Keyword search
News 2017


23rd December 2017:  Success in the USA Against the Unreasonableness of the Environmental Protection Agency.

We heard yesterday that the EPA Motion to Dismiss Fluoride Alert Network's submission under the TCSA has been overturned.  This is very good news indeed.  LINK   In short:

"On December 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had wrongly dismissed a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 21 petition submitted by Food & Water Watch, Inc. and other citizens seeking the regulation of fluoridation of drinking water supplies under TSCA Section 6(a) on grounds that the ingestion of fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to humans. "

22nd December 2017:  The situation in Bedfordshire regarding Flitwick and District.

On 20th December Fluoride Free Beds and Joy Warren (Joint Coordinator for the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance) had a meeting with Cllr Brian Spurr and 4 members of Public Health England at Central Bedfordshire's Council Headquarters in Chicksands.  In an unprecedented 90 minutes, we were allowed to tell Cllr Spurr our scientific take on Water Fluoridation while PHE sat and took it all in.  We were told that we were not going to be allowed to debate with PHE.  However, that didn't really matter: PHE could have nothing to say to us that we hadn't heard before. 

We were able to tell Cllr Spurr quite a few "home truths".

The outcome of the meeting is that Bedfordshire Council will not seek to re-fluoridate Flitwick and District until the results of the forthcoming Public Consultation is known in Bedford Borough.  This will probably take place early in 2018.  So, for the time being Flitwick and outlying villages are safe from the threat to their water supply.


12th December 2017:  Strength of Indian Tea Drunk in England

We have just announced a mini survey on our Facebook page  (LINK) and have directed visitors to this website where below, you can see the 4 strengths of tea.   If you would like to take part in the survey, please email with the following information:

(1) Your UK post code - and this can be anywhere in the UK
(2) Strength of your tea - see below;
(3) How many cups a day do you drink; 
(4) Whether you add milk; 
(5) Make and type of your favourite brew  

We are not surveying white, yellow, green or brick tea - just plain old ordinary tea which is normally drunk in the UK.


8th December 2017: Further Authoritative Quotes

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." 
Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association

"Water contains a number of substances that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one of them"
Dr. F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors

"The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects."
Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association

"Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age"
Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist

"fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain."
Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, May 2000

"It is now clear that fluoride is a potentially harmful substance when present in the drinking water in any amount."
Dr. Simon Beisler, Chief of Urlogy, Roosevelt Hospital and Past President of the American Urological Association

"The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of the water supply is 'safe."
Dr. Ludgwig Grosse, Chief of Cancer Research, U.S. Veterans Administration

In Harlem, NY, which has been fluoridated for 32 years, "There's more dental decay among these kids; we see the beginning of inflamed gingivitis in their mouths."
American Dental Association, May 2000

Fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and overall health.. it doesn't need to be added to our water and we may be taking unnecessary risks by doing so.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, a leading Canadian fluoride authority, former fluoride advocate and long-standing consultant to Canadian Dental Association

".. the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body".
Chief Justice John Flaherty, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (presided over litigation involving fluoridation)

List compiled by raisingawareness in 2012:


3rd December 2017:  Fluoride is NOT an essential nutrient

For those of you who are having the greatest difficulty persuading doubters, here is an important piece of 'clinching' information:

"On March 16, 1979, the FDA deleted paragraphs 105.3(c) and 105.85(d)(4) of Federal Register documents which had classified fluorine, among other substances, as “essential” or “probably essential.” Since that time, nowhere in the Federal Regulations is fluoride classified as “essential” or “probably essential.” These deletions were the immediate result of 1978 Court deliberations.31 No essential function for fluoride has ever been proven in humans." 32,33,34,35,36

Documents 31-36 can be accessed from


28th November 2017:  A Complete Waste of Money: Water Fluoridation Costs for England for 2013-2012.  A technical report by Joy Warren and Geoff Pain.

This report can be read on-line at LINK

We're particularly pleased with this Report since it explains how our money is being wasted by Public Health England which seems incapable of understanding that so little fluoridated water is drunk by the target group (disadvantaged tiny children) that far from being an economical policy, it is now seen to be a 100% profligate practice.  Where is the Office for Budget Responsibility when you need them?


