW PANEL HAS BEEN PERSUADED NOT TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL BY THE LACK OF ROBUST AND RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PRODUCED TO SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL. It is clear that scientists and health professionals recognise that there are `unknowns' with regard to the need to understand the effect of fluoride on the body (not just teeth). This work has simply not taken place. In the absence of scientific evidence of sufficient quality the Review Panel based its evaluation on the findings of the York Review informed by the work of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 4 TECHNICAL DETAILS 4.1 Southampton's population is currently served through 5 water distribution zones. The Atkins feasibility study (14) evaluated 9 possible schemes for fluoridating the water at different points, and short listed 2 viable schemes, which together would supply approximately 160,000 residents of Southampton. (67% of the population of SCPCT). 4.2 SCPCT has identified 11 neighbourhoods which are considered a priority for fluoridation because of the level of tooth decay. The 2 viable schemes together cover 7 of these. According to the report presented to THE SHA BOARD `SCPCT IS PLANNING ADDITIONAL ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION INITIATIVES FOR THOSE PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOODS NOT COVERED BY THE 2 SCHEMES' , THOUGH NO FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS IS PROVIDED. 8 EVIDENCE BY THEME 9.7 There is evidence of significant improvement over the past 30 years in oral health across populations regardless of whether they have fluoridated water. This trend is continuing, particularly in permanent dentition (5,7, 8). It is not clear if this has any implications for the case made for adding fluoride to water supplies, although the York Review noted that `the greater the population prevalence of tooth decay at the baseline examination the greater the effect of water fluoridation in decreasing this decay'. This point is particularly important in the context of the proposals from SCPCT and the economic modelling that has been undertaken to support the current consultation. 9.8 In some countries water fluoridation schemes have been withdrawn. These include Germany, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Systematic information on the rationale behind these decisions is not available. However, it is suggested that in the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, the fluoridation scheme was withdrawn in 2003 after 41 years of operation in part because other measures were considered of `comparable effectiveness' to `compulsory medication' (6). 9.9 A RECENT ARTICLE IN THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL REPORTED THAT `LEVELS [OF CARIES] EVERYWHERE HAVE FALLEN GREATLY IN THE PAST THREE DECADES, AND NATIONAL RATES OF CARIES ARE NOW UNIVERSALLY LOW. THIS TREND HAS OCCURRED (SEE FIGURE 1 BELOW) REGARDLESS OF THE CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE IN WATER OR THE USE OF FLUORIDATED SALT, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition' CONCLUSIONS: GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS SET OUT ABOVE THE REVIEW PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT _ Overall fluoride does have a beneficial impact on the prevalence of caries and improves oral health. In particular there is wide ranging evidence that the topical (surface) application of fluoride is beneficial. _ The Review Panel is not however of the view that the case put forward in the SHA consultation document is convincing in its argument that adding fluoride to drinking water is the only way to improve the oral health of 7 of the 11 deprived communities in Southampton City. In particular the Review Panel is concerned that: - There is little evidence of suitable quality to support the assertion that this action will reduce health inequalities. - Alternatives exist that are less intrusive and coercive CONCLUSIONS: GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS SET OUT ABOVE THE REVIEW PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT _ Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adding fluoride to water at 1ppm equates to individuals receiving an optimal therapeutic dose. Current daily intake of fluoride from other sources may already exceed the equivalent of 1ppm in water. _ The recent decision of the Republic of Ireland to reduce the longstanding accepted dose for adding fluoride to water from 1 ppm to 0.7pmm brings into question the level of dosage for England as set out in the current legislation. _ INDIVIDUAL EXPOSURE WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO DRINKING WATER AT 1PPM AS WELL AS OTHER SOURCES. _ The conflicting information about using fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula reinforces previous conclusions about the need to adopt a precautionary approach. - THE TOTAL EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE IN THE POPULATION HAS NOT BEEN EVALUATED AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS POINT HAS BEEN EMPHASISED BY ALL THE AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW PANEL AS WELL AS THE WHO. 13.5 Research published in 2006 suggests that the average dietary intake per person of fluoride in the United Kingdom is estimated to be 1.82 mg per day-. Beverages account for 71% of the total dietary intake and tea contributes most to the intake from the beverages group. Above average consumption of tea, as recorded in Great Britain, could result in fluoride intakes as high as 8.9 mg per day-. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT TAP WATER CONTAINING 1 MG OF FLUORIDE PER LITRE COULD INCREASE NORMAL DIETARY INTAKES BY 54%. INDIVIDUAL FOODS WERE ANALYSED AND THE RESULTS SHOW THAT TEA INFUSIONS AND FOODS CONTAINING SKIN OR BONE HAVE HIGHER FLUORIDE CONCENTRATIONS THAN OTHER FOODS. 13.6 THE YORK REVIEW NOTES THAT `BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL TOXICITY OF VERY HIGH DOSES OF FLUORIDE, IT WOULD SEEM SENSIBLE THAT ANY FUTURE STUDIES SHOULD ATTEMPT TO MEASURE TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE IN AREAS being researched' and that `exposure to fluoride from sources other than water may alter the amount required in water for optimum caries reduction' (1, 12.7). Additionally `because sources of fluoride exposure vary, this may be a difficult issue to examine, in that exposure would need to be measured at the person level, rather than at the population level' . 