"Unthinking
respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)
Wall
Street Journal: Fluoridation, Cancer: Did Researchers
Ask The Right Questions?
and
Biotech
News: Fluoride in tap water linked to bone cancer
The
Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) Cover-up
********
The
UK water Industry: They poison Children, dont they?
Ask
yourself:
Why
would the UK water industry request from the government
"absolute indemnity on civil liability and indemnity
on strict criminal liability as far as public policy
allows" - before they would extend fluoridation
schemes in Britain? (http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/fluoridation-water-supplies)
And
they got it from the government in 2005 (www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050920.htm).
The
only logical conclusion that we at NPWA could come to
was that the UK water industry was fully aware that
it is already involved in a dubious, risky practice
with possible ancillary criminal activities. Otherwise,
why would an industry ask to be indemnified by the government
for criminal and civil liabilities unless they knew
they were in violation of the law?
This
request can only be viewed as an admission of guilt,
and further, as willingness to continue violating the
law as long as they have some government protection.
Consequently, one can only interpret the message from
the UK water industry to the government and the general
public as:
It
is perfectly willing to participate in dubious and/or
criminal activities on behalf of the government as long
as it has some assurance that its legal costs will be
covered if it gets caught out.
Immunity
from prosecution is not in the cards for criminal actions
or they would have asked for that concession.
In
1999, the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's
Government:
"In
view of the absence of any relevant scientific studies
cited in the US Review of Fluoride, 1991, referred to
in the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 8 February
(WA 1-2), whether they can quote any other scientific
sources in support of their belief that dental fluorosis
is only a cosmetic side-effect of fluoride and not an
indication of early toxicity." [HL1964]
Baroness
Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government:
"We accept that dental
fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. .
. " - (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.).
It
is estimated that between 48% - 54% of children living
in fluoridated areas develop dental fluorosis, the visible
sign of fluoride poisoning. (http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/seminar.html)
That's
right folks, the UK water industry doesn't have the
slightest problem with mass-poisoning children on behalf
of the government. The only problem it has with poisoning
children is if it happens to find itself in a court
of law, facing civil and/or criminal charges.
This
is also what NPWA suspects prompted the UK water industry
to basically ask the government to pass a law that obliged
them to fluoridate the drinking water upon the request
of local health authorities. As honest, upright, corporate
citizens, the UK water industry could not, in good conscience,
break the law. (http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/fluoridation-water-supplies)
This
attitude is somewhat hypocritical and sociopathic (to
say the least). You ask the government to change the
law so that you can attempt to hide behind the law.
However, you are still worried that you might wind up
in the dock, facing criminal and/or civil charges. So
you need indemnities, because no insurer in the world
will indemnify you for the mass-poisoning of children
- that's a non-starter for any insurance underwriter's
risk analyst.
NPWA
saw this as a transparent attempt to use the Nazis'
failed Nuremberg defence. If one of the water company
managing directors finds himself looking at a few years
in prison, he simply parrots, "We were only following
orders." However, the UK water industry gleefully
"welcomed" the change in the law which made
it unlawful for them not to poison children.
The
only reason the UK water industry asked for "strict
criminal indemnity" is because NPWA and other organisations
have widely publicised the fact that fluoridation is
a criminal act according to the ss 23 and 24 of the
Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, which forbids
the administration of any poisonous or noxious substance.
In
1999 the government freely admitted that dental fluorosis
is the manifestation of fluoride poisoning. And in a
sociopathic quest for profit and government favour,
the UK water industry is more than willing engage in
the criminal activity of posioning the public at large.
So
much for corporate ethics.
NPWA
to UK Water Industry - You can always sue us if we are
not telling the truth.
See
Imdemnities http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050920.htm
.
