GENRE: Email letter
TO: Tory Shepherd, ‘Health Reporter’, Adelaide Now ; Cc. Many politicians
AUTHOR: Diane Drayton Buckland
DATE SENT: Wednesday, 20 October 2010 11:39 PM
TITLE: TO: Tory Shepherd – Journalist – Adelaide Now article – There’s something lurking in the water. Be afraid, be very afraid
STATUS: Awaiting response
UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘Ann.Bressington@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘John.Gazzola@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘Dennis.Hood@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘Ian.Hunter@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘Jing.Lee@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘Michelle.Lensink@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘Bob.Sneath@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘Kelly.Vincent@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘Stephen.Wade@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘Mal Davies’; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com’; ‘Rakshidh Shankar’; ‘Rakshidh Shankar’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ’firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘John.Gazzola@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘Dennis.Hood@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘Ian.Hunter@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘Jing.Lee@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘Michelle.Lensink@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘Bob.Sneath@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘Kelly.Vincent@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘Stephen.Wade@parliament.sa.gov.au‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org‘; ‘email@example.com‘
THERE’S something lurking in the water. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Article Adelaide Now by TORY SHEPHERD
To: Ms Tory Shepherd
Well to say I’m disappointed in your ‘journalism’ is to say the least – you probably think that the article you spawned makes you a real hip journo with all that redneck talk, you probably think you’re even funny, but in fact Tory it is a disgraceful insult to anyone of average intelligence and above who desires to become fully informed and educated and make totally informed and well-educated decisions for themselves et al.. You pro-fluoridationists have the hide to insult, defame, mock and bully anti-fluoridationists who are concerned citizens from those handful of countries who perform this ‘water fluoridation’ and are battling to remove the toxic waste from the aluminium and fertilizer industries,silicofluoride poisons ie sodium fluorosilicate (sodium silicofluoride) (sodium hexafluorosilicate) against our will, being added to we the people’s water supplies; remember it’s not just contaminating our water it is in everything else we eat and drink where water is added or used in production or manufacture and bathing et al . This is in addition to the diverse other sources of ‘fluoride’/ ‘fluorine’ exposures.
I would also like to say here that your below the belt and almost slanderous insult/accusation to S.A. Radio FIVEaa’s Leon Byner for having the guts to raise this matter to get the true facts to the people, was disgraceful of you. I just wish every radio personality had the set of ‘balls’ that Leon Byner has; he actually cares about the health of the people and our entire environment. Other Radio jocks could learn a lot about integrity, decency, care and honesty from Leon. If our Journalists got out of celebrities bedroom stories to such an extent, they may find this of real concern if they bother to look and then do something to right this terrible wrong. When I saw your disgraceful comments I immediately thought of Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia’s see his comments .- I have highlighted this down further in yellow.
The pro-fluoride extremists obviously have a great supporter in you, being the perfect puppet for them; what a pity you can’t be bothered to find out the real truth with a lot of common sense and an open mind and actually see the extensive data condemning ‘water fluoridation’ that is in fact enough to resink the Titanic.
In Australia you may be aware as per KHA Media release 18.8.2009 that dialysis debt will force the Government to take over chronic kidney disease management in Australia. On 2005 figures the cumulative cost of dialysis from 2004 to 2010 is expected to be $4.5 billion – with the definitive link to ‘water fluoridation chemicals’ – under extreme pressure the ADA (USA) finally sent out a warning about dialysis patients and ‘fluoridated water’, as well as the warning that infant formula must not be mixed using ‘fluoridated water’.
FLUORIDATION OF COMMUNITY WATER – KIDNEY DISEASE http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/gfm663v1
Tory, I would like to ask you whatever happened to Journalists who dig, dig, dig and investigate, research and discover the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; especially when extensive evidence of cumulative harm from silicofluorides / ‘fluorides’ has been placed under the noses of journalists for many years by many good people simply trying to protect their own health and the health of their countrymen and entire environment because these good and decent people did extensive research and have amassed such evidence of harm over decades. Many of these good people have extensive credentials for their expertise. At the very least I’m assuming you would be aware of the need for application of The Precautionary Principle. If ever there was a case for this, it is ‘water fluoridation’.
Tory, you must surely understand the loss of integrity in science due to conflicts of interests /corporate interests is a most serious problem, but we also have a problem with advertising massive budgets and conflicts of interests with advertisers.
Shiv Chopra An expert scientist at Health Canada has even published a book after he was given the chop by Health Canada because he wouldn’t go along with the flow. His book is titled Corrupt to the Core Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower – in the forwards of the book one Vandana Shiva Environmental Activist in India states that “The cancer of corporate corruption of science and safety regulations is becoming a major threat to the planet’s health and to public health. Dr. ShivChopra’s book describes a leading scientists’ witnessing of this corruption his courageous writing provides a dose of resiliences to all who care about the integrity of science, the independence of government regulations from corporate influence, and the freedom of citizens from hazardous food and medicines”.
Also a statement by Samuel S. Epstein, Professor Emeritus Environmental and Occupational Medicine
“Independent research and publication by agency scientists, which conflict with internal policy more often than not, results in punitive let alone disciplinary action and sidelining or even dismissal. So, it takes heroic personal courage to research and publicize adverse or critical findings on products and policies endorsed by the governments involved. Dr. Chopra more than exemplifies such qualifications”.
Corrupt to the Core
By Dr. Shiv Chopra
Dr. Shiv Chopra’ s name has become synonymous with food safety. Dr. Chopra and some of his fellow scientists waged many battles over many years against a succession of Canadian federal ministries of health—theft employer.
With full support of The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada—a 50,000 member union of scientific and professional public service employees, Dr. Chopra and his colleagues refused to approve various harmful drugs to be used in meat and milk production. Despite the political pressures to do otherwise, and holding fast to sound science, they did better than the gambles that a series of prime ministers and health ministers played with public safety.
Time and again the federal courts supported Dr. Chopra and his fellow scientists and ruled against government attempts to shut them up. Also, time and again the government overruledDr. Shiv Chopra’ s name has become synonymous with food safety. Dr. Chopra and some of his fellow scientists waged many battles over many years against a succession of Canadian federal ministries of health—theft employer. With full support of The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada—a 50,000 member union of scientific and professional public service employees, Dr. Chopra and his colleagues refused to approve various harmful drugs to be used in meat and milk production. Despite the political pressures to do otherwise, and holding fast to sound science, they did better than the gambles that a series of prime ministers and health ministers played with public safety. Time and again the federal courts supported Dr. Chopra and his fellow scientists and ruled against government attempts to shut them up. Also, time and again the government overruled.
Here is the full account of how government corruption endangers the public food supply and how Dr. Chopra and his colleagues fearlessly continue to “to speak truth to power.” Here is also the story of how the elected representatives in both Canada and USA are more interested in protecting industrial profits and trade, instead of the public’s health. The stories told here for the first time include products like Revalor-H, Baytril, Bovine Growth Hormone, Silicon Breast Implants, and slaughterhouse waste to cause the biggest ruin of health safety—Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or “mad-cow disease.”
Shiv Chopra on Fluoride et al with Professor Paul Connett This is a 22 minute audio
Fluoride-Gate, naming names at Centers for Disease Control DANIEL G. STOCKIN Americans’ distrust of societal institutions continues to grow, and now comes evidence of yet another burgeoning scandal: Fluoride-Gate. A torrent of recent bad news about the safety of fluorides has brought key names to the surface from the murky alphabet soup of players in the fluoride game at EPA, CDC, FDA, NIDCR, USDA, ADA, and AMA. The inevitable questions have begun about who knew what, when, and why was certain information kept quiet. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/011508/opi_20080115024.shtml
Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data.
There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. ‘End extract’
This was extracted from the work of Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus at the
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia.
This was extracted from the work of Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation (will only include the conclusion)
When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a fifty year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.
It is like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth? For those who would call for further studies, I say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end without further delay.
Further arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at http://www.fluoridealert.org. Arguments for fluoridation can be found at http://www.ada.org and a more systematic presentation of fluoride’s toxic effects can be found at http://www.Slweb.org/bibliography.html
End extract Paul Connett Professor of Chemistry www.fluoridealert.org Fluoride Action Network
Dennis Stevenson is a former Parliamentarian and Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly ‘Fluoridation Inquiry’ (1989-91). The majority of inquiry members would not report the scientific, medical, dental and court evidence received in worldwide submissions proving that fluoridation causes disease, deaths, tooth decay and is useless and environmentally destructive. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/33574
Political Suppression of Scientific Information on Fluorides in the United States by Medical Journals and Associations
In 1974 Sohan Manocha, now a lawyer, and Harold Warner, professor emeritus of biomedical engineering at Emory University Medical School in Atlanta, submitted a report summarizing a study of enzyme changes induced in monkeys by the consumption of water containing fluorine compounds for publication in the AMA Archives of Environmental Health. The editor passed the report around for review. It did not take long before he wrote a letter of rejection back to the authors. One of the peer reviewers had written a comment, ” I would recommend that this paper not be accepted for publication at this time, because this is a sensitive subject and any publication in this areas is subject to interpretation by anti-fluoridation groups.” After the rejection of their paper, Manocha and Warner were told by the director of their department, who had been warned by the National Institute of Dental Research that the research “would harm the cause of fluoridation,” not to try to publish their findings in any other United States journal. Eventually the authors were granted permission to publish in a foreign journal, as indicated in the footnote below.
In 1979, the American Dental Association issued a White Paper which includes the following statement, “dentists nonparticipation in fluoride promotion is overt neglect of professional responsibility.” According to an ADA spokesperson, this is still the organization’s policy. Dentists who have a grain of conscience are reprimanded by their respective state dental officer.
In 1980, a toxicologist Brian Dementi at the Virginia Department of Health, wrote a comprehensive report on “Fluoride and Drinking Water” that suggested possible health risks from fluoridation. The 36-page study has been purged from the department’s library even though it is the only one the department has prepared on the subject. Spokemen apparently say the report was “thrown away because it was old”, while maintaining that “the department will be preparing another report on the subject soon.”
In 1982, John Colquhoun, former principle dental officer in the Department of Health in New Zealand was told after writing a report that showed no benefit from fluoridation in New Zealand, that the department refused him permission to publish it. He now teaches the history of education at the University of Auckland, and notes that “the editorial policy of scientific journals has generally been not to publish material which overtly opposes the fluoridation paradigm.” According to Colquhoun, scientific journals employ a referee system of peer review, and when the overwhelming majority of experts in an area from which the referees are selected are committed to the shared paradigm of fluoridation (or any other paradigm), the system lends itself to preservation and continuation of the traditional belief that fluoridation is safe and effective. This results in a “single-minded promotion (materialist reductionism), but poor-quality research, and an apparent inability to flexibly reassess in the presence of unexpected new data.” It is quite obvious that the same problem is apparent within the other paradigms (EMF effects, etc.) mentioned in Matrix III.
In 1984, after receiving a letter for publication on fluorides from Geoffrey E. Smith, a dental surgeon from Melbourne, Australia, the editor of the New York State Dental Journal replied, ” Your paper was read here with interest, but it is not appropriate for publication at this time because the opposition to fluoridation has become virulent again.”
After the WHO released its study on fluorines and fluorides in 1985, it immediately drew criticism from scientific circles. In a letter from Phillipe Grandjean, a professor of environmental medicine at Odense University in Denmark (see illustration page) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on June 6, 1985, Grandjean wrote, “information which could cast any doubt on the advantage of fluoride supplements was left out by the Task Group. Unless I had been present myself, I would have found it hard to believe.”
The 1985 WHO report was not the only thing under fire. Criticism of reports on fluorides authored by the EPA were also under scrutiny. According to Robert J. Carton, an environmental scientist at the EPA, the scientific assessment of fluorides health risks written by the agency in 1985 “omits 90% of the literature on mutagenicity, most of which suggests fluoride is a mutagen.”
Tucson Study Finds Fluoride Promotes Tooth Decay – 1992
Those promoting the concept of water fluoridation maintain that the presence of fluoride in the human diet, whether in public water supplies, food, beverages or from other sources, assists in the prevention of dental caries (cavities). After conducting two years of research on the subject, contacting numerous organizations and pouring through mountains of scientific reports and documents, I could find no credible data supporting this conclusion. In fact, I found exactly the opposite was the case. It explains why the American Dental Association and the National Institute for Dental Research have always supported fluoridation of the population. Aside from the issues of cancer, mutagenicity, osteoporosis and behavior control, one of the results of fluoridation is that it actually creates more cavities in order to support the dental profession. Where’s the proof?
According to Cornelius Steelink, professor emeritus at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Arizona, who was intimately involved in the debate to fluoridate the water of Tucson, when the incidence of tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child’s drinking water was examined in Tucson, a city with discreate geographic areas of groundwater with both high fluoride content (0.8ppm) and low content (0.3ppm), a positive correlation was revealed. Dental screening was conducted of 26,000 elementary school children. When the incidence of tooth decay was plotted against the fluoride content of the water, it was discovered that the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth.
The fluoride debate in Tucson started when the local county board of health, soon joined by state and federal “public health” organizations, requested that the city of Tucson add fluoride to the drinking water. The city referred the mattter to the subcommittee chaired by Dr. Steelink. The subcommittee also discovered that a large population of poor children would get no benefit from optimum fluoride in the water, as the largest factors in tooth decay (besides processed foods and sugar) were lack of access to dental facilties, poverty and poor oral hygiene. In it’s final report, the subcommittee stated that “there was no obvious relation of fluoride content in municipal water to the prevention of tooth decay in Tucson” and “because there are multiple causes of tooth decay, a decision to fluoridate would still leave pockets of poor dental health.” Furthermore, it was reported that “children, who lived in a fluoridated community, had 11 times the odds of developing fluorosis.”
Studies of young males and fluoridated water have produced some interesting results. A February 1991 U.S. Public Health Service study linked fluoridated water to bone cancer in young males in Seattle, Washington and Iowa. A New Jersey Department of Health Study in November 1992 found bone cancer rates among young males to be six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated communities. ‘end extract’
This was extracted from work of Brian Martin Science, Technology and Society series Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate
DR. JOEY HENNESSEY – sent letters requesting ALL WATER SUPPLIERS IN
TENNESSEE TO STOP “FLUORIDATING THE WATER SUPPLIES” – he says that just because we’ve been doing something for fifty years doesn’t mean it’s right. Watch here:-
Extracted from article Consumer Health organization of Canada
CANCER AND FLUORIDATION
ON APRIL 14, 1981, DR. DEAN BURKE, STATED ON A CANADIAN RADIO STATION, CFTR: “We estimate that since fluoridation was introduced into the U.S., there have been almost as many excess deaths associated with fluoridation as the sum total of all American military deaths since the founding of U.S.A. 1776. Now that’s an awful burden for pro‐fluoridationists to bear if they can come to see that they have been responsible for this. The underlying clandestine force behind water fluoridation is a need by various industries to get rid of various toxic fluoride byproducts, about as tough to get rid of as radioactive wastes. The dentists are by and large pawns.”
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Professor Emeritus Environmental and Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition.
www.preventcancer.com Yet another expert against ‘water fluoridation’
This article below was in Adelaide Now which link has now been deactivated.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA CHILD TOOTH DECAY EPIDEMIC CAUSED BY TOO MANY SOFTDRINKS
(note SOUTH AUSTRALIA “FLUORIDATED” SINCE 1971; at a saturation rate of 90% as at 2007 as per NHMRC Public Statement DB)
Extract: September 16, 2008 12:01am
THE rising popularity of sugary drinks has become an “epidemic” for oral health and is being blamed for hundreds of children being admitted to hospital for tooth extractions.
Dental authorities say the number of SA children under eight hospitalised for dental treatment last year was around 1300 – most undergoing extraction and restoration as a result of early childhood tooth decay.
The major causes of the decay include soft drinks, sports drinks, fruit juices and cordials, which have overtaken tap water as the drink of choice for youngsters.
Alarming numbers of toddlers need to have baby teeth removed because of excessive decay and enamel erosion. “The impact of popular drinks on our oral health has become an epidemic,” Australian Dental Association (SA) president Dr Peter Alldritt said. Eastwood grandmother Gini Gooden watched as her granddaughter Gracie, 6, underwent a check‐up. “We never had the soft drinks that they do these days – we always drank water,” Ms Gooden said.
One of the hidden problems with juices and soft drinks is their extreme acidity which strips calcium and phosphate from teeth, causing enamel to erode. SA Dental Service health promotion director Chris Morris said milk in baby bottles also caused similar problems, with much of the damage done before the age of two. The dental service has introduced a “Lift the Lip” program to help parents and young adults check for signs of tooth erosion, which starts on the top surfaces of the front teeth and can be seen as a white line across the tooth near the gum.
The service also recommends children aged from 18 months to six use a low‐fluoride toothpaste, and from age six to use adult fluoride toothpaste. Tap water, which contains fluoride, is recommended over bottled water.
LINK NOW DEACTIVATED.
This situation is similar in other States of Australia which have been ‘fluoridated’ = translation = silicofluoride poisoned commencing in Beaconsfield Tasmania in 1953 and Hobart et al since l964 with a saturation of 83% as at 2007 NHMRC Public Statement.
Tasmanians in fact have the worst dental health in our Nation.
BY DANIELLE BLEWETT
20 Aug, 2009 05:48 PM
BRING out your teeth!
Tasmanians have some of the worst teeth in Australia – with a tooth being pulled once every three minutes.
Yesterday, the Federal Government urged Tasmanian parents to get their kids to the dentist quick smart.
This year Medicare Australia sent out 38,100 vouchers to Tasmanians, each valued at $153.45 for teenagers to get a preventative dental health check-up.
Families will get a voucher each calendar year and this year’s vouchers are valid until December 31.
To be eligible, a teenager must be entitled to receive Medicare benefits and be aged 12 to 17 years.
The voucher covers one annual preventative check consisting of an oral examination, a scale and clean, fluoride treatment, oral hygiene instruction, dietary advice and or fissure seal.
“Teenagers need to present their voucher when they have this check,” Medicare Australia’s Mark Jackson said. According to the Australian Health and Medical Research Council:
•11.2 per cent of Tasmanians aged 25 to 44 wear dentures, almost double the national average.
•A tooth is extracted every three minutes in public dental services around Australia.
•Tasmania has the highest percentage of people wearing a denture in the nation.
•The rate of 23.1 per cent is 4.6 per cent higher than national average of 18.5 per cent.
•In all the age categories from 25 to 65-plus, Tasmania is significantly above the national average.
•41 per cent of Tasmanians in the 45 to 64-year-old category have dentures, which is 12 per cent above the national average.
Another example:- Extract: Joshua’s case, while extreme, is illustrative of how decayed the system remains for those who cannot afford private dentistry. More than 650,000 Australians languish on public waiting lists, with a new study revealing the wait in Victoria is up to four years. They turn up at GP surgeries and hospitals in crisis, putting more strain on the health system.
The study, conducted by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, found those on low incomes often took painkillers and antibiotics for infections or resorted to drastic measures as did Joshua, smashing out a tooth himself. Full story: http://www.theage.com.au/national/dental-care-forgotten-issue-in-health-debate-20100417-sliw.html 18th April, 2010
The push for more ‘fluoridation’ throughout Australia also has been relentless and ongoing.
Brisbane and surrounding areas, Gold Coast et al were ‘fluoridated’ end December, 2008, and I have attached the timeline for further silicofluoride poisoning of the peoples’ water supplies here in Queensland.
A couple of examples for your interest Tory:-
Information on Kentucky Fluoridated since 1966 at a saturation rate of 100%.
— Kentucky is among the worst states in the nation for tooth decay and tooth loss, even among children. So groups like Delta Dental are fighting back. They are teaching students in the classroom all about their teeth, and how to take care of them. Steve Day is with Delta Dental of Kentucky and he came by to talk to WHAS11’s Kelsey Starks about a poster contest the group’s sponsoring in elementary schools. http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Interview-Delta-Dental-Contest-102688669.html (WHAS11)
See hereunder also:-
The Associated Press November 26, 2001
Dental Clinic Helps Rural Children
According to the following AP report, there is an “oral health crisis” in Kentucky, as with the rest of the country. Kentucky’s public water supplies are 100% fluoridated.
WILLIAMSBURG, Ky. (AP) – Twelve-year-old Jordan Rickett nervously waited his turn in the Whitley County Central Elementary School gym, watching as a classmate seated in a dental chair got his teeth examined.
“He’s sure been there a long time,” Jordan said, fidgeting. “I hope it doesn’t take that long for me.” For children in parts of rural Kentucky where dentists are in short supply, the dentists come to them. A specially equipped truck packed with portable chairs, lights, tables and instruments rolls into school gyms as part of Seal Kentucky, a program aimed at improving access to dental care for underserved children.
Jordan had four teeth sealed that day; the boy ahead of him, 11-year-old Larry Angel, had 15 that needed sealing.
“Oral disease is reaching a crisis level for children across the country and here in Kentucky,” said Jim Cecil, administrator of Oral Health Programs for the Kentucky Department of Public Health.
“There are a lot of places, Appalachia being one, where kids do not always get the dental care that they need, which can cause health, social and financial problems as they get older.”
Dr. Raynor Mullins and as many as a dozen student dentists from the University of Kentucky hit the road with everything they need to support a seven-chair dental clinic.
Two students work at each of six stations, with the seventh normally set up for a volunteer dentist. They apply sealants to help children prevent cavities. They do basic screenings to provide reports to parents about any serious dental problems.
“It’s a lot of fun to get out and actually see patients after weeks of work in a classroom,” said Heather Erbe, 23, of Lexington. “For most of us, this is our first experience with patients and the first chance to see and do some of the things we’ve been taught.”
Once the work is completed, Mullins or another faculty member examines each child to make sure the work has been done correctly or to consult on more serious problems – such as cavities or gum disease.
“It’s really great working with the kids – never boring,” said 22-year-old Regina Liford of Laurel County, who started working as a dental assistant in high school before deciding to pursue dental school at the university.
“A lot of times, kids have a bad experience with the dentist when they are young and become afraid to go back. I think it is easier for them in this situation because it is noninvasive work being done by people who are closer to their own age.”
Seal Kentucky was modeled after the Cincinnati health department’s dental sealant program. It targets second and sixth graders to seal molars when they have fully developed.
Depending on the number of students to be served in a given school, students from other grades also are eligible to receive screenings and sealants, which normally cost between $40 and $60 each. Schools are recommended to the program based on the numbers of children eligible for reduced or free school lunches or the Medicaid and Kentucky Children’s Health Insurance programs.
The goals of the dental program include increasing access to preventive services and increasing public awareness of the value of dental sealants, which prevent plaque from getting down into the natural grooves of teeth and growing into cavities. Mullins, chief of the College of Dentistry’s Division of Dental Public Health, said the program also teaches youngsters the importance of oral health and frequent trips to the dentist.
“It’s a mindset, really,” Mullins said. “I mean, if you had a finger that was rotting, you’d get it taken care of, right? As stereotypical as it sounds, there’s a lot of people who just do not take oral health as seriously as they should. “If we can plant positives about oral health in the minds of these children at a young age, they’ll be more comfortable with trips to the dentist and continue to take care of their teeth as they get older.”
See more information Fluoride Action network http://fluoridealert.org/mandatory.html
Friday, October 01, 2010
After 65 years of water fluoridation in the US, “Oral disease, including dental caries, is the most common pediatric disease and a significant cause of morbidity in adulthood.
1 As much as half of American children have caries. Reducing caries prevalence among children was one of the objectives defined in the Healthy People 2010 initiative.
2 However, this objective is far from being achieved;1 recent epidemiological data suggest that caries prevalence is increasing in the US.2 Several reports of child deaths due to complications of oral disease were recorded in the last decade.
3 Further, tooth decay has been identified as a silent epidemic.” OCR Article
Fluoride News Tracker http://fluoridenews.blogspot.com/
Tooth decay: a sad national epidemic caused by lack of dentists who care and not a fluoride need. Extensive lobbying, political maneuvering and expensive public relations campaigns by organized dentistry sway legislators to add fluoride chemicals into public water supplies, 2/3 of which already are, to benefit those whom dentists neglect. Protecting their high-salaried monopoly, dentists lobby against dental groups offering quality, cheaper fixes. Fluoride product makers benefit most. New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF)
This same situation is repeated all over the U.S.A..
For your interest a 2008 statistic
Water Status: Never fluoridated
2008 Population: 550,396 (US Census Bureau Pop. Fact Finder)
Number of Dentists: 629 (AnyWho Yellow Pages, current listing)
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Water Status: Fluoridated since 1945 (first in US and world)
2008 Population: 193,627 (US Census Bureau Pop. Fact Finder)
Number of Dentists: 924 (AnyWho Yellow Pages, current listing)
Q: Why does Grand Rapids need so many dentists?”
Tory are you aware that it is the Australian Dental Association that states that governments must adopt water fluoridation as part of health policy and actively promote its introduction, where it is feasible, as a public health measure.
Tory, what the population needs is access FOR ALL PEOPLE to affordable dentistry NOT the silicofluoride poisoning of the water supplies i.e. ‘water fluoridation schemes’ of which the cumulative evidence of harm is proven beyond doubt by experts the world over and where the pro-fluoridationists have no proof whatsoever to their constant regurgitated parroted claims ‘that it is safe and effective’.
I sincerely hope Tory that you will take this onboard and decide to become a real Investigative Journalist instead of what appears to be yet another mouthpiece for the extremist pro-fluoridationists and their massive financial interests in same. This is what makes people lose all respect for journalism.
Kind regards, Diana Buckland