Poisoned by our own government!!!

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Well then we should remove the fluoridation in the water....my children will benefit from an extra holiday a year and maybe a pony but underprivileged children will suffer....hurray for freedom from oppression of the state.

BTW My observations are universal and my opinions based on randomized pier reviewed controlled trials of decades duration in this country and others, some of them I even read on paper rather than select sections on the internet...imagine that.

Anyone else having fun....I sure am.

My name is URL

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

Well then we should remove the fluoridation in the water....my children will benefit from an extra holiday a year and maybe a pony but underprivileged children will suffer....hurray for freedom from oppression of the state.

BTW My observations are universal and my opinions based on randomized pier reviewed controlled trials of decades duration in this country and others, some of them I even read on paper rather than select sections on the internet...imagine that.

Anyone else having fun....I sure am.

Well you wrongly assume that nobody else here has access to or the brain capacity to read such watertight pier reviews!

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Nobody here gave me reason to assume otherwise yet, anyone with a rounded knowledge of this topic and a education in dental science and public health would see the benefits in water fluoridation. Yeah they are some downsides mostly involving dealing with conspiracy oddballs but the benefits are many more, however you have to define benefits as things that don't directly effect you personally but the community as a whole.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

Flouridation reduces caries rate, caries causes infection, infection causes pain. Flouridation reduces pain. And the beauty of it is people ingest it in water whether they give a crap or not which the at risk people do not.

My experience is 10 years as a dentist, and experience treating children in hospitals and studying 40 years of quality high level research, yours is 10 ,000 poss as a internet nut. There is not reasoning with conspiracy theories however your views will lead to pain in particularly children and the least advantages children at that. I have seen the trauma this causes, your underestimation of the sequalae of tooth decay underpins your naive views in this topic.

Its good to debate topics and if your views come to fruition I will make money, so why on earth would I argue the contrary except for altruistic reasons.

I think the underlying problem is not that its either a benefit or a debenefit. Its that its been banned in most other civilized democratic countries because its they view it as a health hazard or its counter to their approach of free will.

Adding to this the fact that fluoride is a toxic waste product that is economically difficult to dispose of, and it then somhow ends up being bought by our government and put into the public water supply at the behest of a single lobby group.

Ill bet my life on various groups that make a load of cash from selling the fluoride to stupid countries who dont have a democratic handle on their own infastructure, Ireland being a prime target.

Even if it helps prevent the odd filling, the whole scheme at this stage cant look anything other than insidious to say the lest.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Why do dentist lobby for an additive that prevents the need for their work?

It not the odd filling, the decay rate between the south and the north or ireland is 50% in favor of the south. That literally tens of millions of fillings since its introduction, again people without experience of the effects of decay (the serious effects) that underestimate the massive impact this public health initiative has had, in fact the fact that southerners take decay so lightly is a testament to the effectiveness of fluoridation.....

More troll food please......

My name is URL

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

Why do dentist lobby for an additive that prevents the need for their work?

It not the odd filling, the decay rate between the south and the north or ireland is 50% in favor of the south. That literally tens of millions of fillings since its introduction, again people without experience of the effects of decay (the serious effects) that underestimate the massive impact this public health initiative has had, in fact the fact that southerners take decay so lightly is a testament to the effectiveness of fluoridation.....

More troll food please......

Would it not be more effective to identify those most at risk, and work with them to alleviate the problem?

When they discontinued fluoridating water supplies in a Cuban city, they simultaneously introduced rinsing programs in schools. It had a massively positive effect.. the rate of caries in children decreased from 61.6% to 26.3%.

And that's Cuba.. a nation far less well off than Ireland. Of course there are other variables at play, but does such a change in numbers not warrant some scepticism in the practice?

Why not attempt what they did? To pro-actively tackle the problem rather than simply make it go away while ignoring the cause..

btkm8unsl0w5r4

So 15 time a year rinsing with 0.2% NaF is Ok but 0.8ppm in water is not....stoichiometry is not your strongest point. Also the article you cited show shockingly high DMFT and DMFS for instance in 9 year old in ireland the DMFT is 0.3 in 2002, as opposed to 1.2 in Cuba. So basically the sugar intact in Cuba is overcoming the effect of water fluoridation. Plucking crap out of context and without any underlying knowledge of the topic off pubmed is the tool of an amateur.

Dave!

tbh fitzgeme you're not contributing anything to this yourself. I have no time for conspiracy theories in general, and don't have any particular motivation to have fluoride removed from drinking water (certainly I don't think there's any danger in having it there at the current levels), but there are legitimate questions here too. My name is URL is being fairly reasonable, your attitude is pretty unwarranted IMO. I'd rather we benefited from your experience and training in all honesty! Argue the merits of the science.

Although I suppose this isn't really the forum for that kind of thing...

My name is URL

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

So 15 time a year rinsing with 0.2% NaF is Ok but 0.8ppm in water is not....stoichiometry is not your strongest point. Also the article you cited show shockingly high DMFT and DMFS for instance in 9 year old in ireland the DMFT is 0.3 in 2002, as opposed to 1.2 in Cuba. So basically the sugar intact in Cuba is overcoming the effect of water fluoridation. Plucking crap out of context and without any underlying knowledge of the topic off pubmed is the tool of an amateur.

Jaysus, you love the insults don't you?

Are you willing to take at face value any other studies I link to, or are you too entrenched in your attempts to maintain the status quo?

Hal Emmerich

Dave! wrote: »

tbh fitzgeme you're not contributing anything to this yourself.

Comment---->DIG

This is a thread on the same topic, was good at the end.

Heres an item from Austrailian news last year. It can be considered a direct parallel to the situation going on here. In fact, its almost completely identical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBRBPgTOt0&feature=related

Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Lead, Copper, Mercury are some of the substances added over there.

I was reading another fluoride thread over on the dental forums, some guy said he had a buddy who worked in a water treatment plant and that they are adding all sorts for everything. The thread was then shut down, surprise surprise.

On my search to find out more about whats in our water other than hydrofluoric acid, I came across an old site that had analysis of a document obtained under the freedom of information act 1997.
http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/campaign_update/albatros.htm

Some of the facts back then would be different now since a decent amount of time has passed, but its still very relevent since there has been no systematic changes or reform since.

The facts are;

The fluoride added to our water is waste fertilizer from holland. Nowadays it may come from Spain. The importers of this are Albatros Fertilizers Ltd., New Ross, County Wexford. It is contaminated with lead, arsenic and antimony (feeling sick yet?). You can check the link for a more detailed breakdown of the chemicals.

There's more than Flouride put in the water now.

studiorat

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

Its tasteless, and for god sake people its aimed at people that dont use tooth paste thats the point...think laterally.

As spock said the needs of the many..........

Excuse me for sounding bourgeois. how many people do you suppose we are talking about inna this group? Are there that many people to warrant fluoridating'an'ting for dem whole population?

whiteonion

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

Nobody here gave me reason to assume otherwise yet, anyone with a rounded knowledge of this topic and a education in dental science and public health would see the benefits in water fluoridation. Yeah they are some downsides mostly involving dealing with conspiracy oddballs but the benefits are many more, however you have to define benefits as things that don't directly effect you personally but the community as a whole.

Answer this, why is it that if you go on a casual stroll in Sweden, Finland, Denmark or Norway that you don't see many people with obvious dental problems? Take a walk in Dublin, Cork or Limerick and you'll see plenty of people with bad teeth.

If people in Nordic countries can have good teeth without water fluoridation why can't you do the same here?

Solair

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

As someone who has had to pull teeth on children in agony and risk their death by being forced into general anaesthetic, and cause considerable distress to them, I would say that if fluoridation of the water supply saves one of them from the terrible stress then the rest of ye can put up with it.

Public health measures are there for the population that do not and cannot help themselves, not for the individual, If you feel you rights are impinged then respectfully you are a selfish & ill informed.

Flouridation is still needed. As a dentist this is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

I know plenty of people who were through all that, and were fed on a diet of fluoridated water!

I'm not entirely convinced it has all that much effect if you insist on washing your teeth with chocolate and gargling coca-cola which is what usually what the cause of rotten teeth is in this day and age, not a lack of fluoridated water!

It'd be far better if they spent the money wasted on adding flouride on some dental care education programmes and reducing VAT on toothpaste and bushes.

upandcumming

reallyoriginal wrote: »

wow you looked hard
http://www.thenhfireland.com/

How come all they talk about is fluoride? Seems like shite to me.

Axe Rake

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

Flouridation reduces caries rate, caries causes infection, infection causes pain. Flouridation reduces pain. And the beauty of it is people ingest it in water whether they give a crap or not which the at risk people do not.

My experience is 10 years as a dentist, and experience treating children in hospitals and studying 40 years of quality high level research, yours is 10 ,000 poss as a internet nut.

Water fluoridation is dumping waste into the drinking water.



This chart shows tooth decay rates are unequivocally in decline equally well in fluoridated countries as in non fluoridated countries. We don't need it in our water.

Sovereign Independent wrote:

First of all, it needs to be stated that the ‘substance’ referred to as ‘Fluoride’ is a misnomer – there is no such substance listed in the periodic chart of the elements, nor in the prestigious CRC handbook, nor in the sacred ‘bible’ of the pharmaceutical industry – the illustrious ‘Merck Index’. Instead, we find a GAS called Fluorine – and from the use of this gas in various industries such as aluminum manufacturing and the nuclear industry -certain toxic byproducts are created which have ‘captured’ fluorine molecules. One such toxic, poisonous ‘byproduct’ is called sodium Fluoride – which according to the Merck Index is primarily used as rat and cockroach poison and is also the active ingredient in most toothpastes and as an “additive to drinking water”. But sadly, there is much more to this sordid tale.

Did you know that sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin Nerve Gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUORIDE) – (Yes, folks the same Sarin Nerve Gas that terrorists released on a crowded Japanese subway train!). Let me repeat: the truth the American public needs to understand is the fact that Sodium Fluoride is nothing more (or less) than a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminum industries. In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is also a main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well as military nerve gas.

“Even in very small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most effective rat-killer. Sodium Fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God’s great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body; whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it.”

If you have the time please watch the following video as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecO5ykxT-AY

Austria:

“Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water
Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria,
February 17, 2000).

Belgium:

“This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The
main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver
medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur,
Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).

China:

Fluoridation is banned: “not allowed”

Naturally high fluoride levels in water are a serious problem in China.

“Bartram said there were many other ‘silent threats,’ including excessive fluoride in the water supply in China,
India and the Rift Valley in Africa. In China alone, 30 million people suffer crippling skeletal fluorosis.” (Jamie
Bartram, Coordinator of the WHO's Water, Sanitation and Health Program, March 22, 2002)

The Chinese government now considers any water supply containing over 1 ppm fluoride a risk for skeletal
fluorosis. (Bo Z, et al. (2003). Distribution and risk assessment of fluoride in drinking water in the West Plain
region of Jilin Province, China. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 25: 421-431.)

In China, the World Health Organization has estimated that 2.7 million people have the crippling form of
skeletal fluorosis.

Czech Republic:

“Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech
Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration
because this form of supplementation is considered:
•
uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for
hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for
drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
•
unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
•
unethical (“forced medication”)
•
toxicologically and physiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of
supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-
threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active
forms of fluor.” (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).

Denmark:

“We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic
fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been
fluoridated.” (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999).

Finland:

“We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride
our teeth need.” (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).

“Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio,
situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population).
Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual
grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without
additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force-feeding” was
also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to
practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.”
(Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.)

France:

“Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to
ethical as well as medical considerations.” (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August
25, 2000).

Germany:

“Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions
to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general
permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.” (Gerda
Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).

Hungary:

Stopped fluoridating for technical reasons in the 1960s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary has
chosen to remain unfluoridated.

India:

Naturally high levels of fluorides in groundwater have affected at least tens of millions with skeletal fluorosis,
often resulting in crippling skeletal fluorosis. The Indian government has been working to remove the fluorides
from drinking water sources to alleviate this crisis. In India, 17 of its 32 states have been identified as
“endemic” areas, with an estimated 66 million people at risk from crippling skeletal fluorosis and 6 million
people seriously afflicted.

Israel:

Recently suspended mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects: medical,
environmental, ethical and legal. “From our experience in Israel and the world when the fluoride issue is
studied from all aspects it is rejected.” (Representative Shimon Tsuk, Israeli Parliament)

June 21, 2006: The labor, welfare and health Knesset (Israeli Parliament) committee called on the ministry of
health to freeze the extension of the fluoridation of drinking water in Israel and to study the issue in depth in
order to determine whether to continue with the project or to cancel it completely. Conclusions are to be
expected within a year. Until then, municipalities and Mekorot (Israel national water company) are not required
to build new fluoride installations.

Committee Chairman MK (Member of Knesset) Moshe Sharoni and MKs Ran Cohen and David Tal claimed
during the investigation that the potential damage to public health and environment from fluoridation may be
greater than the benefits from decreased dental cavities.

Japan:

Rejected fluoridation: “...may cause health problems....” The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-
fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

Luxembourg:

“Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water
isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their
own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.” (Jean-
Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000).

Netherlands:

“From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands
was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and
co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for
fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis
for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for
this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn.” (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking
Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000).

Northern Ireland:

“The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where
fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for
operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern
Ireland.” (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000).

Norway:

“In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that
drinking water should not be fluoridated.” (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for
folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000).

Scotland:

In November 2004, after months of consultation, Scotland - which had been unfluoridated - rejected plans to
add fluoride to the nation’s water.

Sweden:

“Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental
health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.” (Gunnar Guzikowski,
Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division,
Sweden, February 28, 2000).

Switzerland:

In April 9, 2003, the City Parliament of Basel, Switzerland voted 73 to 23 to stop Basel’s 41 year water
fluoridation program. Basel was the only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water, and the only city in
continental western Europe, outside of a few areas in Spain.

If you still believe Fluoride is needed in a water supply then go ahead and keep brushing your teeth with your ‘fluoride’ toothpaste and sucking on your sodium fluoride enhanced Coke or Pepsi – for ignorance truly is bliss and you truly deserve what you get.

Solair

Ah sure, much like the banking guarantee, our idiotic Government knows better than EVERYONE else in Europe...

Talk E

Little article I found

No Need Of Tooth Paste On Tooth Brush Now
Japanese scientists are collaborating with an oral health company on a revolutionary toothbrush that uses electricity to make teeth pearly white and does away with the need for toothpaste.

First dreamed up 15 years ago by Dr. Kunio Komiyama, who is now a professor of dentistry at Canada’s University of Saskatchewan, the Soladey-J3X has a solar panel at its base that requires minimal amounts of light to transmit electrons to the head of the toothbrush through a titanium dioxide semiconductor embedded in the body.
Once there, the electrons react with acid that occurs naturally in the mouth, creating a chemical reaction that breaks down plaque and kills bacteria, according to Dr. Komiyama and his colleague, Dr. Gerry Uswak, dean of the university’s College of Dentistry.
Prototypes of the cutting-edge device have been developed by Shiken Inc. — “shi ken” translates as “dental health” in Japanese — and research is underway.
To date, according to the Osaka-based company, tests in cultures of bacteria that cause periodontal disease have shown that the process brought about the “complete destruction of bacterial cells,” as well as breaking down the plaque.
A study on 120 teenagers is presently underway to determine how they rate it in comparison with a regular toothbrush.
The gadget has already received the recognition of the oral care industry, winning first prize at the recent annual FDI World Dental Conference in Dubai, fighting off 170 other entrants.
Patents on the toothbrush have already been taken out in nine countries, including Japan, although the company says the product will not be released onto the market until the early months of next year. Price should be around 40 euros (4300 Japanese yen)

http://buzzever.com/no-need-of-tooth-paste-on-tooth-brush-now/

hooradiation

Axe Rake wrote: »

If you still believe Fluoride is needed in a water supply then go ahead and keep brushing your teeth with your ‘fluoride’ toothpaste and sucking on your sodium fluoride enhanced Coke or Pepsi – for ignorance truly is bliss and you truly deserve what you get.

Which is what, exactly?

Axe Rake

hooradiation wrote: »

Which is what, exactly?

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/sitemap.html

hooradiation

And how much of that is that relevant to Ireland?

Axe Rake

hooradiation wrote: »

And how much of that is that relevant to Ireland?

Not quite sure what you are trying to get at but as long as fluoride is added to our water supplies then all of those possible health implications are relevant to Ireland.

Talk E

hooradiation wrote: »

And how much of that is that relevant to Ireland?

Human Studies: Fluoride's Impact on IQ

Sister_Trip

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=4381

David Matthew

Personally I'd be more comfortable with a water supply free of fluoride, mainly to reduce the risk of long term accumulative ill-effects, even if these risks are low. Is it not more preferable to just wash one's teeth with toothpaste, even if it means one more time per day (that is, if there weren't any fluoride flowing from the tap)?

The positions outlined by Finland and Belgium below seem reasonable to me:

• “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).
• “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).

Source

shanered

Now with water meters and water charges they will be charging us to poison ourselves, the joy!

hooradiation

Axe Rake wrote: »

Not quite sure what you are trying to get at but as long as fluoride is added to our water supplies then all of those possible health implications are relevant to Ireland.

No, not really. To use a simple example - drinking 10 liters of water in a short period of time will most likely kill you. It does not therefore follow that a glass of water is dangerous.


So, Lets take the link that Talk E supplied, the one that deals with IQ.

The studies refereed to mostly speak of "high levels of fluoride", for example in the first study on that list the levels of fluoridation are
0.8±1.4mg/L (Min of 0.0, a max of 2.2)
5.3±0.9mg/L (Min of 4.4, a max of 6.2)
and
9.4±0.9mg/L (Min of 8.5, a max of 10.3)

To put this in contrast, the levels of fluoridation in Ireland are
0.7±0.1mg/L (Min of 0.6, a max of 0.8)

so, in the "lowest" of high fluoride areas the levels of fluoridation are nearly three times higher than what we'd consume and at the highest is nearly thirteen times what we'd consume (in all cases using the max possible numbers)

The studies, while important, are not comparable.
In order for this to be relevant, there would have to be studies dealing with the effects of fluoridation at our current levels, not at the levels in Mexico or India.

I ask again.
How much of that is that relevant to Ireland?



fake edit: my reading of graphs was off a few days ago, so if anyone spots a flaw in the basic maths I've done, feel free to point it out. But i don't think i have.

Voodoo_rasher

Treora wrote: »

Some do, volvic sure doesn't.

I've examined the labels on 4 local different bottled waters while on a sun-break in Greece and there is no mention of any fluorides in the chemical composition listed in the ingredients of!

macco66

Dated 13th March '07. Make of it what you will.


http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/greens_in_govt_would_stop_water_fluoridation

shanered

What do you expect, nearly like everything they say pre-election cannot be counted on at all once in power

33

I'm just jumping in here out of the blue yonder, didn't read whats gone before, don't need to.

My feeling towards flouride is that it is a kind of sedative, where's the "Fighting Irish" gone?, maybe down the drain!

We are being pissed on left, right and centre, and we're taking it like a sheep with it's 2 back legs stuck in wellies, that's the truth, when will we actually get off our arses and say "NO MORE", probably never, so flouride is doing it's dirty deed quite well.