Postby museman » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:41 pm

Yes it's that safe that this is what other countries have to say about fluoridation:


In fact the majority of countries are against fluoridation, the USA and the UK are in the minority.
User avatar
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Wolverhampton, UK


Postby kevin » Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:14 pm

Toxic poison to make us all slow in the head, good little sheeple


Postby kevin » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:46 pm

These districts have artificially fluoridated drinking water:

Berkshire: RG1, 4-6, 40, 41
Birmingham: B6-11, 13-21, 23-34, 37, 40, 42, 45, 60-62, 65-71; parts of Central Birmingham and B36, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 63, 64, 90, 92, 97
Buckinghamshire: Parts of SG18, 19
Chelmsford: CM1
Coventry: CV1-6, 10, 11; parts of CV 7-9, 12, 13
Crewe: Parts of CW1, 2, 5-7, 12, 17
Cumbria: CA24, 25, 27, 28
Dartford: DA1
Derby: DE13-15
Doncaster: DN15, 16, 18-21, 38-40; parts of DN9, 10, 17, 22, 31, 37
Dudley: Parts of DY9, 10
Durham: DH2, 7-9; parts of DH15
Lancaster: Parts of LA19
Leicestershire: Parts of LE10, and 18
Lincolnshire: Ln1, 2, 4-7
Milton Keynes: MK17, 43-46
Nottinghamshire: NG18-20; parts of NG17, 21-24, 31, 32, 34
Oxfordshire: Part of OX9
Sheffield: Parts of S80
Shrewsbury: Parts of SY13, 14
Stoke: Parts of ST7, 8
Tonbridge: TN26
Tyneside: NE1 to 6, 8, 12, 15-18, 21, 23, 25-27, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46; parts of NE9-11, 13, 19, 20, 24, 28, 44, 46-48, 65
Wolverhampton: WV2, 3, 13, 14; parts of WV6-8
Worcestershire: Part of WR7, 9-11

These districts have naturally-fluoridated water at more than 0.5 ppm:

Durham: DH1, 2, part of 6
Essex: CO1-6, 8-10
Lincolnshire: Part of LN13
Peterborough: PE2, 4
Suffolk: IP1-8, 13, 14, 28 to 30, 33
Teesside: TS27, 28
Tyneside: NE25, 26, 29; part of NE30

info from Here

and here is a study on children drinking/not drinking water with added fluoride that concludes
An inverse relationship was also present between IQ and
the urinary fluoride level. Exposure of children to high levels of fluoride may
therefore carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence.


Postby GhostyGoo™ » Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:28 pm


I haven't had much time to participate recently but Water Fluoridation is something i recently wrote a great deal about on a different forum for the purpose of debate. I am happy to be able to share this information with readers of this thread.

GhostyGoo™ Enters The Debate on the Possible Health Risk/Benefit of Water Fluoridation wrote:I have to admit, i haven't read all four pages extensively but i've tried to familiarise myself, instead, with differing viewpoints. I feel i must start my particular addition to this highly volatile subject by pointing out the thread title-
"Debate on Weather Sodium Fluoride Has Any Benefits".

There have been alot of posts simply hatemongering a fair question which is honestly deplorable behaviour for a forum in which healthy dissent is pivotal! Enough said on that matter.
Some posts have also been stating the need to assert what we are dealing with ie "Fluoride" or "Fluorine"; i find this silly for two reasons - firstly, the title of the topic is self explainatory and secondly, these posts in which a definition is called for repeatedly state no reason as to why a confirmation of such is required!
One last bone of contention with the overall reception of this topic are the allusions to bottled water. Any small amount of research will show you that fluoride is added to many top brand name bottled waters and they don't always have to admit it, either.

In my opinion, having studied the development and industrial application of Sodium Fluoride (the inorganic chemical compound NaF which is used in toothpaste and water fluoridation etc) only has one beneficial use and even that is open to much speculation. It is used as Flouride-18 in PET scans and is favoured as a positron emmiter due to it's short half-life. Of course, it's still a radioactive isotope, regardless of how quickly it decays! Frankly, i'm not sure i'd like it anywhere near my brain tissue.

Still, PET scans have accelerated the field of clinical oncology greatly and that has to be accepted regardless of how one feels about having one's body bombarded by tiny atom bombs (essentially, being microwaved).