13.7 Other reports follow with similar calls for further research `because of the wide use of toothpastes and other dental health care products containing fluoride, and the potential for fluoride exposure from a number of other sources, it is especially important to understand better the total exposure that individuals are experiencing' (3, lay summary) and that `in order to assess the specific benefits and/or hazards that might arise from the fluoridation of water, it is necessary to take account of the different sources and routes of human exposure to fluoride and to understand the absorption, distribution and metabolism of fluoride in the human body. This information is relevant for several reasons: - ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT OF WATER FLUORIDATION ON TOTAL EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE MAY OTHERWISE BE INACCURATE OR MISLEADING - The effects of water fluoridation might be confounded or modified by exposure to fluoride from other sources. 13.12 THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE IMPACT ON INFANTS BEING FED ON FORMULA RECONSTITUTED WITH FLUORIDATED WATER WAS CONTRADICTORY AND FOR THE REVIEW PANEL IMMENSELY FRUSTRATING GIVEN THAT THIS REPRESENTS SUCH A VULNERABLE POPULATION. THE MRC MAKES THE POINT THAT `BREAST FED CHILDREN IN FLUORIDATED AREAS ARE LIKELY TO HAVE BELOW OPTIMAL INTAKES OF FLUORIDE. The individuals most likely to have above optimal fluoride intakes are formula fed infants in fluoridated areas, infants in non fluoridated areas fed on high fluoride containing formula and individuals with excessive toothpaste ingestion and use'. (3,3.4). It is not clear what the `optimal fluoride intake' is for infants or the point at which this would cease to be therapeutic. OTHER RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT INFANTS UP TO SIX MONTHS SHOULD NOT BE EXPOSED TO FLUORIDE. 13.13 The American Dental Association changed its policy in 2006 to recommend that fluoridated water not be used for preparing infant formula; their policy is (with breast feeding as the best option)`Ready-to-fee d formula is preferred over formula mixed with water containing fluoride during the first year of life to help ensure that infants do not exceed the optimal amount of fluoride intake.' (29). The Irish Fluoridation Forum simply suggests that water used to make up infant formula is boiled (17). 13.14 The British Fluoridation Society briefing on this issue notes that `the difference in unsightly fluorosis in bottle fed as against breast fed children in fluoridated districts in the UK is not known and should be researched. Until such data are available for the UK it would probably not be justified to run a public awareness campaign in fluoridated districts'. If approached by parents on this issue the BFS suggest that advice from dental health professionals includes the following points. - THAT BREAST FEEDING IS THE BEST OPTION - That ready to use infant formula has a low fluoride content - That powdered formula could be made up with suitable bottled water 13.15 The Review Panel were of the view that this conflicting advice was deeply unhelpful, particularly given the vulnerability of mothers in the more deprived areas that may be affected by the proposals. It was also of concern to note that the public in fluoridated districts may not be made aware of this as a potential effect of fluoridation that may affect their children. CONCLUSIONS: GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS SET OUT ABOVE THE REVIEW PANEL IS OF THE VIEW THAT _ There is not sufficient evidence to show how individuals vary in the way in which they retain and excrete fluoride, or the impact that hard or soft water may have on this _ There is not sufficient evidence to show that artificial fluoride acts in the same way as natural fluoride 15 Legal and Technical Issues 15.1 A number of concerns were raised with the Review Panel about the way in which fluoride is classified, particularly in relation to whether it is a medicine or a food. CONCLUSION: IN CONSIDERING THE ABOVE POINTS THE REVIEW PANEL CAME TO THE VIEW THAT: _ The technical appraisals show that the options presented by the SHA for introducing fluoride to the water supplies of the full target population are neither viable nor effective. _ The projected costs are not sufficiently robust. _ The conflicting evidence received makes it difficult to determine if there are additional legal issues that need to be taken into account. THE REVIEW PANEL HAS EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO THE SHA ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT AND THE LACK OF BALANCE contained in the information this provided for consideration by local people (see Appendix Five). Members are aware that similar concerns have been raised with the SHA by other stakeholders and in a detailed critique of the consultation document that was published by Earl Baldwin, member of the York Review Advisory Panel and co-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation (25). In particular, references in the SHA document to research that were not considered of suitable quality to be included in the York Review were deeply unhelpful and gave a significant bias to the information presented. 16.2 TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE REVIEW PANEL, THE ISSUE OF FLUOROSIS WAS DEALT WITH IN A SUPERFICIAL AND INACCURATE MANNER. The way in which the document gave assurances relating to other plausible harms that may be associated with the fluoridation of drinking water was misleading and took no account of the work of the NAS (4) in this area or other relevant research. It was helpful to have an assurance from the SHA at the Hampshire PCT Board meeting that the NAS work would be included in feedback to the SHA Board, but this is too late to ensure that local people are aware of these issues, and the dismissive way in which questions related to this research were dealt with by the SHA at the Review Panel's evidence day on 6 October was cavalier and inappropriate. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Fri 24 Oct 14

