we need more than 10,000 signatures state wide to get the Fluoridation Act repealed.
we need more than 10,000 signatures state wide to get the Fluoridation Act repealed.
The issue
We do not give our consent to be treated by being forced to ingest fluoride via our water supplies, by unqualified public servants and Councillors
NOTICE ON NON-CONSENT: BY ORDER OF OUR WILL AS CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA
NON-CONSENT TO BE TREATED WITH FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS FOR THE DISEASE OF DENTAL CARIES.
To: The Attorney General of Australia and NSW and all Honourable Elected Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Federal Parliament and that of the State of NSW of Australia and to all Elected and Non-elected Local Government Councillors of Ballina, NSW and Public Service Bodies of Independent Advisors.
Re: Notice of Non Consent by Order of Our Will and that of the Signatories on the attached petition (1) of the Shire of Ballina NSW Australia, draws to the attention of all that which has come before or that should come before all Parliaments and or Local Government Councils, Bodies, Corporations or Agencies, be of Our Will and that of the Will of the People who have signed the attached petition.
Under Article 6, sect 1 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Biothetics and Human Rights, I/WE DO NOT CONSENT to me or my children and/or grandchildren being treated with preventative or therapeutic measures for dental health via my public water supply
As you are aware, Rous Water Supply Plant will soon be ready for commissioning the inclusion of fluoride into our water supply Ballina. You must also be aware of the vast community opposition to this facility and to the addition of fluoridation chemicals to our drinking water. A petition against fluoridating our water supply signed by 1392 citizens and 435 individual letters giving a total of 1827 was delivered to the Ballina Shire Council in 2012, which they ignored. The Council are being bribed by the State Health Department with taxpayers money(so we have been told) (approx 9m for just three Shires) while the hospitals are rejecting patients. See Fluoridated Irish public betrayed by one-sided government spin. http://www.irelandagainstfluoridation.org/news/page/2/
This NOTICE of NON-CONSENT is pursuant to adding Water fluoridating agents i.e.: silicofluorides, S6 Poison, Industrial Fertiliser Waste or Aluminium Wast, Fluoride, which may contain Arsenic, Mercury, Barium, Lead, Beryllium, Polonium and other, to our water supply.
As an Australian Citizen and Water Consumer, WE DO NOT AUTHORISE, NEITHER DO WE CONSENT to our Commonwealth , State Government or any other such Body or Water Supplier making this decision regarding our health or water by having added or proposing to add silicofluorides, S6 Poison Fertiliser, Barium, Lead, Beryllium, Polonium as mass treatment, to our Households Water Supply, putting our health and that of our family at risk.
The overwhelming scientific evidence and case history reports, at www.fluoridealert.org, www.fluorideaustralia.org and www.australiafluorideaction.com clearly demonstrates that silicofluorides, S6 poison Industrial fertiliser, aluminium waste, fluoride toxic chemicals cause major and costly health problems. These problems include, brain dysfunction, thyroid dysfunction, nervous system impairment, brittle bones, dental and skeletal fluorosis, calcification of the Pineal Gland, lowers IQ, spontaneous abortions, still births, birth defects, infertility, kidney failure, hormone disruption, enzyme inhibitor, chemical sensitivities, cancer and in some cases eventually death. Fluoridation stimulates severe Violent Tendencies.
The ethics of medicine and healthcare dictate that the “informed consent” of the subject must be obtained before commencing any treatment, preventative or otherwise. We, the signatories of this petition, have never authorised any level of Government, Bodies, Corporations, Agencies or Water Suppliers to act as our health care practitioner or prescriber. By forcing mass treatment for ingestion or debilitating carcinogenic substances upon us and our families without our consent, are a criminal offence and a direct violation of the Nuremberg Code, to this Australia is a signatory.
This letter is our Notice that we have independently informed ourselves and that; it is our Will to withhold Our Consent to treat us and our families with silicofluorides, S6 Poison Fertiliser Waste, and or Aluminium Waste, Fluoride Toxic Chemicals.
THE FLUORIDE THAT THEY ARE USING IS INDUSTRIAL GRADE AND NOT MEDICAL GRADE.
There has recently been a case of a Doctor being sued and jailed in Europe for using industrial grade silicon and not medical grade. This was not even for consumption.
The Fluoridation Act breaches:
1. The Australian Constitution
Commitment to fair treatment
Human rights are inherent, inalienable, indivisible and universal. They are the birthright of all people and cannot be lost or taken away. They are all of equal importance and apply to all people whatever their race, gender, disability, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, age, property or other status. Observance of human rights, in Australia and abroad, benefits the security and prosperity of all nations and individuals. Successive Australian governments have supported these principles and systems.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Universal Values
International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.
3. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
UNESCO | Article 6 – Consent | Source
“1) Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be
carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned,
based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate,
be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for
any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2) Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express
and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be
adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities
for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned
at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions
to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal
standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out
in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
3) In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or
a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group
or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community
agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”
4. Casebook on Human Dignity and Human Rights
UNESCO | Informed Consent, p 69 |Source
“Every medical treatment requires the patient’s informed consent. The significance of this consent if that a person agrees to: the treatment, the ‘invasion’ of his/her body, understands the significance of his medical condition and the meaning of the treatment, the dangers and the benefits inherent in the treatment, and grants his/her informed consent willingly and without coercion, as determined in Article 6(1) of the Universal declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.”
5. 'Informed Consent' in Public Health Activities:
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health | Abstract | Source
Article 6, sect 1 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Biothetics and Human Rights states: Any preventive, diagnostic and/or therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
The Australian medical/legal literature of Informed consent
“Informed consent means that you understand your condition and any proposed treatment. You have a legal right to be told any information that relates to your medical condition and treatment. Without this information, you are not able to make a fully informed choice and give valid consent for treatment”
“A Product’s principal use is of primary consideration when determining whether it is a food or a medicine.”
Fluoride is definitely not a food.
“Informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient’s authorisation or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention. In the communication process, you, as the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure (not a delegated representative), should disclose and discuss with your patient. The patient’s diagnosis if known; The nature and purpose of a proposed treatment, or procedure; The risks and benefits of a proposed treatment or procedure; Alternatives (regardless of their cost or the extent to which the treatment options are covered by health insurance); The risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and The risks and benefits of not receiving or undergoing a treatment or procedure. In turn, your patient should have an opportunity to ask questions to elicit a better understanding of the treatment or procedure, so that he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.”
“The doctrine of informed consent serves the ethical goal of respecting patients’ rights of self-determination. Information is initially pitched at the reasonable, prudent person in the patient’s circumstances, and then fine-tuned to what is actually known about the particular patients’ needs for information. Elements to be disclosed include the patient’s prognosis if untreated, alternative treatment goals and options, the success rate of each option, and its known effects and material risks. Risks include medical risks, but also risks to general well-being such as economic and similar reasonable interests. “Consent is a continuing process not an event or signed form.”
They are forcing treatment onto a majority of the public who don’t have any dental diseases.
Whoever takes this right away from us is, by definition, engaged in criminal activity.
6. Consumer Rights in Australia
In Australia, the rights of people who use health care are contained in the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. Seven key rights are outlined:
- Access – A right to health care
- Safety – A right to receive safe and high quality health care
- Respect – A right to be shown respect, dignity and consideration
- Communication – A right to be informed about services, treatment, options and costs in a clear and open way
- Participation – A right to be included in decisions and choices about care
- Privacy – A right to privacy and confidentiality of personal information
- Comment – A right to comment on care and to have concerns addressed
(We have not been informed about the ongoing costs, that will be added to our rates, of adding fluoride to our water – when the majority of people don’t want it or need it). The estimate is that only approx 1% will go to the intended targets.
7. Australian Human Rights Commission Act:
Commonwealth of Australia | Part III – Article 7 | Source
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation." The Health Department cannot or will not give a 100% guarantee that the ingestion of fluoride, or that the fluoride that they purchase is safe.
8. Your Healthcare Rights and Responsibilities:
NSW Health | Participation, p. 7 | Source
"Patients must give consent before receiving treatment... Patients have the right to withhold consent."
9. Consent to Treatment: Policy Statement 5.15:
Australian Dental Association | Sect. 4; Sect. 4.1; Sect. 6 | Source
"Dentists must obtain the consent of a person with the legal capacity to provide the consent before dental procedures can be undertaken... In the case of young children, dentists must obtain the consent of the child’s parent or legal guardian for the dental procedure... Dentists must obtain the consent of a patient before providing treatment to that patient. Failure to obtain consent can give rise to any one or more of the following: a cause of action against the dentist in assault or battery; a negligence claim; or a complaint of professional misconduct."
10. Informed Consent to Treatment: Human Rights and Involuntary Treatment:
Amnesty International Ireland | Ch. 8, pp. 141-142 | Source
"Informed consent in healthcare is a key component of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and invokes several human rights that are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated such as the right to autonomy, freedom from discrimination, freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to privacy and bodily integrity. Informed consent has three essential components: firstly consent must be given without coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation (undue influence includes situations where the patient perceives there may be an unpleasant consequence associated with refusal of consent); secondly consent must be given after the disclosure of the associated benefits, risks and alternatives to the medical procedure in question (i.e. it must be informed); and thirdly to give valid consent the person must have capacity to give consent... The right to consent to treatment also includes the right to refuse treatment."
11. Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies:
British Medical Journal | Ethical implications; Potential harms | Source
"Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 199719 states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council's guidance on consent also stresses patients' autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm. This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit... In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation."
12. Trade Practices Act Substandard Goods
WE REQUEST THAT THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT BAN THIS PRODUCT FROM BEING ADDED TO OUR WATER.
Under proposed new arrangement only the Commonwealth Government will have the power to introduce permanent product safety bans. (1 January 2011).
Product Safety Australia
Safety Data Sheet –
1. Identification of the Material and supplier
Sodium Fluorosilicate
Recommended use of the chemical and restrictions on use: Water fluoridation, wood and leather preservative, etchant for opalescent glass
Classified as dangerous Goods by the criteria of the Australia Dangerous Goods Code, for Transport by Road and Rail: DANGEROUS GOODS.
The material is hazardous. Acute Oral Toxicity – Category 3
Acute Dermal Toxicity – Category 3
Acute inhalation Toxicity – Category 3
SIGNAL WORD: DANGER
Toxic if swallowed, in contact with skin or if inhaled.
Prevention:
Avoid breathing dust/fume/gas/mist/vapours/spray
Wash hands thoroughly after handling
Do not eat, drink or smoke when using this product
Use only outdoors or in a well-ventilated area
Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection
IF SWALLOWED: Immediately call a POISON CENTRE or doctor/physician
Rinse mouth
IF ON SKIN: Wash with plenty of soap and water
Call a POISON CENTRE or doctor/physician if you fell unwell
Take off immediately all contaminated clothing
Wash contaminated clothing before re-use
Specific measures (see First Aid Measures on Safety Data Sheet)
IF INHALED: Remove person to fresh air and keep comfortable for breathing
Specific treatment (see First Aid Measures on Safety Data Sheet)
Call a POISON CENTRE or doctor/physician
Reactivity: Reacts with acids liberating very toxic gas
Possibility of hazardous reactions: In the presence of water, contact with metals may produce hydrogen which may form explosive mixtures with air
Incompatible materials: Incompatible with acids, aluminium, magnesium, cyanides
(Many people need to take magnesium tablets to help with calcium absorption).
Ingestion: Swallowing can result in nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal pain. Larger exposures may result in muscular weakness, shock, convulsions and spasms. Can be fatal due to respiratory and cardiac failure.
Eye Contact: An eye irritant
Skin contact: Contact with skin may result in irritation
Inhalation: Breathing in dust may result in respiratory irritation. Breathing in high concentrations may result in the same symptoms described for ‘INGESTION”.
Chronic effects: Repeated or prolonged exposure may result in fluorosis.
Fluorosis in humans can result with the repeated ingestion of >6mg of fluorine per day. The fluoride accumulates in bone and can lead to the development of osteosclerosis and other bone changes. Teeth may also be affected.
Symptoms of fluoriosis may include weight loss, brittle bones, anaemia, weakness and stiffness of joints.
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Ecotoxicity: Avoid contaminating waterways
Terrestrial toxicity: Ecotoxic to terrestrial vertebrates
Please Note: It doesn’t state what type of fluoride.
13. The Australian Crimes Act
The charges of causing grievous bodily harm (The Australian Crimes Act - ss 33 and 35 of Crimes Act 1900) – are both very serious charges which carry penalties whether intentionally or recklessly. The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent is a strictly indictable offence ie. must be heard and determined in the Court, whereas the offence of recklessly cause grievous bodily harm is a Table 1 offence. Both offences carry standard non-parole periods:
http://australianfluorideaction.com/the-professionals/
“many thousands of professionals from within Australia and around the world have made a tireless effort to end the most life debilitating poison, water fluoridation, which has been imposed upon the people of Australia as a treatment without their full understanding or consent. (This being a direct breach of the Nuremberg Criminal Code of which Australia is a signatory”.
The Councillors would not like it is we stood over them and said take a panadol tablet every time you have a glass of water. They would probably say that we are not qualified to make them swallow anything. We could then say “Well the Health Department have passed it as safe”.
Then the Councillors would probably say “But we don’t need panadol every day.” Our reply could then be “We don’t need fluoride either but many people need to take up to 8 panadol a day so you need to take it as well.”
WE HERTEBY STATE THAT: IT IS OUR WILL THAT THE PRACTICE OF FORCED INGESTION OF FLUORIDE, BY UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE, BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
Please view the many professionals who have much more experience in the research of fluoride, than the Health professionals, the public servants, politicians and the Councillors, advocating fluoride in Australia. Videos showing the results of their research and proving it does have harmful affects at www.fluorideaustralia.org, www.fluoridealert.org, www.australianfluorideaction.com and http://home.vicnet.net.au/fluoride/australian_fluoridation_faq.htm
While our politicians have passed a law that prevents people who have been harmed from fluoride from suing the people responsible, it seems that the purveyors of fluoride want to reserve the right to sue councils who choose not to put fluoride into the water people are forced to drink. Is this sort of Kafkaesque government common to all banana republics... or just the Australian version, where the political parties have already taken the money but now need to use their power to justify the payment?
1. The Health Department cannot give a 100% guarantee that fluoride in our water is safe and the Ballina Shire Council have removed themselves from all responsibility. The public in the Ballina area have not been warned of the side effects of ingesting fluoride. For example, not only dental fluorosis also bone fluorosis, it has been found that bottle fed babies could ingest up to 25 times more than the recommended dose according to their body weight, ADD/ADAD, Diabetes, Arthritis, Dyspepsia, Hypothyroidism (1 in 7 Australians have or will be diagnosed with thyroid disease (approx. 2.8 million Australians) and the number is increasing, per capita, according to the Australian Thyroid Foundation), Iodine Deficiency, Chemical Hypersensitivity, Kidney Disease, Osteoporosis and other studies show Lowered IQ, and of course there could be others, nobody knows, not even the people recommending it. The Australian Health authorities have often made errors in judgement previously, by approving substances without thorough research and testing. For example, Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently Vioxx, aspartame, ibuprofen, Naprosyn, Celebrex and more recently statin drugs and the lists goes on, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren’t compulsory. Fluoridation is!
2. It has been proven that fluoride is cumulative and babies accumulate more than adults.
3. Australia has not changed from a Democracy to a Totalitarian State. When did our right to choose end - Apparently in 1957 with the Fluoridation Act? This makes the Act illegal. Fluoride is a drug and anything for ingestion should be medically clinically tested and require an individual prescription.
4. Medical staff (including the Department of Health) and our Councillors are expected to act in the best interests of everyone’s overall health and treat each person as individuals - not just our teeth.
There is a code of conduct, professional values and ethics for every medical professional and the crucial importance of the patient's right to informed consent to medical treatments, sanctified in international agreements. This is being violated every day for millions of citizens in Australia and yet professionals standby and do nothing about it. Some of them making money out of recommending fluoride. Unqualified Health officers, public servants, Politicians and Councillors saying ‘they believe it is safe’ is not enough and not acceptable to the public. We are allowing whole communities even whole states to do to everyone what an individual doctor or dentist can do to no one. It is common sense: you shouldn't use the public water supply to medically treat human beings.
5. The Council is authorised only to provide purified water and fluoride is not for purification purposes. Pure Water is a Human Right UN 2012.
6. No one can monitor how much fluoride children ingest when cleaning their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, or excess in mouth washes. We swim and bathe in it and it is in all our drinks and food. Many people will not want to or be able to use the swimming pools.
It is impossible for anyone to monitor the amount of fluoride that is ingested or accumulated in our bodies. What is a dose?
It will be in our food, drinks, bath water and swimming water, even eventually in the sea water where we swim. There will be no control of ‘dose’ so how can anyone prescribe what the safe ‘dose’ is? Not even the so called ‘experts’ can do that
7. Fourteen professors who have won the Nobel Prize have expressed their concerns that fluoride can affect your health.
"I would advise against fluoridation. Individual prophylaxis (treatment) is preferable on principle grounds and is as equally effective," says Dr. Arvid Carlsson of Sweden, co-winner of last year's Nobel Prize for medicine.
Over 1000 health professional scientists have stated they are against fluoride.
Fluoridation disproportionately harms black children. See RACIAL DISPARITIES IN DENTAL FLUOROSIS
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis02/
8. The Health Department and the Councils are financial tactics as incentives (approx $10 million for just 3 shires in NSW) while the hospitals are finding it hard to cope and turning patients away. Isn’t it their responsibility to prove it is safe (without any doubts) for all the other tissues in our bodies and make it available (if they insist) to those who want it.
