Daily Echo

Where's the proof?
IN Tasmania, fluoridated since 1953, the people have some of the worst teeth in Australia -with a tooth being pulled once every three minutes.
According to the Australian Health and Medical Research Council:
• 11.2 per cent of Tasmanians aged 25 to 44 wear dentures, almost double the national average.
• A tooth is extracted every three minutes in public dental services around Australia.
• Tasmania has the highest percentage of people wearing a denture in the nation.
• The rate of 23.1 per cent is 4.6 per cent higher than national average of 18.5 per cent.
• In all the age categories from 25 to 65-plus, Tasmania is significantly above the national average.
• 41 per cent of Tasmanians in the 45 to 64-year-old category have dentures, which is 12 per cent above the national average.
This confirms what the York Report found -that there is no reliable proof that fluoridation works.
In the UK, the fluoridated West Midlands is quoted as having some of the best teeth in the country but they have a large dental budget. Even fluoridated Coventry recently received an additional £lm for its dental budget.
If the scheme in Southampton goes ahead they will not be putting in sodium fluoride or the calcium fluoride found in areas of the UK but 112.3 tonnes of hexafluorosilicic acid captured waste from the phosphate industry with its two per cent of heavy metals including, lead, arsenic and mercury. This toxic mix will get dumped into our water supply every year.
Olga Senior (In My View, July 27) suggested the public do not understand complex health issues, can she, or Professor Newton on behalf of the Strategic Health Authority, explain to us mere mortals why Tasmania has such a dismal record of dental health after 56 years of fluoridation?
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam,

Daily Echo letter - Taken for a fluo-ride

Taken for a fluo-ride
PEOPLE concerned about the intended addition of fluoride to our water supply will be interested to know that the Department of Health has now stated categorically that the substances used are NOT derived from industrial waste, but are specially manufactured in as pure a form as possible.
This rather suggests that a complete industry has now been set up to supply this unnecessary and unwanted product, contrary both to common sense and good medical ethics.
It is also at odds with the plea, so often heard in recent days, for the "efficient use of water".
G PAYNE, Southampton.

As pure as possible is 98% and 2% of hundreds of tonnes dumped into the water annually is a lot of mercury, lead, and arsenic.

FAN Bulletin 1090: Good and Bad News from the UK

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1090: Good and Bad News from the UK
August 28, 2009,
The way that the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) pushed through fluoridation in Southampton, and other Hampshire communities in the UK, was a shocking exercise in government sponsored propaganda and manipulation. The last minute trashing of the NRC report and the 23 IQ studies by a "government friendly" consulting firm (Bazian Ltd.) was the last straw in a campaign which would have made George Orwell blink.

However, it has produced some good news. Citizens were so appalled by the way they were treated (72% of those polled voted against fluoridation) that they have sought and secured a "judicial review" on the way this measure was pushed through.

We heard yesterday that the very fact that this judicial review is in the works has put on hold the efforts of another SHA (North West SHA) to force through fluoridation. This hiccup has also allowed the authority to look at the staggering costs of such a program. Their current water program costs less than £6 million (about 9 million dollars) - it would jump to £200 million if fluoridation was introduced!

Here is the letter we received yesterday from Linda and Dave Forrest:

Dear All,

We have obtained some excellent news today. Please see attached extract from the Chief Executive's Report to be presented to the SHA's Board Meeting on 3 September 2009 (http://fluoridealert.org/uk.n.sha.extract.9-3-09.pdf). The main points stated in the report are:-

1. "It would be irresponsible for NHS North West to commit further resources to water fluoridation until the outcome of the Judicial Review is known and this has significant consequences".

2. "It is apparent from this report that costs have increased significantly"……….." Based on the most recent figures, the capital cost of a region-wide fluoridation scheme is around £200 million"…………. "The current annual operating cost of a region-wide scheme is £5.78 million".

3. "The Board is asked to note that no further work will be done on the Water Fluoridation Project until after the outcome of the Judicial Review is known. A further report will be provided at that time".