Dan Soton says...

,,



Pre Toothbrush / Fluoride.. 2000 years ago all you needed was a ROBUST IMMUNE SYSTEM to fight Periodontitis / Gingivitis...


GUESS WHAT... there's a mountain of Scientific Evidence pointing to Fluoride suppressing the body's Immune System...



GUM DISEASE WORSE NOW THAN IN ROMAN BRITAIN

24 October 2014

Scientists from King's College London examined more than 300 skulls from the Museum's collections. The skulls came from a Roman cemetery in Poundbury Camp, Dorset, in use around 200-400 AD.

Gum disease, also known as periodontitis, is caused by inflammation, often as a response to a build-up of plaque on the teeth. It causes the loss of bone supporting teeth, and can lead to tooth loss.

IN BRITAIN TODAY, 15-30 PERCENT OF ADULTS HAVE CHRONIC GUM DISEASE, WHEREAS IN THE POUNDBURY SKULLS ONLY FIVE PERCENT SHOWED SIGNS OF THE DISEASE.


http://www.nhm.ac.uk
/about-us/news/2014/
oct/gum-disease-wors
e-now-than-in-roman-
britain133420.html



,,
,, Pre Toothbrush / Fluoride.. 2000 years ago all you needed was a ROBUST IMMUNE SYSTEM to fight Periodontitis / Gingivitis... GUESS WHAT... there's a mountain of Scientific Evidence pointing to Fluoride suppressing the body's Immune System... GUM DISEASE WORSE NOW THAN IN ROMAN BRITAIN 24 October 2014 Scientists from King's College London examined more than 300 skulls from the Museum's collections. The skulls came from a Roman cemetery in Poundbury Camp, Dorset, in use around 200-400 AD. Gum disease, also known as periodontitis, is caused by inflammation, often as a response to a build-up of plaque on the teeth. It causes the loss of bone supporting teeth, and can lead to tooth loss. IN BRITAIN TODAY, 15-30 PERCENT OF ADULTS HAVE CHRONIC GUM DISEASE, WHEREAS IN THE POUNDBURY SKULLS ONLY FIVE PERCENT SHOWED SIGNS OF THE DISEASE. http://www.nhm.ac.uk /about-us/news/2014/ oct/gum-disease-wors e-now-than-in-roman- britain133420.html ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Fri 24 Oct 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
,,



Pre Toothbrush / Fluoride.. 2000 years ago all you needed was a ROBUST IMMUNE SYSTEM to fight Periodontitis / Gingivitis...


GUESS WHAT... there's a mountain of Scientific Evidence pointing to Fluoride suppressing the body's Immune System...



GUM DISEASE WORSE NOW THAN IN ROMAN BRITAIN

24 October 2014

Scientists from King's College London examined more than 300 skulls from the Museum's collections. The skulls came from a Roman cemetery in Poundbury Camp, Dorset, in use around 200-400 AD.

Gum disease, also known as periodontitis, is caused by inflammation, often as a response to a build-up of plaque on the teeth. It causes the loss of bone supporting teeth, and can lead to tooth loss.