9. In the USA, they have found that the fluoride has contained lead, and other contaminants. One report from England states that the cases of alzheimers and the levels of lead have been higher in fluoridated areas. These are not being tested for in Australia.
10. Even though many proponents of fluoridation speak with enormous confidence about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation none (i.e. not a single one of them in the whole of Australia) can defend their position against fluoride with science. Why is that? The answer is simple. They simply don't have the science on their side. They use two techniques to obscure this fact:
They have not produced the science to prove that it is effective or ‘safe’. They use two techniques to obscure this fact:
1) They cite a long list of agencies that endorse fluoridation. Endorsements are not science. For example, Australian coverage goes something like this - "the ADA, AMA, the CDC, the WHO all say that fluoridation is the best thing since sliced bread (with no science offered to support this claim) while Mrs Jones down the road who runs a bakery says it is a bad idea!"
2) They ridicule and denigrate opponents of fluoridation as being emotional, flat-earthers, with no science!
Australian health authorities have never attempted to track the levels of fluoride in people's urine, blood or bones as a way of monitoring exposure - critical for epidemiological studies. This, even though the NHMRC in 1991 suggested that they do this for bone.
11. Many people claim to be highly sensitive to fluoride, experiencing a variety of symptoms, and show thyroid dysfunction, that improve when the source of fluoride is removed and reappear when it is re-introduced. In 1991 the NHMRC recommended that these anecdotal reports be examined scientifically by government health bodies. This has never been done, even though a number of victims have offered themselves for study. Why not?
12. Another major concern that medical professionals have had since 1996 is the affect that fluoride might be having on the development of the baby's brain. The evidence for this concern is growing by the day.
Here is a summary of the evidence:
a) Over 40 animal studies show that prolonged exposure to fluoride can damage the brain.
b) 19 animal studies report that mice or rats ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to learn and remember.
c) 12 studies (7 human, 5 animals) link fluoride with neurobehavioral deficits
d) 3 human studies link fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development
e) 37 out of 43 published studies show that fluoride lowers IQ
f) 27 of these IQ studies have recently been the subject of a meta-analysis from Harvard University (Choi et al, 2012). All of the studies listed above can be accessed at FluorideALERT.org/issues/health/brain
Australian health agencies have totally ignored all this literature on fluoride's impact on the brain and made absolutely no effort to reproduce any of these studies.
13. Most cities worldwide are taking fluoride out of their water supplies and others are taking class actions against the cities water suppliers. Scandanavia, Germany and Canada have all rejected fluoride after extensive study, which Australian health authorities refuse to do.
For example:
a) “$4 BILLION CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST ISRAEL'S WATER SUPPLIER”.
b) “97% OF WESTERN EUROPE HAS REJECTED WATER FLUORIDATION.”
Country
Fluoridation Status
BANNED: "not allowed"
REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added
REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.
STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of caries...."
STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries
REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark."
REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated"
BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!
Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgement overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.
STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.
An European Court Ruling under Published Facts states - “Fluoride is a Medication”. 12/5/09. “Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. This is a 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. ... The only acceptable response is to call a halt to this controversial practice now. The experience of the past half century has shown that it is completely unjustified, – indeed, it is responsible for what may reasonably be described as a pandemic of avoidable chronic fluoride poisoning. In ruling that this type of product must be regulated under medicinal law, the Court, has taken the final step towards bringing this disreputable practice to a long-delayed end. Let us hope that national Governments all over the world will heed this decision – the economic consequences will be dire for those who continue to attempt to continue this discredited and illegal practice.”
14. The Councils distributed fluoride tablets, for those people who wanted them, in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. It was found that the Councils were not qualified to distribute them so it was stopped. What has changed? All of a sudden they are qualified to distribute fluoride to those people who don’t want it or don’t need it. The tablets were found to be too strong and caused many health problems.
15. Why hasn’t it been mandatory for manufacturers to state if the product has been manufactured using fluoridated water? There are many people who won’t purchase drinks or food if they have fluoride in them, after doing some research.
16. Many people have lost faith in the Health Department (so many misdiagnosed, mistreatment failures and fatalities) and the main stream trained Doctors’ have the attitude, if they don’t know what is causing the pain, they either blame it on arthritis, take this painkiller or drug approach or it is in the patient’s mind attitude to our health. Many people prefer to go to Chemists before main stream trained health professionals, as the Chemists explain the side affects to drugs. The Doctors only have one subject on nutrition while they are at University, therefore many, many people go to nutritionists or doctors who have studied nutrition (after leaving University) in natural remedies. At least we have a choice. A large proportion of the population prefer botanical rather than chemical. Surely in this day and age of democracy in Australia, we legally should have the human and civil right to be treated as individuals with our health and our right to choose. This should take precedence over the Fluoridation Act approved by unqualified health professionals and politicians people in 1957. Take these examples, the fight for the Health authorities to recognise asbestos fatalities, aspartame and more recently statins.
17. In the USA it has been found that big business and the drug companies seek out health professionals to be key advertisers and promoters for their drugs, which is not acceptable for anyone in the medical profession, however they still do it.
For example, in the USA it has been found that research institutions’, being funded by either big business or the drugs companies, are 87% more likely to come up in favour of a drug compared to independent researchers 24%.
It cannot be overlooked that until science can break free from big business and are not helping to fund some of our scientific research institutions there will be very little trust in institutions recommending anything without the science to back them up.
18. In the 80s and early 90s, the British Medical Journal published several studies indicating some dangers of drinking fluoride, as opposed to topical application to the teeth.
One study in which unfluoridated areas actually showed reduction in dental decay compared with fluoridated areas.
Many factors influence dental caries, including sugary drinks. Yet no-one in the pro-fluoridation lobby suggests banning these.
The reaction of the pro-fluoride lobby is so unreasonably vitriolic that I wonder if some members have shares in fluoride-producing companies or reverse osmosis filter companies.
19. Allan Jones (Saturday, 23 March 2013 )
Fluoride Australia supporters would be interested in the synergy of fluoride, aluminium, lead, & mercury when combined in the body at very low levels much lower than the drinking water guidelines we see a greater level of poisoning. With Mercury and Lead, a test was carried out dosing a group of rats with only the amount of Mercury and Lead at different times to kill only one percent of the study group but when this same amount was dosed together the whole group of rats died, this amounted in this test to be 100 times more poisonous than when not combined. As mercury is found in vaccines as thimerosal and lead comes with fluorosilicic acid aka `fluoride` at very small amounts below the ADW guidelines this test proves that fluoride and vaccines with mercury is more toxic than suspected. There is also much data detailing the synergistic relationship with aluminium and fluoride it is not inconceivable therefore that the three of these work in a synergistic fashion to damage the brain as all of these are neurotoxins yet when combined especially in babies they become super toxins links for this connection is as follows http://www.flcv.com/hgsynerg.html andhttp://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html and http://www.fluorideaustralia.org/articleView.asp?Article=42
20. Why stop at fluoride. One remark from a local citizen “Where I live there are many older people suffering from arthritis, osteoporosis and other ailments which affect us as we age. While we're into additives in our water, why not inflict the whole population with glucosamine, chondroitin, coecalciferol, and iron supplements and maybe even epsom salts? That should keep us all in tiptop condition. We could just put the fluoride into Coca Cola and ensure the kids actually drink it (they don't seem to drink tap water.) And perhaps they could stretch to a little addition of G&T around 4pm for us oldies.” There are many more older people with health problems than children with bad teeth and if the parents took more care with their childrens’ teeth there would not be so many with cavities.
21. Any statistical information put up by pro-fluoridation's lobby either makes selective use of facts or quotes normal human development from child to teen. Using Rotorua [not fluoridated] and Taupo [fluoridated] for example, and differences between each population ignores obvious differences in socio/economic status and other factors which are extremely difficult to quantify anyway. In closing a quote from Dr Russell Blaylock a board certified neurosurgeon that had practised neurosurgery for 26 years and has recently retired from neurosurgery in Charleston, South Carolina, USA, today focuses on diet and nutrition. Fluoride is another brain toxin. An excellent study by Dr Phyllis Mullenix former head of the neurotoxicology department at the Forsyth Dental Center clearly demonstrates that fluoride accumulates in the brain when added to drinking water. When Dr Mullenix first discovered that fluoride added to drinking had detrimental health affects in her studies, her findings were squashed by the University, as they received funding from a Toothpaste Company.
Fluoride - Dr. Phyllis Mullenix pt. 1 - YouTube
history - Was Phyllis Mullenix fired after publishing research on ...
22. In light of the fact that the Health Department and politicians try to brow- beat local councils into using fluoride in drinking water may I point readers to a report to WHO, EU Commission and the Irish Government released; this report is based on a 2006 report by the US National Research Council comparing fluoridated Ireland with non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. The difference in a whole range of health parameters is staggering and the National Research Council lays most of them at the feet of fluoride, because fluoride is toxic, being carcinogenic, an endocrine disrupter etc., etc. Differences of 450 per cent for early onset dementia, 300 per cent for sudden infant death syndrome, 470 per cent for diabetes were shown. What is most alarming is the fact that the 6 countries (yes, just 6) that fluoridate water supplies, US, some parts of Canada, Ireland, some parts of UK, Australia and New Zealand, feature in the top 10 of poor health statistics. Yes, we have the worst statistics for SIDS (twice fifth placed Ireland!), ischaemic heart disease; we are second for COPD, deaths from musculo-skeletal diseases, third for obesity and ninth for male prostate cancer; all based on OECD and WHO figures and caused mainly by fluoride.
23. Arrogance of Fluoridation - Stateline Australia 7-09-07
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhbrG2QJa8 “The arrogance of fluoridation bureaucrats is very disturbing. Consent is needed to protect patients against bad prescribing and in Australia, no doctor can make anyone take drugs against their will. Health bureaucrats Dr Andrew MCDONALD, Dr ALISON JONES, DEAN OF MEDICINE, Professor Wayne Smith from the NSW Health Department. Dr Brendan Smith, and the Chief Medical Officer for NSW Dr Kerry Chant, The State Health Ministers, throw this medical wisdom out the window. While revealing little knowledge about its side-effects, they are still trying to force everyone to ingest fluoridated water regardless of their health status.
Gestapo tactics are alive and well in Australia! Forced Fluoridation is not ethical – it's not moral – it's not democratic. It IS inhumane and just plain wrong to forced treatment of a whole population, with total disregard to the percentage of people who already ARE, and who most certainly WILL be, adversely affected by this poisonous additive!!! Fluoride is NOT only in water, it is in EVERYTHING you consume, bathe and swim in. There IS a toxic limit. Do you know how much you're getting?”
One Councillor in Ballina stated that the community was consulted in a survey before the Councillors made their decision. No one has been found who was contacted re this and the public have not been informed of the side affects, because the Health Department, politicians and the Councillors are refusing to heed the warnings. For example In the Trade Practices Act Substandard Goods it states “Incompatible materials: Incompatible with acids, aluminium, magnesium, cyanides”. ...
The Health Department advocates of fluoride state, that “fluoride is safe” and there is no evidence that it is harmful to one’s health. It seems they haven’t been looking and they have not produced any results of clinical trials and tests that should be carried out before introducing it, to prove that it is safe.
See http://fluoridealert.org/news/opinion-citizens-are-being-misled/ and Human Toxicity Environmental Impact and legal implications of water fluroidation - http://www.enviro.ie/Human%20Toxicity,%20Environmental%20Impact%20and%20Legal%20Implications%20of%20Water%20Fluoridation_February%202012_EnviroManagement%20Services.pdf
This is just a few - “Ingestion: Swallowing can result in nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal pain. Larger exposures may result in muscular weakness, shock, convulsions and spasms. Can be fatal due to respiratory and cardiac failure.
Eye Contact: An eye irritant
Skin contact: Contact with skin may result in irritation
Inhalation: Breathing in dust may result in respiratory irritation. Breathing in high concentrations may result in the same symptoms described for ‘INGESTION”.
Chronic effects: Repeated or prolonged exposure may result in fluorosis.
Fluorosis in humans can result with the repeated ingestion of >6mg of fluorine per day. The fluoride accumulates in bone and can lead to the development of osteosclerosis and other bone changes. Teeth may also be affected.
Symptoms of fluoriosis may include weight loss, brittle bones, anaemia, weakness and stiffness of joints.
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Ecotoxicity: Avoid contaminating waterways
Terrestrial toxicity: Ecotoxic to terrestrial vertebrates”
Current safety standards only protect against the most obvious forms of harm: Current safety standards for fluoride are based on the premise that severe dental fluorosis and crippling skeletal fluorosis are the first adverse effects that fluoride can have on the body. These effects represent the crudest, most obvious harm caused by fluoride. In the words of American University chemistry professor, Dr. William Hirzy, it would be a “biological miracle” if fluoride did not cause other harm prior to producing these end-stage forms of toxicity. Research already shows, in fact, that fluoride can cause arthritic symptoms and bone fracture well before the onset of crippling fluorosis, and can affect many other tissues besides bone and teeth, including the brain and thyroid gland. See http://ffwireland.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/not-so-hidden-human-cost-of-water.html
The current “safe” daily dose for fluoride fails to withstand scrutiny: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) states that anyone over 8 years of age — irrespective of their health condition — can safely ingest 10 milligrams of fluoride each day for their entire life without developing symptomatic bone damage. Ten milligrams, however, is the same dose that the IOM concedes can cause clinical signs of skeletal fluorosis within just 10 to 20 years of exposure. People with clinical signs of fluorosis can suffer significant symptoms, including chronic joint pain and overt osteoarthritis. The IOM’s safety standard instills little confidence in the medical understanding that currently underlies fluoride policies in the U.S.
Some people are particularly susceptible to fluoride toxicity: It is well known that individual susceptibility to fluoride varies greatly across the population, and yet, the National Research Council has recently found that breathtakingly large gaps still exist in the safety literature on the effects these populations may be experiencing as a result of current fluoride exposures. The bewildering degree of uncertainties identified by the NRC stands in stark contrast to the IOM’s conclusion that 10 mg/day is so definitively safe that no “uncertainty factor” needs to be applied to protect vulnerable members of the population.
The margin between the toxic and therapeutic dose is very narrow: The NRC concluded that the allegedly “safe” upper limit of fluoride in water (4 mg/l) is toxic to human health. While the NRC did not determine the safe level, their conclusion means that the safe level is less than 4 times the level added to water (0.7-1.2 mg/l) in community fluoridation programs. This is far too slim a margin to protect vulnerable members of the population, including those who consume high amounts of water.
24. Claiming fluoride is natural, as it is found in the Earth’s crust or water, is misleading. So is arsenic, mercury and other poisons found in the Earth’s crust. The chemical used to fluoridate Australians (85% fluoridated) is untreated toxic waste from inside fertiliser factory smokestacks.
25.The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer, reports sodium silicofluoride [as used for fluoridation in Australia] as, “... an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide and rodenticide [rat poison] ... [and] a fluoridating agent for municipal drinking-water. ... The Commission of the European Communities [since 1978] requires that sodium silicofluoride be labelled as toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin or if swallowed.” I.A.R.C. Monograph on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, 27-4-82, p 250.
26. Doctors have legal and medical restrictions in prescribing drugs. A patient’s medical history, age, weight, sex, allergic reactions, other drugs taken and illnesses must be determined. After an adequate medical exam, scripts must be in writing, for a specific person, drug, duration and dose - never ‘take some when you’re thirsty’. Harmful side-effects must be explained. You can refuse! These 15 safety requirements are vital. All are ignored with fluoridation.
27. Israeli Supreme Court backs work of Irish Scientist on fluoride. http://www.hotpress.com/news/Israeli-Supreme-Court-Backs-Work-of-Irish-Scientist-on-Fluoride/10088280.html
28. “In terms of foetal exposure,” adds Waugh, “fluoride crosses the placenta, and the developing fetus is exposed to 75% of the mother’s fluoride exposure. Health studies are showing that early exposure to toxins in the womb is critical to the development of diseases in later life.” - See more at: http://www.hotpress.ie/politics/frontlines/SCIENTIST-CLAIMS-THAT-AUTHORITIES-ARE-UNDER-REPORTING-FLUORIDE-EXPOSURE-IN-THE-IRISH-POPULATION/10385025.html?new_layout=1&page_no=5&show_comments=1#sthash.Rj6hO8tw.dpufSCIENTIST CLAIMS THAT AUTHORITIES ARE UNDER-REPORTING FLUORIDE EXPOSURE IN THE IRISH POPULATION - See more at: http://www.hotpress.ie/politics/frontlines/SCIENTIST-CLAIMS-THAT-AUTHORITIES-ARE-UNDER-REPORTING-FLUORIDE-EXPOSURE-IN-THE-IRISH-POPULATION/10385025.html?new_layout=1&page_no=5&show_comments=1#sthash.Rj6hO8tw.dpuf
29. Cancer Incidence in Ireland 85% above European region average. Ireland is the only country with mandatory fluoridation of drinking water in European continent.
30. My personal experience has been: I submitted a Certificate from my doctor stating that fluoride is detrimental to my health, Thyroid and Osteo, (attached 2) and requested that if the Council goes ahead with adding fluoride into our water that they provide a reverse osmosis filter. (Even reverse osmosis cannot filter out 100% of fluoride and it also deletes the ‘good’ minerals, but it seems the only alternative). See reply and rejection from the Council (attached 3). They relieve themselves of all responsibility and yet they are unqualified and approving mass treatment to the public. This is an invasion of my body, privacy and my right to choose.
If I had the right to choose (which is my human right) I would not go to any of the health professionals promoting fluoride. http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fluoride-the-thyroid1.pdf by Professor Paul Connett and http://www.thehealthvine.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=74 two of the many research papers showing how fluoride is detrimental to thyroid patients – by
The issue
We do not give our consent to be treated by being forced to ingest fluoride via our water supplies, by unqualified public servants and Councillors
NOTICE ON NON-CONSENT: BY ORDER OF OUR WILL AS CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA
NON-CONSENT TO BE TREATED WITH FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS FOR THE DISEASE OF DENTAL CARIES.
To: The Attorney General of Australia and NSW and all Honourable Elected Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Federal Parliament and that of the State of NSW of Australia and to all Elected and Non-elected Local Government Councillors of Ballina, NSW and Public Service Bodies of Independent Advisors.
Re: Notice of Non Consent by Order of Our Will and that of the Signatories on the attached petition (1) of the Shire of Ballina NSW Australia, draws to the attention of all that which has come before or that should come before all Parliaments and or Local Government Councils, Bodies, Corporations or Agencies, be of Our Will and that of the Will of the People who have signed the attached petition.
Under Article 6, sect 1 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Biothetics and Human Rights, I/WE DO NOT CONSENT to me or my children and/or grandchildren being treated with preventative or therapeutic measures for dental health via my public water supply
As you are aware, Rous Water Supply Plant will soon be ready for commissioning the inclusion of fluoride into our water supply Ballina. You must also be aware of the vast community opposition to this facility and to the addition of fluoridation chemicals to our drinking water. A petition against fluoridating our water supply signed by 1392 citizens and 435 individual letters giving a total of 1827 was delivered to the Ballina Shire Council in 2012, which they ignored. The Council are being bribed by the State Health Department with taxpayers money(so we have been told) (approx 9m for just three Shires) while the hospitals are rejecting patients. See Fluoridated Irish public betrayed by one-sided government spin. http://www.irelandagainstfluoridation.org/news/page/2/
This NOTICE of NON-CONSENT is pursuant to adding Water fluoridating agents i.e.: silicofluorides, S6 Poison, Industrial Fertiliser Waste or Aluminium Wast, Fluoride, which may contain Arsenic, Mercury, Barium, Lead, Beryllium, Polonium and other, to our water supply.
As an Australian Citizen and Water Consumer, WE DO NOT AUTHORISE, NEITHER DO WE CONSENT to our Commonwealth , State Government or any other such Body or Water Supplier making this decision regarding our health or water by having added or proposing to add silicofluorides, S6 Poison Fertiliser, Barium, Lead, Beryllium, Polonium as mass treatment, to our Households Water Supply, putting our health and that of our family at risk.
The overwhelming scientific evidence and case history reports, at www.fluoridealert.org, www.fluorideaustralia.org and www.australiafluorideaction.com clearly demonstrates that silicofluorides, S6 poison Industrial fertiliser, aluminium waste, fluoride toxic chemicals cause major and costly health problems. These problems include, brain dysfunction, thyroid dysfunction, nervous system impairment, brittle bones, dental and skeletal fluorosis, calcification of the Pineal Gland, lowers IQ, spontaneous abortions, still births, birth defects, infertility, kidney failure, hormone disruption, enzyme inhibitor, chemical sensitivities, cancer and in some cases eventually death. Fluoridation stimulates severe Violent Tendencies.
The ethics of medicine and healthcare dictate that the “informed consent” of the subject must be obtained before commencing any treatment, preventative or otherwise. We, the signatories of this petition, have never authorised any level of Government, Bodies, Corporations, Agencies or Water Suppliers to act as our health care practitioner or prescriber. By forcing mass treatment for ingestion or debilitating carcinogenic substances upon us and our families without our consent, are a criminal offence and a direct violation of the Nuremberg Code, to this Australia is a signatory.
This letter is our Notice that we have independently informed ourselves and that; it is our Will to withhold Our Consent to treat us and our families with silicofluorides, S6 Poison Fertiliser Waste, and or Aluminium Waste, Fluoride Toxic Chemicals.
THE FLUORIDE THAT THEY ARE USING IS INDUSTRIAL GRADE AND NOT MEDICAL GRADE.
There has recently been a case of a Doctor being sued and jailed in Europe for using industrial grade silicon and not medical grade. This was not even for consumption.
The Fluoridation Act breaches:
1. The Australian Constitution
Commitment to fair treatment
Human rights are inherent, inalienable, indivisible and universal. They are the birthright of all people and cannot be lost or taken away. They are all of equal importance and apply to all people whatever their race, gender, disability, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, age, property or other status. Observance of human rights, in Australia and abroad, benefits the security and prosperity of all nations and individuals. Successive Australian governments have supported these principles and systems.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Universal Values
International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.
3. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
UNESCO | Article 6 – Consent | Source
“1) Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be
carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned,
based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate,
be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for
any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2) Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express
and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be
adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities
for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned
at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions
to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal
standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out
in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
3) In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or
a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group
or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community
agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”
4. Casebook on Human Dignity and Human Rights
UNESCO | Informed Consent, p 69 |Source
“Every medical treatment requires the patient’s informed consent. The significance of this consent if that a person agrees to: the treatment, the ‘invasion’ of his/her body, understands the significance of his medical condition and the meaning of the treatment, the dangers and the benefits inherent in the treatment, and grants his/her informed consent willingly and without coercion, as determined in Article 6(1) of the Universal declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.”
5. 'Informed Consent' in Public Health Activities:
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health | Abstract | Source
Article 6, sect 1 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Biothetics and Human Rights states: Any preventive, diagnostic and/or therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
The Australian medical/legal literature of Informed consent
“Informed consent means that you understand your condition and any proposed treatment. You have a legal right to be told any information that relates to your medical condition and treatment. Without this information, you are not able to make a fully informed choice and give valid consent for treatment”
“A Product’s principal use is of primary consideration when determining whether it is a food or a medicine.”
Fluoride is definitely not a food.
“Informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient’s authorisation or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention. In the communication process, you, as the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure (not a delegated representative), should disclose and discuss with your patient. The patient’s diagnosis if known; The nature and purpose of a proposed treatment, or procedure; The risks and benefits of a proposed treatment or procedure; Alternatives (regardless of their cost or the extent to which the treatment options are covered by health insurance); The risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and The risks and benefits of not receiving or undergoing a treatment or procedure. In turn, your patient should have an opportunity to ask questions to elicit a better understanding of the treatment or procedure, so that he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.”
“The doctrine of informed consent serves the ethical goal of respecting patients’ rights of self-determination. Information is initially pitched at the reasonable, prudent person in the patient’s circumstances, and then fine-tuned to what is actually known about the particular patients’ needs for information. Elements to be disclosed include the patient’s prognosis if untreated, alternative treatment goals and options, the success rate of each option, and its known effects and material risks. Risks include medical risks, but also risks to general well-being such as economic and similar reasonable interests. “Consent is a continuing process not an event or signed form.”
They are forcing treatment onto a majority of the public who don’t have any dental diseases.
Whoever takes this right away from us is, by definition, engaged in criminal activity.
6. Consumer Rights in Australia
In Australia, the rights of people who use health care are contained in the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. Seven key rights are outlined:
- Access – A right to health care
- Safety – A right to receive safe and high quality health care
- Respect – A right to be shown respect, dignity and consideration
- Communication – A right to be informed about services, treatment, options and costs in a clear and open way
- Participation – A right to be included in decisions and choices about care
- Privacy – A right to privacy and confidentiality of personal information
- Comment – A right to comment on care and to have concerns addressed
(We have not been informed about the ongoing costs, that will be added to our rates, of adding fluoride to our water – when the majority of people don’t want it or need it). The estimate is that only approx 1% will go to the intended targets.
7. Australian Human Rights Commission Act:
Commonwealth of Australia | Part III – Article 7 | Source
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation." The Health Department cannot or will not give a 100% guarantee that the ingestion of fluoride, or that the fluoride that they purchase is safe.
8. Your Healthcare Rights and Responsibilities:
NSW Health | Participation, p. 7 | Source
"Patients must give consent before receiving treatment... Patients have the right to withhold consent."
9. Consent to Treatment: Policy Statement 5.15:
Australian Dental Association | Sect. 4; Sect. 4.1; Sect. 6 | Source
"Dentists must obtain the consent of a person with the legal capacity to provide the consent before dental procedures can be undertaken... In the case of young children, dentists must obtain the consent of the child’s parent or legal guardian for the dental procedure... Dentists must obtain the consent of a patient before providing treatment to that patient. Failure to obtain consent can give rise to any one or more of the following: a cause of action against the dentist in assault or battery; a negligence claim; or a complaint of professional misconduct."
10. Informed Consent to Treatment: Human Rights and Involuntary Treatment:
Amnesty International Ireland | Ch. 8, pp. 141-142 | Source
"Informed consent in healthcare is a key component of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and invokes several human rights that are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated such as the right to autonomy, freedom from discrimination, freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to privacy and bodily integrity. Informed consent has three essential components: firstly consent must be given without coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation (undue influence includes situations where the patient perceives there may be an unpleasant consequence associated with refusal of consent); secondly consent must be given after the disclosure of the associated benefits, risks and alternatives to the medical procedure in question (i.e. it must be informed); and thirdly to give valid consent the person must have capacity to give consent... The right to consent to treatment also includes the right to refuse treatment."
11. Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies:
British Medical Journal | Ethical implications; Potential harms | Source
"Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 199719 states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council's guidance on consent also stresses patients' autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm. This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit... In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation."
12. Trade Practices Act Substandard Goods
WE REQUEST THAT THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT BAN THIS PRODUCT FROM BEING ADDED TO OUR WATER.
Under proposed new arrangement only the Commonwealth Government will have the power to introduce permanent product safety bans. (1 January 2011).
Product Safety Australia
Safety Data Sheet –
1. Identification of the Material and supplier
Sodium Fluorosilicate
Recommended use of the chemical and restrictions on use: Water fluoridation, wood and leather preservative, etchant for opalescent glass
Classified as dangerous Goods by the criteria of the Australia Dangerous Goods Code, for Transport by Road and Rail: DANGEROUS GOODS.
The material is hazardous. Acute Oral Toxicity – Category 3
Acute Dermal Toxicity – Category 3
Acute inhalation Toxicity – Category 3
SIGNAL WORD: DANGER
Toxic if swallowed, in contact with skin or if inhaled.
Prevention:
Avoid breathing dust/fume/gas/mist/vapours/spray
Wash hands thoroughly after handling
Do not eat, drink or smoke when using this product
Use only outdoors or in a well-ventilated area
Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection
IF SWALLOWED: Immediately call a POISON CENTRE or doctor/physician
Rinse mouth
IF ON SKIN: Wash with plenty of soap and water
Call a POISON CENTRE or doctor/physician if you fell unwell
Take off immediately all contaminated clothing
Wash contaminated clothing before re-use
Specific measures (see First Aid Measures on Safety Data Sheet)
IF INHALED: Remove person to fresh air and keep comfortable for breathing
Specific treatment (see First Aid Measures on Safety Data Sheet)
Call a POISON CENTRE or doctor/physician
Reactivity: Reacts with acids liberating very toxic gas
Possibility of hazardous reactions: In the presence of water, contact with metals may produce hydrogen which may form explosive mixtures with air
Incompatible materials: Incompatible with acids, aluminium, magnesium, cyanides
(Many people need to take magnesium tablets to help with calcium absorption).
Ingestion: Swallowing can result in nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal pain. Larger exposures may result in muscular weakness, shock, convulsions and spasms. Can be fatal due to respiratory and cardiac failure.
Eye Contact: An eye irritant
Skin contact: Contact with skin may result in irritation
Inhalation: Breathing in dust may result in respiratory irritation. Breathing in high concentrations may result in the same symptoms described for ‘INGESTION”.
Chronic effects: Repeated or prolonged exposure may result in fluorosis.
Fluorosis in humans can result with the repeated ingestion of >6mg of fluorine per day. The fluoride accumulates in bone and can lead to the development of osteosclerosis and other bone changes. Teeth may also be affected.
Symptoms of fluoriosis may include weight loss, brittle bones, anaemia, weakness and stiffness of joints.
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Ecotoxicity: Avoid contaminating waterways
Terrestrial toxicity: Ecotoxic to terrestrial vertebrates
Please Note: It doesn’t state what type of fluoride.
13. The Australian Crimes Act
The charges of causing grievous bodily harm (The Australian Crimes Act - ss 33 and 35 of Crimes Act 1900) – are both very serious charges which carry penalties whether intentionally or recklessly. The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent is a strictly indictable offence ie. must be heard and determined in the Court, whereas the offence of recklessly cause grievous bodily harm is a Table 1 offence. Both offences carry standard non-parole periods:
http://australianfluorideaction.com/the-professionals/
“many thousands of professionals from within Australia and around the world have made a tireless effort to end the most life debilitating poison, water fluoridation, which has been imposed upon the people of Australia as a treatment without their full understanding or consent. (This being a direct breach of the Nuremberg Criminal Code of which Australia is a signatory”.
The Councillors would not like it is we stood over them and said take a panadol tablet every time you have a glass of water. They would probably say that we are not qualified to make them swallow anything. We could then say “Well the Health Department have passed it as safe”.
Then the Councillors would probably say “But we don’t need panadol every day.” Our reply could then be “We don’t need fluoride either but many people need to take up to 8 panadol a day so you need to take it as well.”
WE HERTEBY STATE THAT: IT IS OUR WILL THAT THE PRACTICE OF FORCED INGESTION OF FLUORIDE, BY UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE, BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
Please view the many professionals who have much more experience in the research of fluoride, than the Health professionals, the public servants, politicians and the Councillors, advocating fluoride in Australia. Videos showing the results of their research and proving it does have harmful affects at www.fluorideaustralia.org, www.fluoridealert.org, www.australianfluorideaction.com and http://home.vicnet.net.au/fluoride/australian_fluoridation_faq.htm
While our politicians have passed a law that prevents people who have been harmed from fluoride from suing the people responsible, it seems that the purveyors of fluoride want to reserve the right to sue councils who choose not to put fluoride into the water people are forced to drink. Is this sort of Kafkaesque government common to all banana republics... or just the Australian version, where the political parties have already taken the money but now need to use their power to justify the payment?
1. The Health Department cannot give a 100% guarantee that fluoride in our water is safe and the Ballina Shire Council have removed themselves from all responsibility. The public in the Ballina area have not been warned of the side effects of ingesting fluoride. For example, not only dental fluorosis also bone fluorosis, it has been found that bottle fed babies could ingest up to 25 times more than the recommended dose according to their body weight, ADD/ADAD, Diabetes, Arthritis, Dyspepsia, Hypothyroidism (1 in 7 Australians have or will be diagnosed with thyroid disease (approx. 2.8 million Australians) and the number is increasing, per capita, according to the Australian Thyroid Foundation), Iodine Deficiency, Chemical Hypersensitivity, Kidney Disease, Osteoporosis and other studies show Lowered IQ, and of course there could be others, nobody knows, not even the people recommending it. The Australian Health authorities have often made errors in judgement previously, by approving substances without thorough research and testing. For example, Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently Vioxx, aspartame, ibuprofen, Naprosyn, Celebrex and more recently statin drugs and the lists goes on, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren’t compulsory. Fluoridation is!
2. It has been proven that fluoride is cumulative and babies accumulate more than adults.
3. Australia has not changed from a Democracy to a Totalitarian State. When did our right to choose end - Apparently in 1957 with the Fluoridation Act? This makes the Act illegal. Fluoride is a drug and anything for ingestion should be medically clinically tested and require an individual prescription.
4. Medical staff (including the Department of Health) and our Councillors are expected to act in the best interests of everyone’s overall health and treat each person as individuals - not just our teeth.
There is a code of conduct, professional values and ethics for every medical professional and the crucial importance of the patient's right to informed consent to medical treatments, sanctified in international agreements. This is being violated every day for millions of citizens in Australia and yet professionals standby and do nothing about it. Some of them making money out of recommending fluoride. Unqualified Health officers, public servants, Politicians and Councillors saying ‘they believe it is safe’ is not enough and not acceptable to the public. We are allowing whole communities even whole states to do to everyone what an individual doctor or dentist can do to no one. It is common sense: you shouldn't use the public water supply to medically treat human beings.
5. The Council is authorised only to provide purified water and fluoride is not for purification purposes. Pure Water is a Human Right UN 2012.
6. No one can monitor how much fluoride children ingest when cleaning their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, or excess in mouth washes. We swim and bathe in it and it is in all our drinks and food. Many people will not want to or be able to use the swimming pools.
It is impossible for anyone to monitor the amount of fluoride that is ingested or accumulated in our bodies. What is a dose?
It will be in our food, drinks, bath water and swimming water, even eventually in the sea water where we swim. There will be no control of ‘dose’ so how can anyone prescribe what the safe ‘dose’ is? Not even the so called ‘experts’ can do that
7. Fourteen professors who have won the Nobel Prize have expressed their concerns that fluoride can affect your health.
"I would advise against fluoridation. Individual prophylaxis (treatment) is preferable on principle grounds and is as equally effective," says Dr. Arvid Carlsson of Sweden, co-winner of last year's Nobel Prize for medicine.
Over 1000 health professional scientists have stated they are against fluoride.
Fluoridation disproportionately harms black children. See RACIAL DISPARITIES IN DENTAL FLUOROSIS
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis02/
8. The Health Department and the Councils are financial tactics as incentives (approx $10 million for just 3 shires in NSW) while the hospitals are finding it hard to cope and turning patients away. Isn’t it their responsibility to prove it is safe (without any doubts) for all the other tissues in our bodies and make it available (if they insist) to those who want it.
9. In the USA, they have found that the fluoride has contained lead, and other contaminants. One report from England states that the cases of alzheimers and the levels of lead have been higher in fluoridated areas. These are not being tested for in Australia.
10. Even though many proponents of fluoridation speak with enormous confidence about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation none (i.e. not a single one of them in the whole of Australia) can defend their position against fluoride with science. Why is that? The answer is simple. They simply don't have the science on their side. They use two techniques to obscure this fact:
They have not produced the science to prove that it is effective or ‘safe’. They use two techniques to obscure this fact:
1) They cite a long list of agencies that endorse fluoridation. Endorsements are not science. For example, Australian coverage goes something like this - "the ADA, AMA, the CDC, the WHO all say that fluoridation is the best thing since sliced bread (with no science offered to support this claim) while Mrs Jones down the road who runs a bakery says it is a bad idea!"
2) They ridicule and denigrate opponents of fluoridation as being emotional, flat-earthers, with no science!
Australian health authorities have never attempted to track the levels of fluoride in people's urine, blood or bones as a way of monitoring exposure - critical for epidemiological studies. This, even though the NHMRC in 1991 suggested that they do this for bone.
11. Many people claim to be highly sensitive to fluoride, experiencing a variety of symptoms, and show thyroid dysfunction, that improve when the source of fluoride is removed and reappear when it is re-introduced. In 1991 the NHMRC recommended that these anecdotal reports be examined scientifically by government health bodies. This has never been done, even though a number of victims have offered themselves for study. Why not?
12. Another major concern that medical professionals have had since 1996 is the affect that fluoride might be having on the development of the baby's brain. The evidence for this concern is growing by the day.
Here is a summary of the evidence:
a) Over 40 animal studies show that prolonged exposure to fluoride can damage the brain.
b) 19 animal studies report that mice or rats ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to learn and remember.
c) 12 studies (7 human, 5 animals) link fluoride with neurobehavioral deficits
d) 3 human studies link fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development
e) 37 out of 43 published studies show that fluoride lowers IQ
f) 27 of these IQ studies have recently been the subject of a meta-analysis from Harvard University (Choi et al, 2012). All of the studies listed above can be accessed at FluorideALERT.org/issues/health/brain
Australian health agencies have totally ignored all this literature on fluoride's impact on the brain and made absolutely no effort to reproduce any of these studies.
13. Most cities worldwide are taking fluoride out of their water supplies and others are taking class actions against the cities water suppliers. Scandanavia, Germany and Canada have all rejected fluoride after extensive study, which Australian health authorities refuse to do.
For example:
a) “$4 BILLION CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST ISRAEL'S WATER SUPPLIER”.
b) “97% OF WESTERN EUROPE HAS REJECTED WATER FLUORIDATION.”
Country
Fluoridation Status
BANNED: "not allowed"
REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added
REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.
STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of caries...."
STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries
REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark."
REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated"
BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!
Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgement overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.
STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.
An European Court Ruling under Published Facts states - “Fluoride is a Medication”. 12/5/09. “Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. This is a 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. ... The only acceptable response is to call a halt to this controversial practice now. The experience of the past half century has shown that it is completely unjustified, – indeed, it is responsible for what may reasonably be described as a pandemic of avoidable chronic fluoride poisoning. In ruling that this type of product must be regulated under medicinal law, the Court, has taken the final step towards bringing this disreputable practice to a long-delayed end. Let us hope that national Governments all over the world will heed this decision – the economic consequences will be dire for those who continue to attempt to continue this discredited and illegal practice.”
14. The Councils distributed fluoride tablets, for those people who wanted them, in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. It was found that the Councils were not qualified to distribute them so it was stopped. What has changed? All of a sudden they are qualified to distribute fluoride to those people who don’t want it or don’t need it. The tablets were found to be too strong and caused many health problems.
15. Why hasn’t it been mandatory for manufacturers to state if the product has been manufactured using fluoridated water? There are many people who won’t purchase drinks or food if they have fluoride in them, after doing some research.
16. Many people have lost faith in the Health Department (so many misdiagnosed, mistreatment failures and fatalities) and the main stream trained Doctors’ have the attitude, if they don’t know what is causing the pain, they either blame it on arthritis, take this painkiller or drug approach or it is in the patient’s mind attitude to our health. Many people prefer to go to Chemists before main stream trained health professionals, as the Chemists explain the side affects to drugs. The Doctors only have one subject on nutrition while they are at University, therefore many, many people go to nutritionists or doctors who have studied nutrition (after leaving University) in natural remedies. At least we have a choice. A large proportion of the population prefer botanical rather than chemical. Surely in this day and age of democracy in Australia, we legally should have the human and civil right to be treated as individuals with our health and our right to choose. This should take precedence over the Fluoridation Act approved by unqualified health professionals and politicians people in 1957. Take these examples, the fight for the Health authorities to recognise asbestos fatalities, aspartame and more recently statins.
17. In the USA it has been found that big business and the drug companies seek out health professionals to be key advertisers and promoters for their drugs, which is not acceptable for anyone in the medical profession, however they still do it.
For example, in the USA it has been found that research institutions’, being funded by either big business or the drugs companies, are 87% more likely to come up in favour of a drug compared to independent researchers 24%.
It cannot be overlooked that until science can break free from big business and are not helping to fund some of our scientific research institutions there will be very little trust in institutions recommending anything without the science to back them up.
18. In the 80s and early 90s, the British Medical Journal published several studies indicating some dangers of drinking fluoride, as opposed to topical application to the teeth.
One study in which unfluoridated areas actually showed reduction in dental decay compared with fluoridated areas.
Many factors influence dental caries, including sugary drinks. Yet no-one in the pro-fluoridation lobby suggests banning these.
The reaction of the pro-fluoride lobby is so unreasonably vitriolic that I wonder if some members have shares in fluoride-producing companies or reverse osmosis filter companies.
19. Allan Jones (Saturday, 23 March 2013 )
Fluoride Australia supporters would be interested in the synergy of fluoride, aluminium, lead, & mercury when combined in the body at very low levels much lower than the drinking water guidelines we see a greater level of poisoning. With Mercury and Lead, a test was carried out dosing a group of rats with only the amount of Mercury and Lead at different times to kill only one percent of the study group but when this same amount was dosed together the whole group of rats died, this amounted in this test to be 100 times more poisonous than when not combined. As mercury is found in vaccines as thimerosal and lead comes with fluorosilicic acid aka `fluoride` at very small amounts below the ADW guidelines this test proves that fluoride and vaccines with mercury is more toxic than suspected. There is also much data detailing the synergistic relationship with aluminium and fluoride it is not inconceivable therefore that the three of these work in a synergistic fashion to damage the brain as all of these are neurotoxins yet when combined especially in babies they become super toxins links for this connection is as follows http://www.flcv.com/hgsynerg.html andhttp://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html and http://www.fluorideaustralia.org/articleView.asp?Article=42
20. Why stop at fluoride. One remark from a local citizen “Where I live there are many older people suffering from arthritis, osteoporosis and other ailments which affect us as we age. While we're into additives in our water, why not inflict the whole population with glucosamine, chondroitin, coecalciferol, and iron supplements and maybe even epsom salts? That should keep us all in tiptop condition. We could just put the fluoride into Coca Cola and ensure the kids actually drink it (they don't seem to drink tap water.) And perhaps they could stretch to a little addition of G&T around 4pm for us oldies.” There are many more older people with health problems than children with bad teeth and if the parents took more care with their childrens’ teeth there would not be so many with cavities.
21. Any statistical information put up by pro-fluoridation's lobby either makes selective use of facts or quotes normal human development from child to teen. Using Rotorua [not fluoridated] and Taupo [fluoridated] for example, and differences between each population ignores obvious differences in socio/economic status and other factors which are extremely difficult to quantify anyway. In closing a quote from Dr Russell Blaylock a board certified neurosurgeon that had practised neurosurgery for 26 years and has recently retired from neurosurgery in Charleston, South Carolina, USA, today focuses on diet and nutrition. Fluoride is another brain toxin. An excellent study by Dr Phyllis Mullenix former head of the neurotoxicology department at the Forsyth Dental Center clearly demonstrates that fluoride accumulates in the brain when added to drinking water. When Dr Mullenix first discovered that fluoride added to drinking had detrimental health affects in her studies, her findings were squashed by the University, as they received funding from a Toothpaste Company.
Fluoride - Dr. Phyllis Mullenix pt. 1 - YouTube
history - Was Phyllis Mullenix fired after publishing research on ...
22. In light of the fact that the Health Department and politicians try to brow- beat local councils into using fluoride in drinking water may I point readers to a report to WHO, EU Commission and the Irish Government released; this report is based on a 2006 report by the US National Research Council comparing fluoridated Ireland with non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. The difference in a whole range of health parameters is staggering and the National Research Council lays most of them at the feet of fluoride, because fluoride is toxic, being carcinogenic, an endocrine disrupter etc., etc. Differences of 450 per cent for early onset dementia, 300 per cent for sudden infant death syndrome, 470 per cent for diabetes were shown. What is most alarming is the fact that the 6 countries (yes, just 6) that fluoridate water supplies, US, some parts of Canada, Ireland, some parts of UK, Australia and New Zealand, feature in the top 10 of poor health statistics. Yes, we have the worst statistics for SIDS (twice fifth placed Ireland!), ischaemic heart disease; we are second for COPD, deaths from musculo-skeletal diseases, third for obesity and ninth for male prostate cancer; all based on OECD and WHO figures and caused mainly by fluoride.
23. Arrogance of Fluoridation - Stateline Australia 7-09-07
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhbrG2QJa8 “The arrogance of fluoridation bureaucrats is very disturbing. Consent is needed to protect patients against bad prescribing and in Australia, no doctor can make anyone take drugs against their will. Health bureaucrats Dr Andrew MCDONALD, Dr ALISON JONES, DEAN OF MEDICINE, Professor Wayne Smith from the NSW Health Department. Dr Brendan Smith, and the Chief Medical Officer for NSW Dr Kerry Chant, The State Health Ministers, throw this medical wisdom out the window. While revealing little knowledge about its side-effects, they are still trying to force everyone to ingest fluoridated water regardless of their health status.
Gestapo tactics are alive and well in Australia! Forced Fluoridation is not ethical – it's not moral – it's not democratic. It IS inhumane and just plain wrong to forced treatment of a whole population, with total disregard to the percentage of people who already ARE, and who most certainly WILL be, adversely affected by this poisonous additive!!! Fluoride is NOT only in water, it is in EVERYTHING you consume, bathe and swim in. There IS a toxic limit. Do you know how much you're getting?”
One Councillor in Ballina stated that the community was consulted in a survey before the Councillors made their decision. No one has been found who was contacted re this and the public have not been informed of the side affects, because the Health Department, politicians and the Councillors are refusing to heed the warnings. For example In the Trade Practices Act Substandard Goods it states “Incompatible materials: Incompatible with acids, aluminium, magnesium, cyanides”. ...
The Health Department advocates of fluoride state, that “fluoride is safe” and there is no evidence that it is harmful to one’s health. It seems they haven’t been looking and they have not produced any results of clinical trials and tests that should be carried out before introducing it, to prove that it is safe.
See http://fluoridealert.org/news/opinion-citizens-are-being-misled/ and Human Toxicity Environmental Impact and legal implications of water fluroidation - http://www.enviro.ie/Human%20Toxicity,%20Environmental%20Impact%20and%20Legal%20Implications%20of%20Water%20Fluoridation_February%202012_EnviroManagement%20Services.pdf
This is just a few - “Ingestion: Swallowing can result in nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal pain. Larger exposures may result in muscular weakness, shock, convulsions and spasms. Can be fatal due to respiratory and cardiac failure.
Eye Contact: An eye irritant
Skin contact: Contact with skin may result in irritation
Inhalation: Breathing in dust may result in respiratory irritation. Breathing in high concentrations may result in the same symptoms described for ‘INGESTION”.
Chronic effects: Repeated or prolonged exposure may result in fluorosis.
Fluorosis in humans can result with the repeated ingestion of >6mg of fluorine per day. The fluoride accumulates in bone and can lead to the development of osteosclerosis and other bone changes. Teeth may also be affected.
Symptoms of fluoriosis may include weight loss, brittle bones, anaemia, weakness and stiffness of joints.
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Ecotoxicity: Avoid contaminating waterways
Terrestrial toxicity: Ecotoxic to terrestrial vertebrates”
Current safety standards only protect against the most obvious forms of harm: Current safety standards for fluoride are based on the premise that severe dental fluorosis and crippling skeletal fluorosis are the first adverse effects that fluoride can have on the body. These effects represent the crudest, most obvious harm caused by fluoride. In the words of American University chemistry professor, Dr. William Hirzy, it would be a “biological miracle” if fluoride did not cause other harm prior to producing these end-stage forms of toxicity. Research already shows, in fact, that fluoride can cause arthritic symptoms and bone fracture well before the onset of crippling fluorosis, and can affect many other tissues besides bone and teeth, including the brain and thyroid gland. See http://ffwireland.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/not-so-hidden-human-cost-of-water.html
The current “safe” daily dose for fluoride fails to withstand scrutiny: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) states that anyone over 8 years of age — irrespective of their health condition — can safely ingest 10 milligrams of fluoride each day for their entire life without developing symptomatic bone damage. Ten milligrams, however, is the same dose that the IOM concedes can cause clinical signs of skeletal fluorosis within just 10 to 20 years of exposure. People with clinical signs of fluorosis can suffer significant symptoms, including chronic joint pain and overt osteoarthritis. The IOM’s safety standard instills little confidence in the medical understanding that currently underlies fluoride policies in the U.S.
Some people are particularly susceptible to fluoride toxicity: It is well known that individual susceptibility to fluoride varies greatly across the population, and yet, the National Research Council has recently found that breathtakingly large gaps still exist in the safety literature on the effects these populations may be experiencing as a result of current fluoride exposures. The bewildering degree of uncertainties identified by the NRC stands in stark contrast to the IOM’s conclusion that 10 mg/day is so definitively safe that no “uncertainty factor” needs to be applied to protect vulnerable members of the population.
The margin between the toxic and therapeutic dose is very narrow: The NRC concluded that the allegedly “safe” upper limit of fluoride in water (4 mg/l) is toxic to human health. While the NRC did not determine the safe level, their conclusion means that the safe level is less than 4 times the level added to water (0.7-1.2 mg/l) in community fluoridation programs. This is far too slim a margin to protect vulnerable members of the population, including those who consume high amounts of water.
24. Claiming fluoride is natural, as it is found in the Earth’s crust or water, is misleading. So is arsenic, mercury and other poisons found in the Earth’s crust. The chemical used to fluoridate Australians (85% fluoridated) is untreated toxic waste from inside fertiliser factory smokestacks.
25.The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer, reports sodium silicofluoride [as used for fluoridation in Australia] as, “... an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide and rodenticide [rat poison] ... [and] a fluoridating agent for municipal drinking-water. ... The Commission of the European Communities [since 1978] requires that sodium silicofluoride be labelled as toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin or if swallowed.” I.A.R.C. Monograph on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, 27-4-82, p 250.
26. Doctors have legal and medical restrictions in prescribing drugs. A patient’s medical history, age, weight, sex, allergic reactions, other drugs taken and illnesses must be determined. After an adequate medical exam, scripts must be in writing, for a specific person, drug, duration and dose - never ‘take some when you’re thirsty’. Harmful side-effects must be explained. You can refuse! These 15 safety requirements are vital. All are ignored with fluoridation.
27. Israeli Supreme Court backs work of Irish Scientist on fluoride. http://www.hotpress.com/news/Israeli-Supreme-Court-Backs-Work-of-Irish-Scientist-on-Fluoride/10088280.html
28. “In terms of foetal exposure,” adds Waugh, “fluoride crosses the placenta, and the developing fetus is exposed to 75% of the mother’s fluoride exposure. Health studies are showing that early exposure to toxins in the womb is critical to the development of diseases in later life.” - See more at: http://www.hotpress.ie/politics/frontlines/SCIENTIST-CLAIMS-THAT-AUTHORITIES-ARE-UNDER-REPORTING-FLUORIDE-EXPOSURE-IN-THE-IRISH-POPULATION/10385025.html?new_layout=1&page_no=5&show_comments=1#sthash.Rj6hO8tw.dpufSCIENTIST CLAIMS THAT AUTHORITIES ARE UNDER-REPORTING FLUORIDE EXPOSURE IN THE IRISH POPULATION - See more at: http://www.hotpress.ie/politics/frontlines/SCIENTIST-CLAIMS-THAT-AUTHORITIES-ARE-UNDER-REPORTING-FLUORIDE-EXPOSURE-IN-THE-IRISH-POPULATION/10385025.html?new_layout=1&page_no=5&show_comments=1#sthash.Rj6hO8tw.dpuf
29. Cancer Incidence in Ireland 85% above European region average. Ireland is the only country with mandatory fluoridation of drinking water in European continent.
30. My personal experience has been: I submitted a Certificate from my doctor stating that fluoride is detrimental to my health, Thyroid and Osteo, (attached 2) and requested that if the Council goes ahead with adding fluoride into our water that they provide a reverse osmosis filter. (Even reverse osmosis cannot filter out 100% of fluoride and it also deletes the ‘good’ minerals, but it seems the only alternative). See reply and rejection from the Council (attached 3). They relieve themselves of all responsibility and yet they are unqualified and approving mass treatment to the public. This is an invasion of my body, privacy and my right to choose.
If I had the right to choose (which is my human right) I would not go to any of the health professionals promoting fluoride. http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fluoride-the-thyroid1.pdf by Professor Paul Connett and http://www.thehealthvine.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=74 two of the many research papers showing how fluoride is detrimental to thyroid patients – by
Petition Closed
Share this petition
Petition updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 11 December 2013