27th November 2017:  A License to Kill

Karen on Fluoride Open Resource Group has contributed this cut-and-paste poster to the debate.  To magnify the text, press CTRL and + a few times.


25th November 2017:  Today we are featuring an article by Paul Philips on the ethics of compulsory medication such as vaccinations (USA), water fluoridation and Smart Meters (USA).  Please access the article by following the LINK

23rd November 2017:  Putin confirms that systemic fluoride for the hopeful prevention of dental decay is banned in Russia

Pinch me or am I dreaming?  That's refreshing and totally unexpected. .  

This needs to be confirmed though.  An email was sent to the originator of the news on 26th November.


22nd November 2017:  The Battle for Pulloxhill and Flitwick.

Where's that?  They are both villages in Central Bedfordshire (very close to Centre Parks, Woburn) and are threatened, along with several other villages totalling 15,000 residents with Water Fluoridation by Bedfordshire Public Health England without going out to consultation. 

How can that be?  

Pulloxhill and District were fluoridated in the 1970s and the fluoridation programme continued until 1996 when Anglian Water (AW) discovered that they could no longer provide treated fluoridated water from a Water Treatment Works in Water Zone MW57 near Pulloxhill.  Had the fluoridation equipment been at fault, the WTW would have still been able to provide water, but non-fluoridated.  So the WTW  closed down and the villages in the District were supplied by water from an alternative source - water which could not be fluoridated because no contract existed.  The situation has rumbled on peacefully for 21 years since 1996. 

It is doubtful if villagers were told that they were getting potable water after 1996.  Villagers were definitely not consulted about fluoridation in the 1970s.  In those days it was a decision of the local Health Authorities to fluoridate.

Pulloxhill, Bedfordshire and surrounding villages.
Now Public Health England has been informed by AW that a WTW in Water Zone MW57 is going to supply drinking water in the next twelve months.  With eyes bright and shining, PHE has asked AW to undertake a feasibility study to work out if the fluoride taps can be turned back on after a break of 21 years!  Remembering that PHE is a successor organisation to the Strategic Health Authorities, PCT's and earlier Health Authorities and that any documents relating to WF in the area would have been archived long ago, how on earth did PHE discover that Pulloxhill had once been fluoridated between 1971 and 1996? 

This is taking place against a background of Bedford Borough planning to go out to public consultation in order to ask residents if they are agreeable to not being fluoridated in future.  

So, what's going on?  Despite a piece of research in November 2015 by Bedford PHE which couldn't  prove that swallowed fluoride prevents dental decay, it seems that PHE Bedfordshire is determined to make up lost ground by authorising the fluoridation of 15,000 unsuspecting residents in these Bedfordshire villages.  Is it a case of sour grapes?

A Freedom of Information request to Bedfordshire PHE is about to be sent asking some embarassing questions.  In particular, can they quote the piece of law which allows them to order AW to resume WF after a break of 21 years when the original fluoridation dosing equipment is probably no longer fit for purpose and when they haven't proven that dental decay in the villages has worsened since 1996.

It's likely to be an interesting scirmish between opponents.  We're rooting for our partner organisations - the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance and Fluoride Free Beds - and send them all the luck in the World.

There's a petition which we're asking you all to sign:  LINK  Even if you don't live in the area, that's alright: you need to make your voice heard.  Please let others know about its existence.


11th November 2017:  What would be the outcome if fluoridated parents followed the advice on a carton of fluoridated toothpaste?

Here is the advice:

Always follow the label directions: Brush twice a day and not more than three times, minimise swallowing and spit out.  Keep out of reach of young children.  Children of 6 years and younger: use a pea-sized amount for supervised brushing to minimise swallowing.  In case of intake of fluoride from other sources, consult a dentist or doctor.  If irritation occurs, discontinue use. (Source: Aquafresh little teeth, 3-5 years toothpaste carton and tube)

Thus, if they follow the advice, all parents in a fluoridated area ought to consult their dentist or doctor before using fluoridated toothpaste!



9th November 2017:  Motion passed in The House of Lords on 7th November 2017 approving the formation of a Joint Health and Social Care Public Health Department for Greater Manchester 
which " ... will confer local authority public health functions on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority as agreed in the devolution deals, and support Greater Manchester’s programme of public sector reform."  