IN BRITAIN TODAY, 15-30 PERCENT OF ADULTS HAVE CHRONIC GUM DISEASE, WHEREAS IN THE POUNDBURY SKULLS ONLY FIVE PERCENT SHOWED SIGNS OF THE DISEASE.


http://www.nhm.ac.uk

/about-us/news/2014/

oct/gum-disease-wors

e-now-than-in-roman-

britain133420.html



,,
,,


QUESTION... If it was within your remit to advise the Government on health issues and you believed fighting antibiotic-resistant bacteria was ranked alongside fighting terrorism..


1) Would you advise this Government to allocate ( £££ Billions ) funds for Immune System Boosting Research knowing the Immune System will cure minor bacterial infections on its own..


2) Or would you call for Universal Water Fluoridation knowing there's a mountain of Scientific Evidence pointing to Fluoride suppressing the Body's Immune System..


GUESS WHAT... Prof. Dame Sally Davies the UKs Chief Medical Officer believes fighting antibiotic-resistant bacteria is ranked alongside fighting terrorism and also advocates the dumping of Neurotoxic Fluoride into all of the UK's Drinking Water.. unbelievably weird




TACKLING ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA THROUGH COLLABORATIVE NETWORKING

Antimicrobial-resist
ant bacteria is an increasingly pressing global issue...

The Guardian, Tuesday 21 October 2014 11.33 BST

PROFESSOR DAME SALLY DAVIES, THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF ENGLAND, STATED THAT THE PROBLEM OF MICROBES BECOMING INCREASINGLY RESISTANT TO THE MOST POWERFUL DRUGS SHOULD BE RANKED ALONGSIDE TERRORISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE. Antimicrobial resistance is a global issue, increasingly recognised by health authorities around the world.

It is estimated that at least 2 million people in the United States alone are infected by antibiotic resistant microorganisms, and at least 23,000 have died as a result.


http://www.theguardi
an.com/technology/20
14/oct/21/tackling-r
esistant-bacteria-th
rough-collaboration



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, Pre Toothbrush / Fluoride.. 2000 years ago all you needed was a ROBUST IMMUNE SYSTEM to fight Periodontitis / Gingivitis... GUESS WHAT... there's a mountain of Scientific Evidence pointing to Fluoride suppressing the body's Immune System... GUM DISEASE WORSE NOW THAN IN ROMAN BRITAIN 24 October 2014 Scientists from King's College London examined more than 300 skulls from the Museum's collections. The skulls came from a Roman cemetery in Poundbury Camp, Dorset, in use around 200-400 AD. Gum disease, also known as periodontitis, is caused by inflammation, often as a response to a build-up of plaque on the teeth. It causes the loss of bone supporting teeth, and can lead to tooth loss. IN BRITAIN TODAY, 15-30 PERCENT OF ADULTS HAVE CHRONIC GUM DISEASE, WHEREAS IN THE POUNDBURY SKULLS ONLY FIVE PERCENT SHOWED SIGNS OF THE DISEASE. http://www.nhm.ac.uk /about-us/news/2014/ oct/gum-disease-wors e-now-than-in-roman- britain133420.html ,,[/p][/quote],, QUESTION... If it was within your remit to advise the Government on health issues and you believed fighting antibiotic-resistant bacteria was ranked alongside fighting terrorism.. 1) Would you advise this Government to allocate ( £££ Billions ) funds for Immune System Boosting Research knowing the Immune System will cure minor bacterial infections on its own.. 2) Or would you call for Universal Water Fluoridation knowing there's a mountain of Scientific Evidence pointing to Fluoride suppressing the Body's Immune System.. GUESS WHAT... Prof. Dame Sally Davies the UKs Chief Medical Officer believes fighting antibiotic-resistant bacteria is ranked alongside fighting terrorism and also advocates the dumping of Neurotoxic Fluoride into all of the UK's Drinking Water.. unbelievably weird TACKLING ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA THROUGH COLLABORATIVE NETWORKING Antimicrobial-resist ant bacteria is an increasingly pressing global issue... The Guardian, Tuesday 21 October 2014 11.33 BST PROFESSOR DAME SALLY DAVIES, THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF ENGLAND, STATED THAT THE PROBLEM OF MICROBES BECOMING INCREASINGLY RESISTANT TO THE MOST POWERFUL DRUGS SHOULD BE RANKED ALONGSIDE TERRORISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE. Antimicrobial resistance is a global issue, increasingly recognised by health authorities around the world. It is estimated that at least 2 million people in the United States alone are infected by antibiotic resistant microorganisms, and at least 23,000 have died as a result. http://www.theguardi an.com/technology/20 14/oct/21/tackling-r esistant-bacteria-th rough-collaboration ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree