Archive for April, 2012

FLUORIDE the over due debate

April 24, 2012

The Fluoride debate

What is Fluoride

Fluoride is a waste/by product in the most from the Aluminium and Nuclear industries, a highly toxic and dangerous one at that, well known as rat/cockroach poison, it is also had many other uses over the past century.

Prozac and Sarin nerve gas are made from Fluoride, a small teaspoon of Flouride will kill a grown man if ingested, Sodium Flouride is also added to our drinking water in SA, and as of only recently into QLD’s water supply.

So why add a deadly poison into our water supply? This is where the debate starts, should it be added, why, where does it come from and who makes the decision?

From the onset there are many arguments in the most clouded by many varying opinions and in the most a severe lack of informed debate, when I first dare ask the question as an intrigued political candidate over a decade ago, the ADA (Australian dental association) with which I met, argued it was essential to the health of our teeth, begging the immediate question, why then do we consume it, bath in it, wash our cars in it, ect ect.

The other side if the spectrum was those industries who supplied the by product, so I stepped back to the 50’s and 60’s, a time when Sodium Fluoride was a big problem for certain industries, in particular how they could safely dispose of the tonnes of extremely toxic by products with causing a disaster, coincidently this was the very same time that the FDA in the US were sold the benifets of fluoride for our dental health.

Seems to me, this was the only way they could not only dispose of it, but sell the wste at a 20,000 % mark up, since that time facts and figures clearly show that Trillions of dollars have been spent in the last 60 years promoting artificial water fluoridation around the world. Yet very few countries adopted the practice and many of them having since discontinued it, with no increase in tooth decay. (Only 5% of the world’s population has opted for their municipal water to be fluoridated, many of their people dragged in kicking and screaming.)

This fact alone should open people’s eyes to the self interest and money behind the ideal of forced Fluoridation, so let’s look further into the health issues and the most important issue brought about by this debate “The ideal of forced medication”.

The first documented use of forced medication of large populations and in fact large groups of people horrifyingly enough used Sodium Fluoride, one of the first to do this was Hitler, his Gestapo used large doses in German Ghettos and  in Nazi Germanys infamous prison camps, this was nothing to do with dental health, it was about other nasty results of adding Fluoride to drinking water, including sterilisation, reduced mental capacity, numbing down of their prisoners and a host of  horrific health related side effects. (Exposed in a book by Joseph Borkin)

When we look into the effects of fluoride on our health, there are plenty of reports to read through, from increases in cancer, fluorosis, bone disease, damage to the pineal gland, and various side effects on the brain itself, so let’s look at what the science itself says.

From 1979 to 1982 various institutions conducted studies to determine the maximum safe level of fluoride in drinking water. This research included toxicological experiments on animals and epidemiological investigations of human populations. Long-term studies with fluoride in drinking water at 1 mg/L revealed adverse effects on bone quality and accumulation of fluoride in hair and fur of animals indicative of early or mild stages of fluorosis. Epidemiological investigations revealed that, at a fluoride level of 1 mg/L in water, the incidence of dental fluorosis in some areas was 50 percent or more. As a result of these findings the Health Standards Commission demanded a reduction in the standard for fluoride in drinking water to 0.6 mg/L, but this suggestion was not adopted.

More than 30 years ago, scientists showed that low levels of fluoride increased the incidence of melanotic tumors in living organisms from 12 to 100% – often these tumors were induced by fluoride over a period of days. These studies were further amplified by work done by the Taylor’s at the University of Texas which found that 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water increased tumor growth rate in mice by 25%.

Another serious side effect of chronic water fluoridation exposure is the calcification of the pineal gland. The pineal gland is responsible for the secretion of melatonin and connected to many other parts of one’s body. The calcification of this gland will make a person more susceptible to depression, conformity, lethargy, metabolic problems, and serious growth and learning disabilities.

Coincidentally while studying another health related topic, it is a known fact that over the past 20 years or so, Austism, ADHD and various other brain & development issues have risen by over 400%, could these issues be related to the forced medication of our drinking water?

There have been a host of reports and court actions in the past 30 years, (Dr Yiamouyiannis’s studies with Dr Dean Burk to determine whether cancer death rates increased after fluoridation in the 1950s) caused great concern among many Americans and prompted Congressional hearings in 1977 followed by a 21-day court trial in Pennsylvania. There the presiding judge was compellingly convinced of the adverse effects of fluoridation and ordered its halt as a public health hazard.

Many dentists and researchers now refute the notion that adding fluoride to water supplies helps to prevent tooth decay by strengthening tooth enamel. Let’s consider for a moment though, that it was a real benefit. If this were the case, and tooth decay in Australia was reduced to minimal levels, the amount of research internationally that cites multiple health risks from water fluoridation is massive.

It appears that professionals who support water fluoridation are not paying due attention to literally thousands of scientists, doctors and researchers internationally who are publishing some grim results on the health effects of excess fluoride. Some research indicates that benefits of fluoride are largely topical, (applying fluoride directly to the teeth) and not through drinking water. If this is the case, the systemic exposure of every man, woman and child through the water supply makes little sense, when topically applied fluoridated toothpaste is universally available.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence of associated risks with water fluoridation is the 2006 report from the committee of the National Research Council (2006), a 530-page scientific review of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Standards on fluoride in drinking water. The report concludes that that the EPA’s drinking water standard for fluoride does not protect against adverse health effects. One would hope that those reassuring the public that there are no health risks associated with water fluoridation would at least familiarise themselves with this document, as a minimum requirement, not that many of our representatives appear to have the ability to make informed decisions.