In short, an umbrella Public Health Department will look after all local authorities in the Greater Manchester area.  There will be will be no chance of any local authorities adopting individual courses of action. 

The new department will be headed by "a chief officer for health and social care who has been appointed in Greater Manchester. That person is an NHS England employee because the NHS is a national health service and NHS functions have not been devolved."

What has this to do with Water Fluoridation?  A careful read of the debate having put the word fluoridation into the search bar will reveal that the new Mayor of Greater Manchester is Andy Burnham who was once President of the British Fluoridation Society and who is a committed pro-fluoridationist.  He will no doubt aim at influencing the new Chief Officer to consider Water Fluoridation when they review oral health needs in Greater Manchester as part of public health policy.

The last time that fluoridation was proposed for Greater Manchester, it was defeated due to the difficulty of getting all local authorities in the region to agree to the proposition and due to the huge cost entailed.  Now that local authorities in Greater Manchester are being integrated with regard to public health policy, one of these obstacles is removed.  That leaves the revenue expense to be overcome.  In the meantime, Starting Well (see below) is being paid for by a DH oral health underspend.  There may come a time when the underspend will be proposed by the DH as being available for capital costs of water fluoridation for Greater Manchester.  Before that happens however, the entire region would have to be involved in a public consultation.

Starting Well has to succeed if WF is to be avoided for Greater Manchester.



5th November 2017:

"The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.”  (Professor Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D.,  2014)

The full publication is "Rita Barnett-Rose, Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent?, 39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 (2014)."

5th November 2017:  Further news on the DH "Starting Well" Child Dental Oral Health Programme
During a debate in Parliament on 31st October at a session of the Child Oral Health Committee under the chairmanship of Peter Bone MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Health, Steve Brine, made the following announcement which adds details to the Starting Well programme:

The important Starting Well initiative was recently launched for children under five, and as a number of Members have mentioned, the programme will work in 13 high-priority areas, with the aim of supporting dentists to see extra children under the age of five who do not currently visit a dentist. It will provide a model that ensures that when they are seen, the focus is on reducing their risk of future disease, as well as treating existing problems. The aim of Starting Well is to reduce the unacceptable oral health inequalities that exist for those children.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked how long it would run, how areas will be selected and how it will be funded. It will run for as long as is needed locally—that is a decision for local commissioners. 

I will give him a bit of detail about how the areas will be selected. Selection of the 13 areas was based on 2015 oral health survey results that identified the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth—DMFT, as it is known in the trade—in those under five. To select the areas for Starting Well, a cut-off of 1.6 DMFT was the established marker, and that identified 13 upper-tier local authorities that would benefit from the Starting Well approach. Areas that scored below 1.6 DMFT were not selected, as it was agreed that those resources should be directed to areas where oral health had either declined or remained static. 

NHS England is funding the programme locally in those areas through underspends and, where the NHS chooses, the prioritisation of funds.

Copied from


4th November 2017:  
Advance notification: 1st UKFFFA Conference, 13th January 2018, Euston, London.

This is the first conference to be organised by the newly-formed UK Freedom from Fluoride Alliance in association with Safe Water Information Service. The one-day event is for anyone involved in campaigning, or organising opposition to new or existing fluoridation schemes. The day will include sample presentations, the latest news and reports from those involved in local battles, and interactive sessions arranged so as to give everyone the chance to have their say on ‘ What we should be doing?' and 'What do we need to be really effective?’ This is a chance to get to know everyone, learn and exchange information, and set up ways that we can work together to rid the UK of the menace to our human rights and health that is water fluoridation.

If interested, please email the Organising Coordinator, Ivor Hueting:



                      This produces FFS - Fetal Fluoride Syndrome.


5th October 2017: The Department of Health's Starting Well Programme

In reply to our Freedom of Information request relating to Starting Well, we have been told the names of the 13 areas in England which are to be visited by hit squads of dentists in order to reduce dental decay and to improve dental health education.  They are:

Blackburn with Darwen













Note that if these areas are being helped out by the Dental Health teams, there can be no justification to rush ahead to consult the public on fluoridation while the Starting Well programme is in operation in these areas.  

Copied from: relating to FoI-1097054 dated 4th October 2017.


5th October 2017:  Bedford Borough Council writes to the Secretary of State for Health.

Bedford City Council Executive has now sent the Preliminary Scoping Exercise report, prepared for them by PHE, to the Secretary of State for Health.  Jeremy Hunt is being asked to approve Bedford's request to go out to Public Consultation to determine whether or not the public wants or does not want Fluoridation to resume.

7th September 2017:  
Karen Favazza Spencer in the USA has compiled a list of health professionals who have become vociferous against water fluoridation.  LINK

6th September 2017:  
New Technology Paper on the Costs of Water Fluoridation in England, 2013 - 2021.  Published in Research Gate.  LINK  

23rd August 2017:  I am an altered human!

People and domestic pets who are born in a non-fluoridated area have normal bone development. The material out of which their bones are formed is called hydroxyapatite.  After becoming fluoridated their bones change because fluoride deposits in the bone material.   The hydroxyl radical is chucked out and fluoride bonds with the calcium naturally present in the bone.  This new bone material is called fluorapatite. Paradoxically, that's the name given to the phosphate rock which is mined for the phosphate fertiliser industry.  In order to reverse this bone-altering process, one has to avoid fluoride ingestion completely. After one year of abstention, 3% of the cortical bone material (which forms long bones) turns  over. The turnover is more rapid for trabecular bone (i.e. vertebrae) and here there is 26% remodelling each year.  

With the alteration in bone material, the activity of osteoclasts slows down and less collagen is formed although the activity of osteoblasts remains the same.  The result is that the bones become denser. This new state can progress to the osteosclerotic state and from there to skeletal fluorosis. Fortunately, the concentration of fluoride in our environment is not enough to cause Stage 3 Skeletal Fluorosis although there are undoubtedly people alive today in the Industrialised fluoridated world who are experiencing Stage 1 Skeletal Fluorosis, aka Arthritis.  

In the 1970s in the USA, patients with osteoporosis (porous weak bones) were given 50-60mg/day fluoride together with calcium and oestrogen supplements.  It was reasoned that since fluoride densifies bones, the bioaccumulation of fluoride would strengthen porous bones.  Alas, it was not to be, although trabecular bones showed more resistance to breaking after the treatment ended than cortical bone.  The explanation was that because 26% of trabecular bone turns over each year, the new bone material was taking in more of the fluoride than the cortical bone which only turned over 3% each year.  The result was that the fluoride treatment densified the trabecular bone and made it more resistant to fracture.  

Here is what one commentator (Freeze, 2009) has written: "Overall, however, the judgment of the medical fraternity has been negative.  Some studies seem to indicate that despite the increase in density, newly formed, fluoride-rich bone often exhibits reduced strength and increased fragility, leading to more rather than fewer bone fractures.  In 1989, an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (USA) was the first to conclude that fluoride therapy was not effective for the treatment of osteoporosis."  Another commentator (Lockyer, 1999) stated that "Not only is there no consistent proof of good, but the therapeutical dose rates are so high that they could possibly engender harm."

A very balanced research paper was written in 2011 which has just popped into my in-tray and it explores the bone alterations by fluoride slightly differently. It discusses the onset of osteosclerosis in the light of an individual's genetic makeup.  This is interesting in that it explains why some people are more likely to experience the life-changing alteration of their bones and others are less likely to in the presence of fluoride. (E.T. Everett, 2011: Fluoride's Effects on the Formation of Teeth and Bones, and the influence of Genetics.)

It's a fascinating topic.  However, the most important question which can be asked of researchers who promoted the fluoridation of our water supply in the 1970s is "Since it was known that fluoride altered bones and caused osteosclerosis, why did the fluoridation experiment not cease then and there? Why did scientists compound this insult on our bodies by further poisoning patients who were suffering from osteoporosis with huge doses of the toxin?

I thought that it was unethical to give patients medicine and treatment without their full informed consent.  In their anxiety to be the first to find a cure for osteoporosis, the researchers were blind to the possibility that these patients would contract osteosclerosis from a dose which was known to cause skeletal fluorosis if taken over a longer period of time.  I wonder if the patients were informed that they were going to be getting megadoses?