Now, on to oral hygiene, yes? Sodium Flouride, in countless tests under countless conditions, has no comparitive benefit to dental health whatsoever. Personally, i have been using a non-Fluoride toothpaste for as long as i can remember and my teeth (except a pesky wisdom one) are fine. Studies comparing the teeth of children and adults in America (where water fluoridation is commited) and Europe (where it is considered a form of enforced medication) have shown, repeatedly, no discernable variations in overall dental health. Actual figures report 8-40% difference which is clearly no where near definative enough to base a conclusion on.

The problem, as i see it, is this - there are a number of natural mineral properties in our water supply which are provided quite nicely by nature. This does not include villiaumite (which is highly toxic to humans) or fluorite (which is used as a smelting flux). If any constituent of Flourine (chemical element atomic number 9) was supposed to be in our drinking water i'm sure nature would have put it there for us?

Before i go into the really ugly bits, i'm going to point a couple of things out-
The Latin word Fluo meaning "to flow" is how the mineral Fluorite came to it's name (it being used to help the flow of metal in metallurgy/smelting by lowering the metal's boiling point). The mineral is very rare and is mostly found in plutonic Nephelene Syenite which also contains the mineral Villiaumite which is the only naturally occuring NaF (Sodium Fluoride) in existence as far as we are aware.
All other NaF is inorganic.
F is the chemical element Fluorine. It has the atomic number 9 and occurs as diatomic F2 molecule which is highly poisonous. The most important consideration for our discussion is it's unrivalled suitability in the enrichment of U235.

So, how do these dots connect up? I will restate my belief that if any mineral form of F(luorine) were supposed to be in drinking water nature would certainly have put it there for our long slow crawl out of the embrionic ooze (note: belief). So we have this inexorable, apparently insubstantiated, albeit diametric link between dental health and nuclear weapons. Is there a connection? I believe there is.

Several accidents occured during the Manhatten project and at least three of them involved UF6 being exposed to air (Uranium Fluoride leaks) which produced highly toxic UO2F2 (uranyl fluoride) and HF (hydrogen fluoride) and subsequently got into the water supply. The next step is two-fold. Firstly, the overseers of the Manhatten project found out that the water soluble Fluoride from these accidents caused lassitude and silliness in the local populace who were exposed (the couch potato effect as it is often referred to) and began experimenting on rats to determine just exactly how docile they could be made. The other thing that came about was purposeful exposure to the less volatile NaF or Sodium Fluoride (which caused similar effects but over a much much longer timespan due to it's half-life i mentioned earlier); this exposure was done under the premise of dental health in order to "dumb-down" the fear factor of being exposed to the much much more dangerous Uranyl and Hydrogen compounds.

I hope this helps some of you understand a little more about the origins of Sodium Fluoride. At the end of the day i believe it should always be a personal choice as to what you put inside your body however, sadly for the United States, this is becoming an increasingly remote liberty. It is already within the Presidential "special powers" created by the Bush Administration to force "vaccinations" upon the People. It won't take a great leap to start dumping nuclear waste into the water supply, afterall - what does the North American Union want a load of nuclear waste floating about the place for when it can just as easily get us to ask for it to be spoon fed to us in the name of those celebrity "Pearly Whites"?

Before one can make a choice, one must wake up ;)


I've left the whole report unedited as the opening paragraph illustrate perfectly the lack of transparency most people have for this subject. As a result of not editing my report the context is, at first, odd however it was posted originally on a debate where the general consensus was ignorance, smoke screens and mirrors. That and a massive degree of people who, on arriving with great factual evidence, left feeling insulted and unappreciated.

I know that is not how we will respond, but i felt it served as a reminder of what sometimes occurs outside of intelectual circles such as this forum.

Incidentally this brought a 5 page "discussion" (which was more like a classic episode of Freedom to Say What We Like You To Say) to an immediate close. Not one single person from 5 pages of denial and naysaying dared respond to my report.