In addition, some 1200 professionals from the Fluoride Action Network have signed a statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. This statement itself has been signed by many leading fluoride researchers around the world – a Nobel prize winner, 3 members of the 2006 National Research Council review panel, environmental writers and hundreds of doctors, dentists, PhDs, and other highly qualified people from over 40 countries. One must ask why such people would spend their valuable time supporting such an issue, when they have nothing to gain other than the satisfaction of seeing better health and safety resulting from their research.

So there is No doubt fluoride represents a health risk to all living beings, and with the ability to use topical toothpaste as free choice, it is easy to come to the conclusion that self interest of certain industries is more so the reason behind the whole idea of forced medication as a way of disposing of deadly poison, yet we the people appear to have no say in the situation.

If by chance my findings and assessments of the situation is wrong, then best we debate how much fluoride is added to our water and from where it is purchased, The US like we here in Australia, import cheap water fluoridation chemicals from China and a recent evaluation found that much of the fluoride used for water fluoridation now coming out of China exhibit arsenic and lead levels of 50mg and 40mg respectively a bag.

Sourcing anything to add to our drinking water from a country with a track record of lead paint on toys, anti-freeze in cough syrup, 400-times the acceptable concentrations of formaldehyde on children’s clothing and toxic chemicals in baby formula and milk is unacceptable. Just recently here in Australia and also in the US, fluoride from China has contained substances which have yet to be identified, yet it is still added to our water.


In areas where fluoridation occurs, continuous weekly assessments must be carried out in order to assure concentrations remain within acceptable limits, (which are lower among hotter areas to take greater fluid consumption into account) as concentrations in excess of 1.5ppm can cause dental fluorosis (staining of the teeth) whilst concentrations over 4ppm can cause skeletal fluorosis. (NHMRC 2004), so how much is Australia adding and who is ensuring safe limits and exactly what are safe limits?

One of the most commonly cited reasons to oppose fluoridation is that it is unethical for a government to subject a population to what is essentially mass medication against their will; the very reason why fluoridation has either not been accepted or has been subsequently discontinued among certain areas of Europe. (Short & Riordan 1996)

This whole debate is riddled with complexities. For example, taking away a person’s choice whether to be medicated or not may be considered reasonably unethical, though it could also be argued that allowing them to chose not to be medicated could be more unethical if allowing them that choice meant exposing them to harm, especially if they do not have the necessary capacity to make an a fully informed decision, so maybe we should mandate the use of toothpaste.

It becomes obvious that fluoride is dangerous and should not be forced upon the population, even at levels of 0.6ppm of lower, it may still damage the health of people and animals, yet try yourself to find the amount currently being added to Australia’s water supplies, because I cannot, and furthermore, it is now being added to bottled water, beer and a variety of food and drinks, without adequate labelling to boot.

Bottled water content and labelling in Australia is regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).  Labelling standards for bottled water in Australia do not require the display of any naturally occurring minerals. Whilst none of the 10 bottled waters analysed had any added minerals, only three of the 10 brands displayed the fluoride concentration on their labels. International studies have also found that very few brands of bottled water display the fluoride concentrations on their labels unless required by regulatory authorities.

Forcing we the people to ingest a deadly poison, like it or not, to do the same to our animals and wild life, all under the spin it is a dental health issue, when the truth does not support the sell, is an attack on our rights, our civil liberties and our freedoms, let alone what could only be considered abuse of our children’s most basic right to a healthy future.

We need to spread the truth, demand open and honest debate, write to our politicians and demand they to do the same and use our precious vote to send a clear message, our body our choice.


Mark M Aldridge

Community advocate and Independent candidate

08 82847482 / 0403379500


Liberal Democratic Party S.A. “Libertarians or simply dodgy”

April 22, 2012

Explanation regarding the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party SA)


Several years ago, I heard a speech which I found offensive by one of their supposed leaders, but I do not like to judge a group by the actions of one person.

I have and maintain a comfortable relationship with the LDP National executive.

Then when setting up a website to help unite and gain support for the minor parties and Independents, it was brought to my attention, the LDP support the sale of our land, farms and assets, even with countries that do not offer an equitable trade, something that offends me.

While doing preference deals during an election campaign, it became evident the LDP do not honour promises they make, but I continued to meet them with a hand shake, which concerns me from my own perspective, was I being polite or was their self interest on my own behalf regarding future preferences, or was it the usual us V the 2 party system that kept me seeking unity?

Then during the state by-election, it became very evident, games were on the agenda, with the LPD backing Labor over me, if I had secured a few more percentages in votes, the LDP would have handed Labor the win in Labors safest seat, against the direction of their supposed policy direction and the best interest of their supporters.

The fact they used dodgy how to vote cards to try and deceive Liberal voters and even worse hand those votes to the Labor party, is an issue that makes my blood boil

Every rally they addressed it was all about supporting one and all, without reason in their speech, more so, that they support everything, open slather, yet going from attendees one my one with free membership forms, it seemed all about self promotion than the topic of the rallies themselves.

Then came the threatening calls to my family home, which never goes down well, and yet on Friday at a rally, I still shook their leaders hand, because the topic of the rally was important, yet afterwards I felt like I was a sell out, like a dirty sell out, I watched as he went person to person selling free membership, knowing the promises being made were not honest.

I made mention of how I felt to a mate who has also been in the arena for many years, and what he told me, made sense when I consider how I feel about the local LDP executive, so I believe what I have heard, but will not repeat it, as I cannot prove it, either way, I have let myself down pretending to be able to excuse their actions, so best I remain true to myself, and distance myself completely from the SA LDP and in particular their leader Christopher Steele.

I am so upset with how I have acted and what I now know, I simply must distance myself from the party at state level and any of their supporters, so that’s it, childish or heartfelt is up to you, for me it is essential if I am to remain in the fight for a fair go, that I remain true to myself.

The LDP in SA’s conduct has broken every aspect of fair play I fight for, and I am so angry with myself for not standing up when the first issue arose.