19th August 2017:  UK Government clamps down on prescribing T3 - Liothyronine to patients with hypothyroidism.
                                                                HIGH PRIORITY

"Under-active Thyroid patients are given T4 (Thyroxine) to make up for their bodies not being able to naturally make enough of this hormone. T4 is then converted by our bodies into T3 (Liothyronine) which is the active hormone that controls every part of our body (in the same way that your car needs petrol for it to work.) There are a significant number of patients who cannot convert the T4 into T3 and this group of patients need to take an extra supplement of T3 or they will become very ill. Up until September these patients were given this extra T3 on prescription via the NHS. Now due to cost cutting the T3 has been stopped and is only available via a private prescription from an Endocrinologist at a cost of £516.00 for a month’s supply." 

HM Government can't be serious about this can it?  It's tantamount to manslaughter.  There can be no excuse for withdrawing a medicine which patients have demonstrated a need for in the past just because the NHS needs to cut costs.  Treating patients with hypothyroidism as being all the same in their response to the disease is foolish.  Whoever proposed to Jeremy Hunt that some patients can get by just on T4 needs to go back to medical school and sit on the naughty stool.

We're featuring this foolish decision because much thyroid disease is caused by over-exposure to fluoride.  It's ironic that people are being made ill by an excess of fluoride in their diet and environment and made even more ill when the medicine which they need to survive is to be withdrawn.

Fluoride messes with the conversion process of T4 to T3.  Depending on what the thyroid status is of the individual, it can produce both hyper- and hypothyroid states. It can produce iodine deficiency symptoms, although there is no deficiency of iodine, simply by enhancing the conversion of T4 to rT3. Reverse T3 binds to T3 receptors but which is biologically inactive. In order to find out what is going on with a fluoride poisoned person, a  complete bank of thyroid tests panel needs to be done, which GPs rarely request to be done.  The bank of tests comprises TSH, Total T, Total T4, Total T3, Free T3 and rT3.

Please, please go to this LINK and sign the petition.  It strikes us that withdrawing T3 medicine is tantamount to denying patients the right to life since many who are unwaged will have to cut down on buying essentials in order to afford £516 per month.  Perhaps the UK Government can be sued under the Human Rights Act?


17th August 2017:  The current state of play in the Irish Republic.

Follow the LINK to read a message from Ireland.  Not only is Water Fluoridation mandatory in the Republic but it seems as though every loophole is being steadily closed in order to prevent activists achieving their goal.  Many local authorities in the Republic have voted against WF recently but the Irish Government will not move its position.  Such stubborness is indicative of something else going on in the corridors of power.

12th August 2017:  The inadequacy of information on fluoride in Dental Schools (USA).

A dentist in the USA has just posted a long message on Fluoride Open Resource Group .  It seems that dentists are not given any meaningful information about fluoride apart from the mantra that "it's safe and effective".  That which they are taught is sacrosanct and it is a brave dentist who questions this mantra.  Jim Maxey is a whistle-blower.  He also has a web-site: LINK which is a good read!

So what is the situation in the UK?  What sort of information do UK Dental School graduates get taught about fluoride?  Visitors to this site who are against water fluoridation are asked to quiz their dentists the next time they have a dental appointment.  Please email this information to


6th August 2017   LINK to the Newcastle University Bioavailability study (2014).  For the reason why this item is placed here without an explanation, please visit our sister Blog:

This report can be read by following the LINK .  It was written in 2012 by a team of Japanese researchers.  Fortunately, it has been translated into English.  The report contains electron micrographs of the crystalline structure of teeth before and after exposure to fluoride gel.  

Yet another nail in fluoride's coffin?  



Following a FoI request, we've received fluoridation costs for F/Y 2016 - 2017.   These have been transferred to a spreadsheet and some of the data turned into a bar chart.  The cost of the fluoridating acid is higher now with ICGL as supplier than it was with YARA UK as supplier of the fluoridating acid.  There has also been an increase in the cost of using contract manpower.  (Costs for 2015-2016 are missing and these are currently being requested from Public Health England.)

This LINK takes you to the Categorised costs 2013-2017

This LINK takes you to the amount of money each fluoridating Local Authority has to send to Public Health England.  PHE pays the invoice from the fluoridating English water companies and recovers the money from the fluoridating local authorities.

An FoI request has been submitted for F/Y 2014-2015 in order to complete the record.

A question could be asked of each fluoridating local authority Full Council meeting regarding these costs.  However, it is important to accompany the question with the shocking information that only 1% of fluoridated tap water is drunk by householders and in that 1%, a very tiny amount is drunk by disadvantaged small children who are the target group of Water Fluoridation proponants.  Moreover, small children only drink one-third of a litre of water per day.  The ghastly truth then is that where a local authority spends £100,000 on fluoridation, the amount of fluoride drunk by the target group is perhaps worth no more than £1.  Moreover, the amount of fluoride in the saliva of these disadvantaged small children is so insubstantial that it cannot have any effect whatsoever on teeth.  We don't produce much saliva when we're sleeping and, during the day and night much will be swallowed without bathing the teeth.

                                             WATER FLUORIDATION IS AN ENORMOUS WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY.

13th July 2017

None of these harms are imagined.  They are underpinned by hundreds, if not thousands, pieces of research.  Of great concern is the "reduced glucose utilization" which implies that Diabetes II would be more prevalent in fluoridated areas.

Water fluoridation is truly the greatest medical mistake of all time.

Review the research which has studied the neurotoxic effects of fluoride on the brain in this publication by Australian scientist, Geoff Pain: LINK .  Also access a recent assessment of the USA's National Toxicology Program's neurotoxicology of fluoride:  .  However, please read the comments below the video in order to acquaint yourself with the downside of the National Toxicology Program:  they are apparently only studying Sodium Fluoride for toxicity!

6th June 2017
EDITORIAL  Have we been looking in the wrong place all this time?

A brief glance at the analysis table a little way below may shock you.  Yes - The Department of 'Health', Public 'Health' England and the 'Health' and Well-Being Boards of fluoridating local authorities are actually sanctioning the addition of several heavy metals and other health-damaging substances to the drinking water of 6 million people living in England.  Now, once diluted, the concentrations of these substances is miniscule ... but ... many are bioaccumulative and many act in synergy with each other to cause ill health far more quickly than if they acted on the body as single substances.

The analysis table omits to mention silica, fluoride, hydrogen, phosphate pentoxide and hydrofluoric acid.  Silica, fluoride and hydrogen are in the chemical formula so it is understandable that they were not analysed. However, phosphate pentoxide and hydrofluoric acid are not.  We have recently acquired a copy of BSEN 12175: 2013 and this is a revelation.  We already knew that the fluoridating acid contained chemical parameters but were unaware of the presence of 'contaminants'. (The contaminants are compounds and the chemical parameters are elements.) BSEN 12175 controls the maximum concentrations of chemical parameters and contaminants.

Let's look at the contaminants - phosphorus pentoxide and hydrofluoric acid.

Phosphorus pentoxide cannot be be higher than 0.75% of the total fluoridating acid added to drinking water.  This compound is a main ingredient of super-phosphate fertiliser, e.g. Growmore which gardeners and farmers use to fertilise the soil.  Recently, an initial analysis of a sample of super-phosphate gave a result of 4ppm fluoride which is understandable because super-phosphate derives from fluorapatite ore.  Adding fluoride to agricultural land may not be a wise policy in the long-term, especially if certain crops absorb the fluoride, thus making it bio-avaiable.  Although phosphate pentoxide is not a recordable poison, compounds of phosphoric acid are listed in the UK's Deregulation Act 2014 as being recordable poisons.

However, this is the least of our worries.  Hydrofluoric acid is a Recordable Poison.  The chemical formula is HF, i.e. Hydrogen + Fluoride in solution as a compound in hexafluorosilicic acid.  It does not dissociate in the acid and does not dissociate in water.  It is known as 'free' hydrogen fluoride and cannot be higher than 1.5% of the total acid added to drinking water.  We are currently attempting to determine which company in the supply chain ensures that HF is not present at greater than 1.5%.  

In drinking water at 2 litres per day, the concentration of hydrofluoric acid is very small indeed and would only cause stomach discomfort in those people who are prone to stomach problems.  In bath water, it's a different story altogether.  If each bath contains 130 litres of fluoridated water, then we are being exposed to quite a lot of hydrofluoric acid.  Artificially fluoridated people, especially women, are damaging their thyroid health if they bath in artificially fluoridated water.  If they are deficient in iodide, the negative health effects would be worse.  In short, many cases of hypothyroidism are caused by an over-sufficiency of fluoride and an deficiency of iodide.  If women of a certain age (possibly from 30 years +) enjoy having hot fluoridated baths, they are highly likely to develop hypothyroidism when they reach their 4th or 5th decade.

Where is the proof?  There are two soundly-based research reports which complement each other but which are 80 years apart. 

In summary, it is not just the fluoride in our drinking water which is totally responsible for causing ill-health and nor is it just the chemical parameters such as arsenic and lead which will be mainly responsible for the onset of ill-health. The main damage is being done by absorbing measurable quantities of hydrofluoric acid through the skin when taking hot baths.  Even having a hot fluoridated shower is a practice which needs to be re-assessed by many of us.

Is this the reason then, why people living in fluoridated West Midlands have almost double the level of hypothyroidism when compared with non-fluoridated Greater Manchester? The factor of there being low calcium levels in drinking water in districts in west Birmingham could explain the difference between the occurrence of hypothyroidism in the fluoridated West Midlands when compared with other parts of fluoridated England where there is 30% more hypothyroidism in comparison with non-fluoridated England.

If this theory is correct, then shouldn't the Department of Health be doing some research?  The sticking point is getting past the pro-fluoride gate-keepers!  There is also a problem with getting the Labour Party to drop its outdated, erroneous policy regarding fluoride reducing dental health inequalities.   Finally, how much is it costing the NHS to diagnose and treat hypothyroidism?  It looks as though middle-aged fluoridated women are the collateral damage hidden by the misguided water fluoridation policy.


3rd June 2017.  We have recently completed a fluoride survey of fluoridated Lincolnshire.  Please go to our page which analyses fluoride.  LINK

14th March 2017.  Does Bottled Water Flatter to Deceive?

The LINK takes you to an article on the ever-changing world of water bottlers.


17th February 2017: Laboratory analysis of Hexafluorosilicic acid (performed in 2000), as supplied by a Spanish Company to Irish and English Fluoridating Water Companies - placed here to support a Freedom of Information Request about the illegality of adding heavy metals to drinking water.


15th February 2017:  What a waste of money!

We've been told today that Hull City Council is pressing ahead with requisitioning a fully engineered feasibility study costing £50,000 from Yorkshire Water despite the fact that the City's Health and Social Care budget is about to be drastically cut.  

"Drugs, alcohol abuse and stop smoking services while sexual health, obesity and children and young people's public health services will all be cut from April".

Hull City Council is dwelling in an alternative universe.  Instead of investing in services which do the most good, the Council has decided to invest in a service which does harm.  Moreover, water fluoridation is such a waste of money.  

Cutting all of the above services surely means that Council employees will be made redundant.  Even the jobs of Public Health specialists are not safe. However, Hull's Health and Well-Being Manager, Tim Fielding, will be sitting pretty if the feasibility report is acceptable to the Health and Well-Being Board.  We also have to assume that Julia Weldon, Hull's Director of Public Health and Adult Services, will continue in employment but with a much reduced staff.

The pie chart below was produced by Southern Water, Water Wise, National Statistics and the Drinking Water Inspectorate about 10 years ago.  100% of Hull's treated water may become fluoridated but only 4% of the 31.5% of the water used by households is actually drunk.  Thus 99% of the water is not drunk and 99% of the fluoride is not drunk.  Of the remaining 1%, very little is drunk by disadvantaged small children - the target group for water fluoridation.  According to the most recent National Diet and Nutrition Survey, small children drink just one-third of a litre of water per day.  


Wasting money on feasibility studies, on the public consultation, on the capital cost of fluoridating equipment and on the cost of the fluoridating acid is an outrage.  And now we are told that Hull's residents will no longer be helped by the City Council when they are in need of social care.

One of the Water Treatment Works which supplies treated water to Hull extracts groundwater to which chlorine is added.  No other treatment is necessary.  This implies that the groundwater is really pure.  In fact, the best Yorkshire water possible.  If the public consultation finds in favour of Hull City Council, this pure water will become adulterated.  A foolish UK law allows this to happen! 