Our thanks must go to Hampshire Against Fluoridation and all the people who have helped them for their tremendous effort to stop fluoridation. Without their efforts our SHA might now be proposing for us to have a Consultation. The nearly doubling of the costs might also have had an impact on their decision. We will obviously have to stay vigilant and hope the Judicial Review is successful.

Best wishes,

Linda and Dave

So heartiest congratulations to Hampshire Against Fluoridation for all the painstaking efforts to fight this proposal in Southampton. You can email Linda and Dave Forrest and the citizens comprising Hampshire Against Fluoridation via John Spottiswoode who I am sure will share your thoughts with the gang.

Let's celebrate this news around the fluoridation fighting world. However, in reading further what the Chief Executive (North West SHA) had to say about the granting of the judicial review to Hampshire Against Fluoridation it sounds pretty ominous. We shouldn't drink too much champagne.

Apparently, the Honourable Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that the South Central SHA's "decision-making process was unimpeachable." Having observed this process very closely in four separate trips to Southampton (including appearing in three public fora) all I can say is WOW! If this is what the judge considers an "unimpeachable" process, the UK is in deep trouble. The whole thing was a sham from beginning to end - the end coming with Bazian Ltd., demonstrating that they don't know the difference between "concentration" and "dose." Even a high school student should be able to work out this difference. Whether or not fluoride causes harm depends on how much water one drinks whether the concentration of fluoride is 1, 2, 3 or 4 ppm.

To be more specific: these consultants argued that the NRC (2006) review findings were not relevant to Southampton. However, the NRC recommended that the current US EPA standard of 4 ppm be lowered. How can Bazian argue that a level of harm occurring at some level less than 4 ppm (NRC, 2006) was not relevant for people drinking water at 1 ppm? Especially, when the authority to decide what that number "less than 4 ppm" should be (the US EPA Water Division) has yet to make the determination! Of course, we know why Bazian argued this; this is what the British government wanted, and Bazian Ltd. belongs to the oldest profession in the world.

The Chief Executive officer of North West SHA wrote (http://fluoridealert.org/uk.n.sha.extract.9-3-09.pdf):

14. ...Permission (for a judicial review) was sought on two grounds.

1. When the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 were laid before Parliament, statements were made indicating that it remained Government policy that Strategic Health Authorities should proceed with water fluoridation only when the local population was in favour. However the regulation itself does not put that policy into effect.

2. That NHS South Central did not have regard to the cogency of the arguments for and against fluoridation.

15. A decision on these matters was announced on 23rd July 2009. The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting gave limited permission for a Judicial Review of Ground 1. He also said that determination of the claim required the active participation of the Secretary of State for Health and declared him an interested party. He did not uphold Ground 2 on the basis that it was not reasonably arguable and that in all other respects the "decision-making process was unimpeachable."

16. In response to this, the applicant has sought an oral hearing to try to overturn the decision against Ground 2.

Meanwhile, below are excerpts from other related stories on the situation in the UK. We are very glad to see that the local Southampton newspaper (Daily Echo) is calling for a referendum. The SHA chiefs answered back,"EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds!". Their arrogance is breathtaking. But again the good news is that the UK fluoridation juggernaut has been delayed, allowing more reasonable (and honest) people to deliberate.

Paul Connett

June 27, 2009, Daily Echo backs calls for a referendum on fluoride issue, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"GIVE us a vote. The Daily Echo today backs calls for a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water. Campaigners argue that faith in democracy has been damaged by health chiefs approving the scheme to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes, despite widespread opposition. Calls for a direct referendum on the controversial plans have been made by opponents of fluoride, and one of the city's most powerful politicians. Earlier this month campaigners delivered a 15,300-name petition to Downing Street, urging the Prime Minister to step into the row over fluoridation. During last year's public consultation, more than 10,000 responses were submitted to South Central Strategic Health Authority. Of those from people in the affected area, 72 per cent said they were against it..."
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Daily-Echo-backs-calls-for-a-referendum-on-fluoride-issue

July 20, 2009, Southampton: Fluoride referendum would be ignored by health authority chiefs, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds! That's the message from health chiefs who say they will plough ahead with plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies regardless of whether the public get another chance to air their views. Bosses at South Central Strategic Health Authority say it has already taken on board the opinions of county residents during a mass consultation - and another huge scale vote would not alter the outcome. The Daily Echo is backing growing calls for a referendum on fluoridation for Southampton and surrounding areas, because campaigners argue the people's voices were ignored. Today they branded the SHA "arrogant" for refusing to reconsider the decision in face of fierce opposition. They were backed by one MP who claimed health chiefs were "in denial" over public opinion.
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Fluoride-referendum-would-be-ignored-by-health-authority-chiefs

July 24, 2009, Southampton: Health regulators will not examine controversial decision, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"HEALTH regulators will not scrutinise the controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies. The health service ombudsman says it won't examine concerns over South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) public consultation on the scheme because of a potential legal challenge going through the courts. But they left the door open to carrying out an investigation if the judicial review fails to answer campaigners' complaints. New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Totton county councillor David Harrison jointly asked the regulator to examine the way the SHA carried out last year's consultation, before giving the scheme the go-ahead in February. They claimed the authority had been "hopelessly biased" in its advice to residents on the arguments surrounding the plans to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes. The politicians are also unhappy because they believe health bosses ignored public opinion by approving fluoridation for parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. The Daily Echo has backed campaigners' calls for a referendum on the scheme, giving residents the final say on the plans..."
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Health-regulators-will-not-examine-controversial-decision

Regulations needed, not just guidance

Regulations needed, not just guidance
4:45pm Thursday 27th August 2009
HAMPSHIRE fluoridation is now on hold, awaiting the Judicial Review into the Southampton consultation process, which gives time to reassess some of the background questions.
What is actually used? The two permitted fluorides for this purpose are not medically approved.
The fluoridating SMAs refuse to say what is used, when asked through the Freedom of Information Office.
The fluoridating water companies are doing the same, all using ‘information not available’ or ‘no comment’ response. We need to know manufacturers, product names, medical status, etc.
How safely is it used? What protections are built into the system? A 2008 Severn Trent undetected area overdose tells us. The record report from the Drinking Water Inspectorate requires 14 recommendations to be addressed to prevent a recurrence. These are some of the things that went wrong: At Dimmingsdale Works, Severn Trent doses fluoride in fulfilment of a legal agreement with West Midlands Strategic Health Authority. In June and July, water leaving the works contained more fluoride that permitted (overdosing) which went undetected because work being carried out to install new equipment was inadequately supervised.
The technician involved had not received adequate training as specifically required by Sections five of the Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation 2005 and competence had not been assessed.
The equipment was not operating correctly and had not been fully tested prior to use. Guidance, in the form of a procedure or checklist, was absent.
Alarms were not responded to and there was a general lack of awareness of the local water supply configuration, which meant the area receiving fluoridated water was not accurately defined or sampled appropriately.
The Inspectorate acted to facilitate the widest possible learning by the industry and health authorities from this incident. Companies practising fluoridation now and in the future must ensure that the contractual arrangements in place with the relevant health authority are fully consistent with and support the duty of the company to comply with the Code of Practice at all times.

Please note: Code of Practice . . . Guidance Notes . . . and as with most chemically dangerous areas in Britain - not Statutory Regulations. So no penalties?

Margaret Reichlin, MacCallum Road, Upper Enham.

Campaign Launches to Fight Bristol Flouride Plans

Bristol News
Campaign Launches to Fight Bristol Flouride Plans
Tuesday, August 25th 2009 15:53
Worried Bristolians are meeting tonight to fight plans for the enforced fluoridation of the water supply to every home in the city.
A feasibility study by NHS South West has already begun at the request of health trusts in the Avon area which, if deemed appropriate, can be pushed through thanks to new legislation that allows health authorities to compel water providers to fluoridate water after public consultation.
The process, according to the British Fluoridation Society, reduces the numbers of children and adults suffering from tooth decay and maintains it would be an important part of local health authorities' oral health plans.
But campaigner Glenn Vowles, spokesman for Bristolians Against Fluoridation (BAF), says it is not ethical, doesn't work, is not safe and not wanted.
Speaking ahead of the first meeting of BAF on Tuesday night, Mr Vowles said: "The lack of choice in whether fluoride is added to our water is the primary focus. The substance most likely to be used is fluorosilicic acid which is a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser manufacturing industry and is registered as a Class 2 poison under the Poisons Act 1972.
"There is no licence that has ever been obtained to use it as an additive to water, which is why you can see that 72% of people in Hampshire - who took part in a public consultation over plans to fluoridate water there - opposed the plans.
"We don't want the decision imposed upon us. You will be depriving people of their choice not to have a medication - which is what fluoridation is."
At present, local supplier Bristol Water does not - and has no plans to - fluoridate the water supply to the city. But the Water Act 2003 has allowed Strategic Health Authorities to impose a decision to fluoridate water.
The Drinking Water Inspectorate says the process is "very strictly regulated" and that the chemicals used must comply with strict European standards.
But Mr Vowles claims the science behind the case for fluoridation is "poor" and that is a "despicable" waste of public money to consult on the issue.
"Most of Europe has seen falling rates of tooth decay over the last few decades without the use of fluoridation," he said.
"If you are going to deprive people of choice then you would at least want something that is essential and addressing a serious problem - and this is not the case.
"They will be spending £200,000 of public money on this consultation, which is despicable thing to do considering the 72% vote against in Hampshire."

Daily Echo - Carbon cost of MPs' Hildon mineral water

Carbon cost of MPs' Hildon mineral water
THE DECISION to continue serving Hampshire mineral water at Westminster has created a 12-tonne carbon footprint, it has been revealed.
A report commissioned following criticism over the use of bottled water to refresh MPs has revealed the environmental impact of deliveries from the county to the corridors of power.
As reported by the Daily Echo last year, the use of Hildon water, bottled in Broughton, was condemned by green campaigners who said a more environmentally -friendly alternative should be found.
The report, from environmental consultancy Best Foot Forward, was commissioned after protests from MPs on all sides at the Commons administration committee's decision to rule out a change to tap water.
A House of Commons spokeswoman said there were "too many practical difficulties" in setting up and maintaining water coolers in MPs' offices and committee rooms.
Providing and refilling jugs of fresh tap water in committee rooms would cost an estimated £295,000 a year she added.
But, she said: "We are mindful of the fact that we want to reduce our carbon emissions and are therefore looking at other measures to do that." Hildon clocked up more than 70,000 miles delivering its water the 77 miles to the Palace of Westminster between 2003 and 2008.

USA - Cut back, way back, on sugar, says heart group

Cut back, way back, on sugar, says heart group
American adults eat 22 teaspoons of sugar a day; teens eat 34
updated 8:17 p.m. ET Aug. 24, 2009
The heart group didn't recommend general limits for added sugar for children; a national health survey has shown that kids ages 14 to 18 consume an eye-popping 34 teaspoons of added sugar a day.

Sandon said that parents can help lower that sugar intake by getting soda out of the house, looking at how much sugar is in their kids' cereal and substituting snacks like cookies with popcorn..............................

The real culprit not lack of fluoride.

Daily Echo letter - A harmful precedent

A harmful precedent
OLGA Senior's address in your paper to we who oppose fluoride being added to our water supply enquired 'Do we really think these organisations would support a measure if they felt the evidence showed it would cause harm?'.
I am sure that the authority that released Thalidomide felt the same and look at the misery this decision caused.

Nearly one million teeth pulled from British children last year

...........However, Barry Cockcroft, the Chief Dental Officer, described the decline in complex treatments as “evidence that the new system is freeing up time that dentists can use to deliver more preventative care”. “It is also a reflection of changing oral health, which has improved dramatically over the past 30 years and oral health for children in England is now among the best in Europe.” He added that dentists “would be deeply shocked by the suggestion that patients may be deliberately under-treated to maximise profit”...........

