Why is fluoride added to water

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Public Health England should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Public Health England,
I previously questioned the use of fluoride being put in tap water and it being forced medication, to which your response was that it was not.

Here : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...

In another reply to another FOI regarding the same subject, you responded with;
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...

In the first reply to my question, you state;

3. Who gave you permission to force medicate the population?

Fluoride in drinking water is not a medicine. The legislative basis for water
fluoridation is contained in the Water Industry Act 1991, as amended.

Then, in the second reply to my question, you say;

1. Why you fluoridate our water supply

Fluoride is present naturally in most drinking water in varying concentrations. In
some areas the level of fluoride is adjusted upwards to a target level of 1 milligram of
fluoride per litre of water (1mg/l) in order to reduce levels of tooth decay. Some
areas have water supplies that naturally contain around this amount; some areas
such as Hartlepool have slightly higher levels.

1) So, you state fluoride is added to the water supply for the purpose of 'reducing tooth decay'. Is that not a form of medication. Should we not be given the personal choice whether we would like fluoride in our water to 'prevent tooth decay' or not. To force someone to take something against their will or without their knowledge is illegal.

2) I would like you to tell me what is a safe amount of fluoride to consume in volume by litre per day as I do not know of a RDA for water. But adding chemicals in water, such as fluoride is a worrying concern, what is the RDA for fluoride (and the other chemicals) that are put in the water.

3) What are the side effects of too much of each chemical put in the water and has there been any studies into the excessive consumption of each chemical, if so, I would like to see these test results.

4) I would also like you to tell me what type of fluoride is being put in the water supply.

Yours faithfully,

P Maddison

FOI, Public Health England

1 Attachment

Dear P Maddison,

Please find attached Public Health England's response to your request.

Kind regards,

FOI Team

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

I would like you to read the following;

When is it right for a government to mass-medicate the public? It's hard to imagine a scenario. If we faced the spread of a new and lethal plague, most people would probably accept draconian intervention. But it would have to be serious.

Today, however, we're told by the Government's Alan Johnson that he intends to pursue a policy of mass medication of the British public. Not to prevent smallpox or the bubonic plague, but to tackle tooth decay. Well, tooth decay is bad news, but it's hardly the stuff of nightmares. However, fluoride, the medicine he's chosen, may well be.

We don't know if fluoride works. In the United States, where 65 per cent of people are routinely subjected to the chemical, the worst tooth decay occurs in poor neighbourhoods of the largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades. When fluoridation was halted in parts of Finland, East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay actually decreased.

One of the reasons for this is that fluoride is believed to work best when applied directly, for example to the tooth. Drinking fluoride to prevent cavities is like swallowing bandages to cure a broken arm. Another reason is that a policy of mass medication through the water supply assumes that we are all the same age, size and weight, and therefore require the same dose.

What we do know is that fluoride is toxic – so toxic, in fact, that in 1984, the makers of Colgate, Procter & Gamble, reportedly admitted that a small tube of their toothpaste "theoretically at least contains enough fluoride to kill a small child".

Fluoride has been linked to cot death, eczema and Alzheimer's. It has been shown, at low doses, to cause genetic damage. And it has been linked by doctors from the National Cancer Institute and the National Health Federation to cancer.

Because fluoride causes collagen, an essential structural component in skin, muscle, ligaments and bone, to disintegrate, big question-marks are being raised over its possible contribution to arthritis, a problem that has increased by 63 per cent since 1997, and which now affects 70 million Americans.

Other reports are appearing that link the accumulation of fluoride in bones to an increase in hip fractures among the elderly. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported recently that "with increasing dose of fluoride in the drinking water, the hip fracture ratio increases," a view echoed by The Lancet, The Annals of Epidemiology and other science journals.

Further studies have linked fluoride use to hyperthyroidism (underactive thyroid glands), one of the most widespread medical problems in the US, affecting more than 20 million people and leading to fatigue, weight gain, depression and heart disease. That's scarcely surprising, given that fluoride used to be prescribed by European doctors to depress thyroid activity.

Alan Johnson's principal concern is for the poorest in society. But studies as far back as the Fifties, by the American Dental Association and the Canadian National Research Council, have shown that people with poor diets are more susceptible to the health risks of long-term ingestion of fluoride.

What is extraordinary is that fluoride was ever considered for mass medication. It has always been contentious. Indeed, the first ever lawsuits against the US 's atomic bomb programme, the Manhattan Project, concerned fluoride, not radiation. What's more, the first health tests for fluoride were designed to establish how much industry could afford to release into the environment without damaging human health.

In the summer of 1943, a group of New Jersey farmers reported that something was "burning up" their peach trees, maiming their horses and cattle and killing their chickens. The source of these ills was a nearby DuPont corporation factory that was producing millions of pounds of fluoride for use in the Manhattan Project. Immediately after the war, the farmers filed suit against DuPont. At the time, the Manhattan Project's chief of fluoride toxicology studies, Professor Harold C Hodge, asked his superiors if there "would be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride through lectures on fluoride toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of fluoride in tooth health?"

The most widely cited study into the benefits of water fluoridation was conducted in New Zealand between 1954 and 1970, and it is used by fluoridation advocates to this day. But the study failed to meet the most basic criteria for scientific objectivity, not least because the decline in tooth decay that the community in question experienced was also seen in other non-fluoridated communities in the region. The then Mayor of Auckland, Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, described the so-called Hastings Experiment as a "swindle".

At best, the jury is out. Perhaps there are reams of recent studies that lay these fears to rest. If so, Johnson needs to share them with us. Mass medication is a big deal, and there should be proper debate before it is applied. Is fluoride safe? Does it even work? More importantly, is it right for a government to impose a controversial medicine on the entire population to deal with a non-life-threatening complaint?

When the Government first mooted this idea, Hazel Blears and Elliot Morley, who were then ministers at the Health and Environment departments respectively, suggested with breathtaking arrogance that "those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water". Alan Johnson, the current Health Secretary, needs to demonstrate a far greater respect for British people than that.

(Source:https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style...)

And this was a story from 2008.
Tha paper said it, and even the government say it... Mass medication. So, you saying it is NOT mass medication is totally wrong. So, would you please go over what has been said in this FIO, mainly the part where I am told that you are not medicating the British people, when it clearly states that the government are doing so.

After reading the above story from The Guardian, I am even more horrified, which I hope you are also, and I hope you have the sense to try and do something to get the addition of fluoride in our water stopped.

Yours sincerely,

P Maddison

FOI, Public Health England

Dear P Maddison,

Please can you confirm what information you are requesting from Public Health England?

Kind regards,

FOI Team

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,
I would like them to read the last post I sent and for them to reply.
It is irefutable proof that the government are force medicating the British people, as it's actually stated by the journalist who wrote the story, which in it, the government actually state they force medicate the British public.
How can you, PHE deny that you're force medicating the British Public when it's in black 7 white thet it is in fact happening.

Yours sincerely,

P Maddison

FOI, Public Health England

Dear P Maddison,

Please can you clarify what information you would like to receive from Public Health England?

Kind regards,

FOI Team

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

To READ THE ARTICLE IN MY LAST MESSAGE and then to ADMIT that they FORCE MEDICATE THE BRITISH PUBLIC as it has BEEN ADMITTED BY GOVERNMENT THAT THEY DO.

Yours sincerely,

P Maddison

PHE.enquiries, Public Health England

2 Attachments

OFFICIAL

 

Dear P Maddison

 

Thank you for your further enquiry to Public Health England (PHE) dated 30
November.  We note your concerns regarding the legality and safety of
water fluoridation and refer you back to the responses we provided to FOIs
494 and 737.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Ellie

Enquiries - Public Health England

[1]www.gov.uk.phe  Follow us on Twitter
[2]cid:image001.png@01D47065.E888E340 [3]@PHE_uk   

 

Protecting and improving the nation’s health

 

[4]cid:image002.png@01D47065.E888E340

 

 

show quoted sections

Donna Torres,

Hi,

 

Would you be interested in acquiring contact database of Adobe ColdFusion
Users?

 

We have a updated contact list of decision makers from companies using
Adobe ColdFusion including Emails, Phone number, Mailing address and other
relevant data fields.

 

Please let me know your interest for more information.

 

Best Regards,

Donna Torres

Marketing Manager 

 

If you don't want to receive email from us, please reply as Unsubscribe in
the subject line

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Donna Torres, Public Health England

What is this 'cold fusion' you refer to and what is the list for?

Also, PHE, I am unable to download or view the 2 links you provide me with in your last message. Could you please retry.

Yours sincerely,

P Maddison