3rd February 2017: The magic of turmeric

The LINK takes you to a short article about how turmeric prevents fluoride from adversely affecting your brain.  In other words, turmeric (which contains several valuable substances such as phenolic curcuminoid and immune-boosting polysaccharides
) prevents alzheimer's and dementia.  It's best to use fresh turmeric which can be purchased from Asian food stores.  It can be grated and sprinkled on salads or eaten in a raw soup which is made by blitzing carrots, peeled apples, garlic, salt, chopped turmeric root and water.  Use gloves when chopping the fresh root to protect the hands from staining yellow.

31st January 2017:   All that glisters is not gold!

This month, I attempted to have my mercury amalgan fillings removed by a dentist practised at doing this work.  Alas, once I asked the fatal question "what do you use to replace the fillings and I hope that they do not contain fluoride", I was told that there were no products on the market which were guaranteed not to contain fluoride and that therefore the surgery could not accept my patronage and money. The money for the initial consultation is to be returned to me and I should look elsewhere!

Does this mean that the great god fluoride is still ruling the British Dental Association's roost?  It would appear so.  I am to be denied the removal of a toxin because I do not want another toxin to take its place!

In July 2017, mercury amalgam fillings will be banned in the EU for children, expectant mums and those who breast feed.  

If visitors to this site decide to have their mercury amalgam fillings removed, they need to make sure that they consult an holistic dentist.  A dental surgery which is a member of the BDA and which accepts NHS patients but says that it can remove mercury amalgam fillings is not going to cut it!  My experience is that the protocols are half observed!

The questions which need to be asked of the Dental Practice are:

  • Are you observing all the IOAMT protocols?
  • Do you have a cavitat scanner which pushes out very low levels of radiation. (If the equipment is not state-of-the-art, then walk away. No-one should want X-rays, especially if the thyroid gland and brain are not protected.  In particular, avoid hospital CT scans.)
  • Have you heard of the V-Tox protocols which are used by holistic dentists?
  • Do you advise the use of Vitamin C and glutathione immediately prior to and after surgery for the neutralisation of mercury in the blood-stream? If you tell your patients to stop Vitamin C therapy on the day of 'surgery', why do you tell them to avoid this?  Is this advice which has been inherited from surgeons with experience of general anaesthetics (GA)?  Dental surgeons who remove mercury fillings will surely only be administering local anaesthetics which are somewhat different to GA?
  • Are you able to give intravenous Vitamin C and glutathione injections?  (These two substances disable fugitive mercury and ensure that it is escorted out of the body via the kidneys.)
  • When your patients are asked to rinse their mouths after the removal of mercury fillings, are they asked to rinse with mouth-wash containing fluoride? (If this is the case, then avoid this intervention.  You do not want to be poisoned with another element as soon as another poison has been removed.)

You can probably understand that I am disappointed that I cannot have the mercury amalgam fillings removed at this time.  However, I am not going to be defeated.  If all is against you, carry on .....

Believe that you are right: you have the power to fight a health service which preaches a doctrine which is harmful, old-fashioned and wrong!


13th January 2017:  Further information on Fluoride Action Network's Petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (USA)

The LINK takes you to the Lund Report where Rick North discusses the background to this Petition.  Comments below the article on the report are from Anti-Fluoridation and Pro-Fluoridation organisations and individuals.

3rd January 2017:  Welcome to the New Year!

The WMAF Team enters the New Year full of hope. We eagerly await the next stage of the Fluoride Action Network's Petition to the USA's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  A failure by the EPA to act on the Petition's request will result in a Federal court case. 

We have been told by Fluoride Action Network that "Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (USA), the EPA has just 90 days to either accept or reject Fluoride Action Network's petition.  The deadline is 20th February 2017. If they reject the petition, Fluoride Action Network has the option to take the issue to Federal Court so that their case can be adjudicated on its scientific merits.  In which case, instead of the issue of fluoride’s neurotoxicity being resolved by public relations outfits and trolls on the internet, it will be examined more objectively with experts from both sides being cross-examined under oath.  This is the last thing that promoters of fluoridation want to see.  Thus there will  we many attempts by promoters between now and 20th February to undermine the Petition by fair means or foul."

Update, 15th February 2017:  The EPA has referreded the petition to the National Research Council so that the facts contained in the petition can be thoroughly checked.