Friday, February 19, 2010

"....connection between fluoride and cancer"

There is is big anti-fluoridisation campaign on in the Sunraysia Region and I imagine the rest of Victoria, as the State Government is talking about it's introduction. This letter is just the latest in a long line.
Sunraysia Daily Newspaper

Letter to Editor

19 Feb 2010

Landholders should be angry

HAD to laugh when I read the letter by Todd Harper from Vic Health (February 12).
What a parody of jokes.

Here we read about smoke-free streets to combat ill-health caused by second-hand smoke that smokers are polluting our streets with.

Previously we have read about the banning of smoking in cars with children aboard, yet we are prepared to feed our children the same chemicals in far greater dosage through the water that they must drink.
So target a minority group (I am not a smoker).

Pass on the other side of the street if you are bothered by them.
Why can't their employer provide them with an area that they can use? After all it is not yet illegal to smoke cigarettes.

In reply to John Bunney of Irymple, the referendum was the first stage in what will be a long battle in our fight against a greedy and ill-in- formed government, a government that recalls toys because they have traces of heavy metals in their paint but tells us it's okay for our children to drink these same heavy metals, some of which are lead, cadmium and mercury as well traces of the semi-metal arsenic, and I ask you, to what end?

There was a commercial long ago which advertised fluoride toothpaste and showed children that the fluoride gets into teeth just like the colour of the water got into
Now we are being told that it works from the inside out and is good for the foetus, babies, children, teenagers up to the elderly, even if you don't have teeth, or at least that is implied if we all have to drink it.

Contemporary research overseas has been showing us that fluoride is dangerous, but no independent research in Australia is being used to show that there could be a connection between fluoride and cancer, fluoride and Alzheimer's, fluoride and fluorosis of both teeth and the skeletal system. Why?
I say it's the almighty dollar talking.

The fertiliser and to some extent the coal industries are selling their waste to the government who must get rid of it, so it sells it to councils by forcing them to use it even if their people do not want it.
In the playground that would be called bullying, and would be addressed, not so in reality and especially if it is coming from our government.

There is no democracy. It matters little what people actually want.
I can choose to buy products that do not contain fluoride but I will have no choice if it is added to the water.

Des Harwood's claim that "I am grateful that I grew up with fluoride in my drinking water" (February 13) maybe one of those people who do not react to its side effects.

He would be grateful for the many thousands of additives added to our food also, and he probably does not have children that are affected also.

What about the people who are allergic to it and who cannot toler-
They will now be forced to drink the very substance that makes them sick.

Abroad an association was made between the antisocial behaviour of society and fluoride.
What of the people in Tasmania who have the worst teeth in Australia?

Has fluoride been of benefit to them; no it has not there are many cursing its addition.

I say no more. An interesting web site is at: /02-environment.htm#0.

Stefanie Ransome,


  1. Here was my response sent to the editor just a moment ago:

    The truth about fluoride

    I read with interest the letter from Stefanie Ransome on Friday. I was surprised by her many statements against water flouridisation and took her up on the website she quoted. I strongly encourage others to have a look also as it seems to be backed up by some very good sources. here it is again:

    However, in the website supplied by Ms Ransome, I found a very good source against the case she has put forward, and I quote (among many) from the website "The many studies on fluoride artificially added to drinking water have not found a link to cancer. " In fact the only negatives about fluoride contained on the site is for unusually hight doses, not the approximately 1mg/l (about a 1 in 1,000,000 ratio) that is typically added to drinking water. Like just about anything, to high a dose can be harmful, including water itself.

    It is true that there can be trace levels of arsenic and lead present in the fluoride compounds added to water, but no credible evidence exists that their presence is of concern. Concentrations are actually below measurement limits. In fact you'll find more cyanide in an apple seed. It's a case of quantity, and the mere mention of them is commonly used as a scare tactic, in the face of overwhelming evidence of the safety and efficacy of fluoride.

    The most persuasive argument that can be made in the anti-fluoride camp is the call for a referendum. On the face of it it sounds very fair and democratic way to settle the issue, but it's actually a stacked deck.

    First, the people who need fluoridation the most—the children—do not vote. Second, it is not difficult to confuse voters by flooding the community with scare propaganda. Most people don't have the time or inclination to check the sources. To turn against fluoridation, they don't need to accept all the anti arguments—only one.

    A 2009 survey in Australia found 70.5 percent of respondents supported water fluoridation, with 15.1 percent opposed and 14.3 percent neutral. Curiously, studies have shown that referendums can lose even in communities where public opinion favors fluoridation.

    People will usually go to the polls to vote against what they don't like. When this happens, not only do children suffer, but taxpayers are saddled with the cost of the referendum. In fact, the Public Health Service in the US estimates that every dollar spent for community fluoridation saves about fifty dollars in dental bills.

    So if there is a mountain of evidence for Fluoridisation, and no credible evidence against it, then where does that lead us to??? That old chest nut of last resort again, conspiracy theory, Seriously?

    If any credible evidence of some real conspiracy is found, I would be the first to call for the so an so's to to be hanged. However, fluoride has been added to drinking water since the 1940's and again it's overwhelmingly clear. The evidence is overwhelmingly for the safety and efficacy of water fluoridisation.
    Please be more skeptical of scare campaigns supported only by junk science and conspiracy theory, and don't forget to check your sources.

    Oh and for the record I have 3 children and none have yet developed a single cavity.

    Des Horwood

  2. "...drink these same heavy metals, some of which are lead, cadmium and mercury as well traces of the semi-metal arsenic, and I ask you, to what end..."

    So, who's saying it's OK to drink these things, in any significant concentration?

    At what concentration are these things present in the drinking water? What are the legally permissible maximums for these elements in drinking water?

    "Contemporary research overseas has been showing us that fluoride is dangerous..."

    Well, c'mon then. She can show us this evidence.

    Nobody is "allergic" to fluoride in solution at 1 mg/L - this is absolute nonsense.

    With regards to the notion, which seems to come up from anti-fluoridation activists quite frequently - that the fluorine compounds used for fluoride dosing contain Pb, Cd, Hg, As etc. - I will simply refer you to read the following - page 13, section 3.11.

  3. Thanks Luke, your help, especially the link you provided was very helpfull in responding to 2 more anti-fluoridation letters since.