Dear Yorkshire Water

Legal Status of Non-Fluoridating Companies Billing Consumers With Elevated Fluoride Contents Due To Network Design. A Freedom of Information/Environmental Information Regulations Request.

BACKGROUND:

In 2009 it was revealed that, due to admixture of supplies arising from the layout of the water network, some people in Sheffield were being fluoridated. It appears they are billed by Yorkshire Water which has never added fluoride to its customers.

BACKGROUND:

With it variously described as a "fraud" and a "hoax", nobody up to and including Public Health England and the American Medical Association will legally guarantee the safety of fluoridating people, even if everything functions according to plan.

Meanwhile many who are into the issue would attest to a pattern of deceit on the pro-fluoridation side, formed from slit-vision, selected interestedness, psychological manipulation by and of the media, industrial octopus, secret lobbying, weasel words, ontological error, low credibility, unscientific theories, ad hominem attacks, fallacies including petitio principii, onus probandi, circular cause and consequence, ignoratio elenchi, argumentorum ad nauseam/verecundiam/antiquitatem/populam, overwhelming exception, and thought-terminating cliché...along with drastic oversimplification and reckless abandonment by the perpetrators to a degree which has become an insult to anyone of average intelligence.

Intelligence being a rigid parameter, growing evidence suggests this would by comparison include some below average intelligence unfluoridated people as well.

https://is.gd/DtAqsA

To take a single possible example of many, a customer might read that Mexican children in a high urinary F-As group were less able to copy a complex figure than children in DDT-PCB and Pb-As groups, and that the fluoridation reagent H2SiF6 was by far the greatest contributor to arsenic in the finished water in New Haven, Connecticut.

He might compare these detailed and carefully controlled scientific researches to some flim-flam PR material from PHE saying that nobody's ever found anything wrong with fluoride, at a concentration that could result in a wide range of doses - which is a concentration now 42% higher than the supposedly safe concentration in America, and which has remained the same even as the average weather has become hotter, and the average person thirstier.

He might observe how little this affects the 1ppm gang, supported by paid flacks in the US, who just attack anyone they cannot steamroller, buy, or sneak around. Like a cult.

Your customer might conclude that anyone seriously advocating this was already some kind of idiot. The flim-flammers would not raise the issue of contaminants but when pushed, of course, it would say somewhere that it's all under control.

Looking at this in the round, our customer might reasonably conclude that his interests were not best served by being fluoridated, which sentiment he would likely extend to his family, likely resulting in much trouble, inconvenience and expense for that household if they tried, as best as could be managed, to avoid it.

He might even decide the deceit of "water fluoridation" extends to the language used to describe it - that even its name is fraudulent and misleading. From there it would be a short step to the realisation that he is up against the very best kind of propaganda - because even the people issuing it have not seen through the trick.

Yet, he might want his kid to be able to copy a picture and get it halfway right. For reasons like these your customer might reasonably conclude that the fluoride PR people have been negligent in their investigations, and are merely Potemkin experts relying on people's faith in an authority they cannot possibly possess, and that his or her supply of potable water had been interrupted. Or at least requires further treatment, e.g. distillation.

Finding that their sole point of financial contact on the issue was with their water company, that family might seek restitution and damages in law. I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that Yorkshire Water would be on a rather sticky wicket if someone on its side of the crossover area went to law, as people have the right to be frightened given reasonable cause - even if they are wrong to be. Not to mention that their interests are supposed to be represented by their local authority, in a less popular part of the flim-flammers' job, rather eclipsed by the Nuremberg Code and its descendants.

As payee you would be 100% responsible in law, but rightly affronted if unable to sue your puppet neighbour in turn, whose indemnities might not extend to such largesse. And onwards and upwards the legal bills - all paid on the pro-fluoride side - would go.

After wising up to the flim-flam, any average person can work out that water doesn't have any teeth, and see proof which supposedly "doesn't exist" from reputable sources.

https://t.co/30hVXEYtIC

https://is.gd/LYoOrJ

Is Yorkshire Water prepared to legally guarantee the safety of adding these chemicals to the population in the network crossover areas?

Is Yorkshire Water indemnified against claims for a) harm, b) interruption of supply - attributable to the intended fluoridation of people situated within its commercial territory?

The results will be posted at www.nfl.si/foi100001

One really dumb outcome of this enquiry would be if Yorkshire Water decided they wanted to fluoridate everyone just so they could get the legal indemnity against the people they haven't fluoridated, but have charged, up until now. Congratulations meanwhile to Yorkshire Water on not being ordered to fluoridate anyone so far, and thank you.

Julian Bohan