Dental health in fluoridated Tasmania

Feds put the bite on dental health in Tasmania
BY DANIELLE BLEWETT
20/08/2009 4:48:00 PM
BRING out your teeth!
Tasmanians have some of the worst teeth in Australia - with a tooth being pulled once every three minutes.
Yesterday, the Federal Government urged Tasmanian parents to get their kids to the dentist quick smart.
This year Medicare Australia sent out 38,100 vouchers to Tasmanians, each valued at $153.45 for teenagers to get a preventative dental health check-up.
Families will get a voucher each calendar year and this year's vouchers are valid until December 31.
To be eligible, a teenager must be entitled to receive Medicare benefits and be aged 12 to 17 years.
The voucher covers one annual preventative check consisting of an oral examination, a scale and clean, fluoride treatment, oral hygiene instruction, dietary advice and or fissure seal.
"Teenagers need to present their voucher when they have this check," Medicare Australia's Mark Jackson said. According to the Australian Health and Medical Research Council:
•11.2 per cent of Tasmanians aged 25 to 44 wear dentures, almost double the national average.
•A tooth is extracted every three minutes in public dental services around Australia.
•Tasmania has the highest percentage of people wearing a denture in the nation.
•The rate of 23.1 per cent is 4.6 per cent higher than national average of 18.5 per cent.
•In all the age categories from 25 to 65-plus, Tasmania is significantly above the national average.
•41 per cent of Tasmanians in the 45 to 64-year-old category have dentures, which is 12 per cent above the national average.

Fluoridation has a long and proud track record in Tasmania, with Beaconsfield in 1953 becoming the first fluoridated public drinking water supply in Australia!

fluoride p 12 : 12

Daily Echo - We deserve open fluoride information

We deserve open fluoride information
IN Southampton, we are told that we have many current problems, particularly among the young. Teenage pregnancies, underage alcohol and drug abuse, hyperactivity, juvenile obesity and diabetes. It would be a ridiculous notion, would it not, to add contraception, tranquillisers, slimming aids and insulin to our drinking water to counteract these problems? These issues obviously need to be dealt with according to individual need, the same as for other health problems. Why should tooth decay be any different? The Primary Care Trust claims that all its previous attempts to control this have been ineffective - we have a right to know why.
The Strategic Health Authority have apparently not acted illegally. They have acted according to a legal document drawn up by the Government which gives them absolute power, regardless of the results of a consultation and peoples' wishes. The morals and ethics of this, however, are highly questionable.
Reports on the subject, both for and against, highlight the fact that not enough high quality data is available to determine the effects of fluoride. One has to ask, why not? If this data does not exist, after 50 years of fluoridation, then how can statements be made defending the use of fluoride in other parts of the country and locally? Sweeping statements have been made to claim that if fluoride caused health problems, they would have been obvious by now. However, data can only be researched if it is actively sought. Fluoride may well have a bearing on many health problems, but it would remain hidden if not specifically targeted. Presumably we in Southampton are a golden opportunity for high quality data to be gathered. I am not prepared to be a guinea pig, nor wish others to be, for no good reason. Tooth decay affects a minority of children and can be effectively dealt with in other ways. It is not a mass epidemic, and does not require mass medication.
Fluoride alters the structure of developing tooth enamel, and even the pro-fluoride devotees acknowledge that fluoride can cause fluorosis (mottling, staining and pitting of the teeth). If it has this effect on the teeth, what is it doing to the rest of the body? Fluorosis cannot be removed - it has to be concealed by expensive veneers, or the unfortunate child has to live with the effects into adulthood. Not exactly a step forward, particularly for children in socially disadvantaged areas, where we are told tooth decay is prevalent.
Our bodies are made up from mostly water and natural chemicals. Our foods and general environment still contain too many chemicals, a cocktail of which can cause many health problems. We do not need another one.
I can understand why many people are seeking a referendum, but we still need to bear in mind that any vote taken is only as effective as the information available. It is not unheard of for people to vote positively for something they do not really agree with when a certain approach is used, and things are not made entirely clear. We have a right to be given honest and unbiased information , in a clear and open way. There are too many questions and not enough answers

fluoride p 11 : 12

Daily Echo - swines at the top

Common sense needed in the fluoride debate
THIS country is in bad need of some common sense.
The SNA, which wants to add a chemical waste, fluoride, to .our water supply should start listening to people, and people don't want it. The air that we breathe is not good because of too many cars and planes going around. Now they want to mess with our water supply which is also our lifeline -can nothing be left untouched?
It is not swine flu that will kill you it is some of the swines at the top.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

fluoride p 10 : 12

Hypothyroidism Reaches Epidemic Proportions, Causing Fatigue and Weight Gain

Hypothyroidism Reaches Epidemic Proportions, Causing Fatigue and Weight Gain
Monday, August 17, 2009 by: Barbara L. Minton, citizen journalist
NaturalNews) Is the average temperature of the human body still 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit? This often quoted average was determined in the nineteenth century. A more recent study has reported an average temperature of 98.2, and experts believe the decrease in body heat is the result of an epidemic of mild or moderate hypothyroidism. Some believe we are evolving into a population with the propensity for low thyroid function because antibiotics have allowed people who would have died from pneumonia and other diseases associated with hypothyroidism to remain alive and reproduce. Others see rising hypothyroidism rates as the result of diet and environmental factors. Whatever the answer is, one thing is sure. More people than ever are suffering from the myriad of symptoms associated with low thyroid levels, especially women.

Thyroid is the most important hormone in the body. Because it stimulates the production of cellular energy, production of all other hormones will be negatively impacted when thyroid hormone levels are less than optimal. Every aspect of health is affected by low thyroid function............

Fluoride from water, foods and toothpaste causes severe hypothyroidism.............

fluoride p 9 : 12

fluoride p 8 : 12

fluoride p 7 : 12

Tampa, Florida is fluoridated: NYSCOF

Suncoast Community Health rolls out free dental program for kids
By Times Staff Writer In Print: Thursday, August 13, 2009
..............."Dental care is a huge need in the community," said Brantz Roszel, chief executive of Suncoast Health. "By partnering with as many groups as we can, we will be able to crack the ice and access the communities."
Half of the county's 141,100 children living below the federal poverty level have tooth decay, according to state statistics from 2005, the most recent year available.
"There are children out there in chronic pain," said Dr. Ervin Cerveny, a dentist with Suncoast Health. "I see rampant decay, abscesses, you name it. It can weaken the immune system and make them prone to other infections."Lack of access to dental care is mostly to blame, Cerveny said. Most families he sees don't have dental insurance or can't afford the expensive treatments.
In the next year, Cerveny said he hopes to reach 3,500 children in his region............

SHA - Do you read this, ITS FLUORIDATED.

Daily Echo letter

Cllr Harrison sees the light
IT would appear that Councillor David Harrison is at last beginning to see the light where our freedom is concerned in this country.
The issue of Dibden Bay was cut and dried some years ago but it has raised its ugly head once more because it wasn't the correct result where the powers that be were concerned.
And now, his letter (Echo, August 5) on the subject of the unelected quango, the Strategic Health Authority, which has decided that fluoride should be added to our drinking water.
Citizens should bear in mind that Southern Water is now a private company, so in reality any
Government or official body has no say in the product it chooses to sell to customers so long as it is a pure, harmless product.
In the same Echo issue a certain Lordswood resident said they would not be paying their water bill if fluoride is added (I said the same some months ago) so if everyone sticks together on this important issue it would seem the only way we can win the day.
David Harrison asks 'Do we live in a democracy or not?' - the simple answer is 'No, we do not'.
In fact we lost that back in 1975 when Edward Heath signed our Sovereign rights away to the 'Common (Slave) Market'.
L A O'BEE, Southampton.

fluoride p 6 : 12

Animals and humans react differently to fluoride

Animals and humans react differently to fluoride
Dear Dr. Fox: I read in today's paper about a dog with very sore gums. I am one of those rare people who is highly allergic to fluoride in water. I had very sore gums.