I'm quietly proud of that ......a bit like :cheer: but with smaller pompoms and much less exaggerated arm movements.
It is good to express a thing twice right at the outset and so to give it a right foot and also a left one. Truth can surely stand on one leg, but with two it will be able to walk and get around. ~Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Bramley, W.Yorks


Postby rockinsoul » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:19 pm

I received a Claim Letter from the County Court today regarding an unpaid bill to Northumbrian Water. Here is the reply I have just written to them:

John Dean: Rose
[my address]

P. Kelly
Northumbrian Water
Customer Accounts Centre
PO Box 300

Monday 5th October 2009

Dear Sirs,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 30th September 2009 (enclosed with this letter). Firstly, please be informed there is no legal fiction (STATUTORY PERSON) living at this address, i.e. MR. JOHN ROSE as is stated on your letter. I am a human being under Common Law jurisdiction therefore your claim has no jurisdiction over me.

I reply as a living, sentient, sovereign human being so I can address once again my issues with Northumbrian Water, and all water authorities in the country. I have informed Northumbrian Water several times via letter and phone calls that I will be henceforth withholding all payments whilst they persist in fluoridating water without my consent. Fluoride is not classed as a medicine and therefore their claim that the decision to fluoridate water is a medical one is false. Fluoride is a waste product of the aluminium industry which is pumped into our water not because it is good for our teeth (it actually causes dental fluorosis) but because decisions have been made high up in government to accept payment from the aluminium industry to dump their waste in the water, a decision that was allowed because of fluoride’s mind-suppressing effects that were utilised extensively by the Nazis and Soviets in their concentration camps to pacify the prisoners. It is my belief that fluoride is being added to the water for this purpose as the government at its highest echelons is extremely corrupt, deceitful, greedy, treasonous and genocidal, and what better way to distract the population than to add this type of chemical, which equates to rat poison, to the water we all drink.

Northumbrian Water’s claim that the water is not being fluoridated in my area in moot because the Earth’s water cycle is a closed system, that is anything put in at any point, remains there and continues around the cycle, affecting everybody, and fluoride cannot be removed by boiling or any traditional purification methods. The only way I am aware of to remove this high-level toxin (which is half way between the toxicity levels of lead and arsenic) is to use a reverse osmosis filtration technique. If Northumbrian Water will pay for this purification equipment to be installed at my address so the water will once again be pure, then I will gladly pay their fees. Until this happens, then I am being forced to pay for this myself, and am lawfully indemnified against legal suits from any corporation who is poisoning my water supply.

I suggest whoever is reading this, if you do not know these facts, to stop simply “doing your job” and go do some personal research as I have done, until you see how important this issue really is. If your company wishes to take me to court regarding this issue then I will gladly attend a trial, in a Common Law court-de-jure, to challenge the CEO of Northumbrian Water on the issues of false claims and criminally negligent poisoning of the water supply, versus my withholding of payment for such services. I do not consent to any statutory jurisdiction. I am a Freeman on the Land as outlined in the Magna Carta 1215, and am solely under the jurisdiction of Common Law. If there is anything else you would like to know, please address any further questions to John Dean: Rose (common law title) at the above address. Any further correspondence to MR JOHN ROSE will be ignored as I have stated there is no legal fiction here, and at any at any rate will be chargeable by reply at the rate of £50 per letter.

Sincerely, without Ill-Will, Frivolity or Vexation

John Dean: of the Rose Family
A Living Cosmic Coloured Synthesis of Progressive and Psychedelic Consciousness Expanding Rock'n'Soul

Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:26 pm
Location: Durham, UK


Postby Lozzie666 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:30 pm

hi Fidgit, thanks for replying to my post about me own problem with United Utilities, I have sent both the DWP and UU letters including info about how harmful fluoride is. Let's see if I get any response!
I noticed that Warrington, Cheshire wasn't on your list of fluoridated areas, do you know if it is? Doesn't matter if it is or not, there are still other toxins in the water that's not acceptable!
How did they agree to you about not taking it out of your benefit? Do you still get bills from the water board?
User avatar
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Cheshire


Postby BaldBeardyDude » Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:05 pm

Bloody good letter Rockinsoul, m8 - top marks for info, logic, education of minions and of course - artistic merit :clap:

Top stuff, bud! :yes:

They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire


Postby jonboy » Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:10 pm

According to the above post about flouridation in the UK, mine is clean, (SK23) but I am suspicious, also, I don't understand the list of "naturally" flouridated water??? How can it be naturally flouridated?? :puzz:
"Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason. The law which is perfection of reason" Sir Edward Coke 1552-1634.


It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
User avatar
Posts: 1375
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Albion


Return to Utility Bills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests