The Fluoride debate (videos and updates below)
What is Fluoride? Fluoride does occur in nature, but the chemical used in our water supply is a waste/by
product in the most from the Aluminium and Nuclear industries, a highly toxic
and dangerous one at that, well known as rat/cockroach poison, it is also had
many other uses over the past century.
Prozac and Sarin nerve gas
are made from Fluoride, a small teaspoon of Flouride will kill a grown man if
ingested, Sodium Flouride is also added to our drinking water in SA, and as of
only recently into QLD’s water supply.
So why add a deadly poison
into our water supply? This is where the debate starts, should it be added,
why, where does it come from and who makes the decision?
From the onset there are many
arguments in the most clouded by many varying opinions and a severe
lack of informed debate, when I first dare ask the question as an intrigued political
candidate over a decade ago, the ADA (Australian dental association) with which
I met, argued it was essential to the health of our teeth, begging the
immediate question, why then do we consume it, bath in it, wash our cars in it,
The other side if the
spectrum were those industries who supplied the by product, so I stepped back to
the 50’s and 60’s, a time when Sodium Fluoride was a big problem for certain
industries, in particular how they could safely dispose of the tonnes of
extremely toxic by products with causing a disaster, coincidently this was the
very same time that the FDA in the US were sold the benifets of fluoride for
our dental health.
Seems to me, this was the
only way they could not only dispose of it, but sell their toxic waste at a 20,000 %
mark up, since that time facts and figures clearly show that Trillions of dollars have
been spent in the last 60 years promoting artificial water fluoridation around
Even with the huge sell, very few countries adopted the practice and many of them having
since discontinued it, with no increase in tooth decay. (Only 5% of the
world’s population has opted for their municipal water to be fluoridated, many
of their people dragged in kicking and screaming.)
This fact alone should open people’s eyes to the self interest and money
behind the ideal of forced Fluoridation, so let’s look further into the health
issues and the most important issue brought about by this debate “The ideal of
Some country's have now invested heavily on devices that take any Fluoride out of the water!
The first documented use of forced medication of large populations and in
fact large groups of people horrifyingly enough used Sodium Fluoride, one of
the first to do this was Hitler, his Gestapo used large doses in German Ghettos
and in Nazi Germany's infamous prison
camps, this was nothing to do with dental health, it was about other nasty
results of adding Fluoride to drinking water, including sterilisation, reduced
mental capacity, numbing down of their prisoners and a host of horrific health related side effects. (Exposed
in a book by Joseph Borkin)
When we look into the effects of fluoride on our health, there are plenty
of reports to read through, from increases in cancer, fluorosis, bone disease,
damage to the pineal gland, and various side effects on the brain itself, so let’s
look at what the science itself says.
From 1979 to 1982 various institutions conducted studies to
determine the maximum safe level of fluoride in drinking water. This research
included toxicological experiments on animals and epidemiological
investigations of human populations. Long-term studies with fluoride in drinking
water at 1 mg/L revealed adverse effects on bone quality and accumulation of
fluoride in hair and fur of animals indicative of early or mild stages of
fluorosis. Epidemiological investigations revealed that, at a fluoride level of
1 mg/L in water, the incidence of dental fluorosis in some areas was 50 percent
As a result of these findings the Health Standards Commission demanded
a reduction in the standard for fluoride in drinking water to 0.6 mg/L, but
this suggestion was not adopted.
More than 30
years ago, scientists showed that low levels of fluoride increased the
incidence of melanotic tumors in living organisms from 12 to 100% – often these
tumors were induced by fluoride over a period of days.
These studies were
further amplified by work done by the Taylor's at the University of Texas which
found that 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water increased tumor growth rate in mice
In Australia it has taken me some time to find the facts and figures that relate to how much flouride is added on a state by state basis, my state South Australia is the only state not to have flouride legislation and the NHMRC Australia's peek body have set the limit at a huge 1.5 ppm, a very high dosage on the world stage, and above what the experts say is a safe limit.
Attempts to confirm exactly how this dosage is maintained and checked, has so far provided no useful information to share.
Another serious side effect of
chronic water fluoridation exposure is the calcification of the pineal gland. The
pineal gland is responsible for the secretion of melatonin and connected to
many other parts of one's body. The calcification of this gland will make a
person more susceptible to depression, conformity, lethargy, metabolic
problems, and serious growth and learning disabilities.
"This was one of the many reasons Nazi Germany and Communist Russia adopted its use, to ensure a subservient people"
Coincidentally while studying
another health related topic, it is a known fact that over the past 20 years or
so, Autism, ADHD and various other brain & development issues have risen
by over 400%, could these issues be related to the forced medication of our
There have been a host of
reports and court actions in the past 30 years, (Dr Yiamouyiannis's studies with
Dr Dean Burk to determine whether cancer death rates increased after
fluoridation in the 1950s) caused great concern among many
Americans and prompted Congressional hearings in 1977 followed by a 21-day
court trial in Pennsylvania. There the presiding judge was compellingly
convinced of the adverse effects of fluoridation and ordered its halt as a
public health hazard.
(The above Spring Water has added fluoride "Ideal for infant formulas")
Many dentists and researchers now refute the notion that
adding fluoride to water supplies helps to prevent tooth decay by strengthening
tooth enamel. Let’s consider for a moment though, that it was a real benefit.
If this were the case, and tooth decay in Australia was reduced to minimal
levels, the amount of research internationally that cites multiple health risks
from water fluoridation is massive.
It appears that professionals who support water fluoridation
are not paying due attention to literally thousands of scientists, doctors and
researchers internationally who are publishing some grim results on the health
effects of excess fluoride. Some research indicates that benefits of fluoride
are largely topical, (applying fluoride directly to the teeth) and not through
drinking water. If this is the case, the systemic exposure of every man, woman
and child through the water supply makes little sense, when topically applied
fluoridated toothpaste is universally available.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence of associated risks
with water fluoridation is the 2006 report from the committee of the National
Research Council (2006), a 530-page scientific review of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Standards on fluoride in drinking
water. The report concludes that that the EPA’s drinking water standard for
fluoride does not protect against adverse health effects.
One would hope that
those reassuring the public that there are no health risks associated with
water fluoridation would at least familiarise themselves with this document, as
a minimum requirement, not that many of our representatives appear to have the
ability to make informed decisions.
In addition, some 1200 professionals from the Fluoride
Action Network have signed a statement calling for an end to fluoridation
worldwide. This statement itself has been signed by many leading fluoride researchers
around the world – a Nobel prize winner, 3 members of the 2006 National
Research Council review panel, environmental writers and hundreds of doctors,
dentists, PhDs, and other highly qualified people from over 40 countries. One
must ask why such people would spend their valuable time supporting such an
issue, when they have nothing to gain other than the satisfaction of seeing better
health and safety resulting from their research.
So there is No doubt fluoride represents a health risk to
all living beings, and with the ability to use topical toothpaste as free
choice, it is easy to come to the conclusion that self interest of certain
industries is more so the reason behind the whole idea of forced medication as
a way of disposing of deadly poison, yet we the people appear to have no say in
If by chance my findings and assessments of the situation is
wrong, then best we debate how much fluoride is added to our water and from
where it is purchased, The US like
we here in Australia, import cheap water fluoridation chemicals from China and
a recent evaluation found that much of the fluoride used for water fluoridation now coming out of China exhibit arsenic and
lead levels of 50mg and 40mg respectively a bag.
Sourcing anything to add to our drinking water
from a country with a track record of lead paint on toys, anti-freeze in cough
syrup, 400-times the acceptable concentrations of formaldehyde on children's
clothing and toxic chemicals in baby formula and milk is unacceptable. Just
recently here in Australia and also in the US, fluoride from China has
contained substances which have yet to be identified, yet it is still added to our
In areas where fluoridation occurs,
continuous weekly assessments must be carried out in order to assure
concentrations remain within acceptable limits, (which are lower among hotter
areas to take greater fluid consumption into account) as concentrations in
excess of 1.5ppm can cause dental fluorosis (staining of the teeth) whilst
concentrations over 4ppm can cause skeletal fluorosis. (NHMRC 2004), so how
much is Australia adding and who is ensuring safe limits and exactly what are
Is it our representatives that make the decisions or their corporate sponsors, I doubt any compassionate person with the ability to make decisions for those they are employed to represent, would support adding a toxic poison to our water supply!
One of the most commonly cited
reasons to oppose fluoridation is that it is unethical for a government to
subject a population to what is essentially mass medication against their will;
the very reason why fluoridation has either not been accepted or has been
subsequently discontinued among certain areas of Europe. (Short & Riordan
This whole debate is riddled
with complexities. For example, taking away a person’s choice whether to be
medicated or not may be considered reasonably unethical, though it could also
be argued that allowing them to chose not to be medicated could be more
unethical if allowing them that choice meant exposing them to harm, especially
if they do not have the necessary capacity to make an a fully informed
decision, so maybe we should mandate the use of toothpaste.
It becomes obvious that fluoride
is dangerous and should not be forced upon the population, even at levels of
0.6ppm of lower, it may still damage the health of people and animals, yet try
yourself to find the amount currently being added to Australia’s water
supplies, because I cannot, and furthermore, it is now being added to bottled
water, beer and a variety of food and drinks, without adequate labelling to
Bottled water content and labelling in Australia is regulated
by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Labelling standards for bottled water in Australia
do not require the display of any naturally occurring minerals. Whilst none of
the 10 bottled waters analysed had any added minerals, only three of the 10
brands displayed the fluoride concentration on their labels. International
studies have also found that very few brands of bottled water display the
fluoride concentrations on their labels unless required by regulatory
Forcing we the people to ingest a deadly poison, like it or
not, to do the same to our animals and wild life, all under the spin it is a
dental health issue, when the truth does not support the sell, is an attack on
our rights, our civil liberties and our freedoms, let alone what could only be
considered abuse of our children’s most basic right to a healthy future.
The latest scientific research release in the past 2 months is that of SCHR in the EU, the results are quite alarming.
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental RisksCritical review of any new evidence
on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the
fluoridating agents of drinking water 2010
The committee covered the inclusion of topical use of fluoride in tooth pastes while water contained flouride, it found that the upper tolerable intake level (UL) is not exceeded for
adults and children between 12 and 15 living in areas with fluoridated drinking
water (<0.8 mg/L).
The UL was exceeded in children between 6 and 12 years
living in areas with fluoridated drinking water (<0.8 mg/L) when consuming
up to 1 L water and using adult toothpaste (1.5%) unsupervised.
The UL is exceeded in children between 1 and 6 years living
in areas with fluoridated drinking water (<0.8 mg/L) when consuming up to
0.5 L water and using adult toothpaste (1.5%) unsupervised.
The results raise serious questions, considering the committee was expected to find results that backed the adding of fluoride in the European Union, and the ppm rate was 0.8 ppm, where Australia a much hotter climate is currently adding 1.5 ppm, near twice the studied quantity.
The European Court of Justice also released its decisions;
Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot
be used to prepare foods. That is the decision of the European Court of
Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of
‘functional drinks’ in member states of the European Community.
(HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica (Joined Cases C-211/03,
C-299/03, C-316/03 and C-318/03) 9 June 2005)
We need to spread the truth, demand open and honest debate,
write to our politicians and demand they to do the same and use our precious
vote to send a clear message, our body our choice.
In any country where the issue has faced their courts of justice or been put to a referendum, in every case the adding of fluoride was stopped immediately, providing good reason not only for overdue debate in Australia, but a fundamental reason for the issue to be put to a national referendum.
Update; Qld is fighting back to have fluoride removed from its water supply, worthy of watching where it goes, I will update this page as news comes to light "Click Here for info"
Mark M Aldridge
Community advocate and Independent candidate
08 82847482 / 0403379500
MARK ALDRIDGE INDEPENDENT, CANDIDATE FOR RAMSAY, The voice of the Community" community advocate for the north, Ramsay by-election Ramsay By Election, Ramsay Election, Zoe Bettison, Liberal candidate Ramsay election, Mike Rann resigns, Independent for Ramsay, Salisbury election, how to vote in Ramsay, South Australian Elections, Member of the Alliance Australian, 2010 Federal Election, Labor Party, Liberal Party, Australian Democrats, Democracy, Voting in Australia, Elections, electoral reform, Mark Aldridge, Mark M Aldridge, Julia Gillard, Nick Xenophon Independent, Murray river, Taxation, The Alliance Australia, Dodgy Elections, Freedoms and Liberties, Federal Election, Electoral , Commission, South Australian 2013 election, Mike Rann premier, How to vote in South Australia, Treason, The republican debate, Carbon Tax, climate change Australia, clean energy, solar power, mass power storage, carbon trading, carbon tax, Labor party SA, MARK ALDRIDGE, electoral reform, 2014 state election South Australia, Democracy, SAPOL, City of Salisbury, Zoe Bettison, Water proofing Adelaide, Colin Pitman, Salisbury Wetlands, Northern Invest, Electoral commission South Australia, Family First SA, Ramsay electorate, 2014 State election, South Australian 2014 election, Labor party Zoe Bettison, Dodgy elections, how to vote, Election results SA, Voting, elections, constitution, commonwealth of Australia, voice of the community, Water security, Colin Pitman, save the Murray, Power generation, Labor V Liberal, Community safety, SAPOL, Salisbury Police station, Nuclear power, Carbon Tax, Environmental protection SA, South Australian politics, Politics, 2 party politics, Helen Aldridge, Willow Wood sanctuary, Courts, Bikie laws, Constitution, Councils, Local government, LEON BYNER, 5AA, radio five aa, South Australian 2014 March election, 2014 state election, 2014 Independent candidate, UN declaration of human rights, MARK ALDRIDGE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY, RAMSAY ELECTORATE, RAMSAY ELECTION BOUNDARIES, WHERE TO VOTE RAMSAY, Politics Australia the truth, Gillard V Rudd, Best candidates in SA, who to vote for in 2014, The 2014 South Australian state election will elect members to the 53rd Parliament of South Australia on 15 March 2014. All seats in the House of Assembly or lower house, whose current members were elected at the 2010 election, and half the seats in the Legislative Council or upper house, last filled at the 2006 election, will become vacant. The 12-year incumbent Australian Labor Party, currently led by Premier Jay Weatherill, will be challenged by the opposition Liberal Party of Australia, currently led by Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond., Dont sell Australians short, Dont sell Australia short, leon Byner, Five AA, Google, 5AA, Australian land sales, Wikipedia Politics Australia, Nick Xenophon, Selling Australia short, Clive Palmer, CATA, No Carbon tax, Carbon trading details, Labor party QLD, Australian greens, Getup, Helen Aldridge, Animal rights activist, Mike Rann, FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, Julia Gillard, Jay Weathrill, Ramsay electorate, best candidate, Independent candidate for Ramsay, Liberal party SA, GetUp, Paul Makin, Today Tonight, Pauline Hansen, ETSA, power production, sale of assets, buying back the farm, Bill of Rights Australia, Mark Aldridge Bill of rights, South Australian 2014 State election, How to vote in SA, Labor funds GetUp, Salisbury elections, Salisbury community activists, Gillian Aldridge, employment, SAPOL, Salisbury police station, Voting in Australia, Taxation, used cars, LPG prices, ZOE BETTISON, Holdens, GMH, infrastructure. Bill of rights Australia, Buddhism activists, hemp, Cannabis, Today Tonight, Leon Byner, Sean Perry, FiveAA radio, WorkCover SA, GetUp, LDP, Liberal Democratic part, FREE Australia Party, Democrats, 2014 SA Election, Federal Election 2013, Candidates SA, M Aldridge Independent, Bob Francis, Nick Xenophon, Senate candidates SA, News for SA, South Australian candidate, Independent Australia, Australian Alliance, The Alliance, how to vote in SA, Elections Australia, YouTube Candidates, Animal Sanctuaries, Native Wildlife Sanctuarys, Cambodian candidates, Vietnamese Candidates SA,