Even with teeth cleaning every three months, it didn't help. Apart from sore gums, I also had severe stomach cramps and explosive diarrhea for several years before it could be figured out what caused all of this.

Could some animals be allergic to fluoride in water, bringing on unexpected illness? Some bottled water also has fluoride. The only bottled water I've been able to drink without getting sick is Mountain Ice and reverse-osmosis water. It's worth checking out. -- B.B., Horace, N.D.

Dear B.B.: Your letter is important to all. You are particularly sensitive to fluoride, so one wonders what fluoride does to other people and animals who do not develop acute symptoms but may suffer the consequences of chronic exposure and toxicity.

Many countries have prohibited the addition of fluoride to treated municipal water. Chlorination -- an endocrine disrupter -- is hazardous enough.

Chronic fluoride exposure has been linked with many health problems from thyroid disease to bone cancer, especially in boys. Pets may be similarly affected. Fluoride accumulates in the bones and teeth. For more details, especially about high fluoride levels in some pet foods, visit www. twobitdog.com/DrFox.

Please give your animal companions quality spring water or purified water (not distilled). All municipal water authorities should cease and desist from adding fluoride (a byproduct of the agrichemical-fertilizer industry) to public water sources. Avoid pet foods that list "bone meal," "meat meal" and "chicken byproduct meal" as ingredients. They may contain a lot of round bone included during the "deboning" process.

USA - Kids, Dentists and the Economy

Kids, Dentists and the Economy - CBS News Video
Wisconsin is 90% fluoridated:

This humanitarian program provided free dental care to approximately 1,300 patients of all ages who might not otherwise have afforded the essential services provided

Daily Echo letter

Fluoride concerns
WITH respect to Olga Senior's In My View last week, as with many articles in favour of fluoridation, my personal view is that it appears to ask more questions than it answers.
I wonder whether when the legislation was passed in parliament people were of the possible scenario myself and a lot of people living in Eastleigh are in. I am entitled to vote for my MP, and representatives of Eastleigh Borough Council and Hampshire County Council and no other Government officers. My MP opposes fluoridation, as do Eastleigh Borough Council and Hampshire County Council, and of the people living in Eastleigh I have spoken to, far more are opposed to it than in favour and yet the Strategic Health Authority wants to press on with it regardless.
My opinion is that this might set a precedent whereby the authority may exert pressure for change in the law, and proceed with their plans for change, even if nearly all of the Government officers oppose it, and a significant proportion of the people are also against it.
In certain cases fluoridation appears to have been effective as a preventative measure, but there are a lot of people who feel that the question of whether other means can also be successful in achieving this, has not been satisfactorily answered.
MALCOLM CLARKE, Eastleigh.

fluoride p 5 : 12

Daily Echo letter - it's about choice

it's about choice
SELDOM have I seen a more patronising and insulting article than that by Olga Senior (In My View, July 27).
Regardless of where people have obtained their information on fluoridation, Ms Senior has completely missed the point. I will at least do her the courtesy of assuming that it is not deliberate. The issue is about choice. I pay a substantial amount, as a consumer, to have unadulterated water provided to my property. I do not expect anything else to be added to this, for whatever reason. (Any more than I expect to have anything added to other goods and services I pay for.)
I have recently retired after many years as a health professional and am aware of the arguments. Throughout my career l have also been aware of my duty of care to ensure that any medication, treatments or medical interventions are carried out only with informed consent (either writ ten or implied). This has not been, nor will be given for fluoridation of my water supply.
Does not the Mental Capacity Act allow that adults must be deemed to have the capacity to make decisions on their health care, unless it is proven that they do not have this capacity, and their decisions respected, regardless of whether health professionals consider this decision to be the wrong one?
If the purpose of the fluoridation is to save 36,000 teeth over 20 years, there are surely other ways to achieve this, not least by using the fluoridation budgets to help fund some school dentists. This might also assist with determining exactly why vulnerable children's teeth are in such poor condition.
It is not enough to say "because we say so" and it is too late afterwards to rectify it if it is wrong. I therefore remain firmly in the "no" camp and will continue to object.

MRS E NEWTON, Southampton.

Threat to fluoridation in the north

Threat to fluoridation in the north
11th Aug 2009
A legal attempt to overturn a decision to fluoridate Southampton's water supply could disrupt moves to explore a similar process in the north west of England.
The North West Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is due to discuss progress on a feasibility study for adding fluoride to the tap water in Greater Manchester and further afield in September.
The next stage would involve the SHA presenting to the region's primary care trusts a formal set of proposals for how fluoridation would work and asking them whether they wanted the SHA to kick off a consultation.
However, the North West SHA has said it is waiting to see whether a formal application for a judicial review into the way South Central SHA ran its consultation into fluoridation for the Southampton area is successful.
Chief executive Mike Farrar said: ‘Should permission be granted, the process may take several months and it is prudent for NHS North West to wait for the outcome before committing significant resources on this matter.'

The application for a judicial review in Southampton – the outcome of which is expected shortly – has been initiated by city resident Geraldine Milner, who is being represented by solicitors Leigh Day & Co.

Ms Milner is opposed to the proposals, which were approved by health authorities in February, because of uncertainties regarding long-term health risks associated with fluoridation, as well as concerns about possible adverse environmental effects.

The legal challenge argues that the SHA failed to have regard for the government's policy that mass fluoridation of drinking water should only go ahead in any particular area if a majority of the local people are in favour of it.

Chief dental officer Barry Cockcroft has already said there is ‘a lot of interest around the country' in the outcome of the challenge, which if successful would be a serious blow to supporters of fluoridation. Such supporters include the new health secretary, Andy Burnham, who said he wanted health authorities in Greater Manchester to ‘take forward' proposals for fluoridation there.

Burnham calls for debate
Health secretary Andy Burnham has called for a national debate on the merits of fluoridation. Mr Burnham, a long-standing supporter of the process as a way of reducing tooth decay, said while it could not be ‘imposed' on a community that did not want it, the government had a responsibility to set out the health benefits.

Mr Burnham stressed the benefits fluoridation could bring to areas such as north west England, and said as a backbench MP representing the Greater Manchester constituency of Leigh he had campaigned for a change in the law to make fluoridation easier. "You can't look at evidence like that and say we can't have a debate about it. I think there's a very powerful case for fluoridation, but it shouldn't be imposed on anybody"
The health secretary, who stepped down as vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society following his promotion in June to avoid any perceived conflict of interest, pointed to the stark contrast in oral health between the West Midlands, which had added fluoride to its water supply for four decades and whose children's teeth were in relatively good condition, and Manchester, where there was a much higher rate of tooth decay.
He said: ‘The West Midlands has been fluoridated for 40 years and if you look at children's dental health there compared with dental health of children elsewhere in the country, Manchester being a good example, there's a significant difference between the number of decayed, filled or extracted teeth per child at age five – the difference is really marked.

‘If you looked in Birmingham at how many children are having their teeth extracted under general anaesthetic and compare that to Manchester, you will see quite a big difference.
‘There is no evidence of adverse health impact to people in the West Midlands, but there is major evidence of health gains, particularly to children.'
Mr Burnham said while he wanted Greater Manchester to bring forward fluoridation because children's dental health in the area was ‘the worst in England', he said the process was ‘not necessarily' appropriate for every area.
He explained: ‘You have got to pay for it so the health bodies have got to decide it's worth doing, given their levels of dental health need, and it's a matter for local decision in the health service.
‘However, if the 10 PCTs of Greater Manchester were to say, in my view rightly, this is something we should be doing, then absolutely I would encourage them to take forward a proposal and have a debate, but also listen to local opinion.'
Mr Burnham acknowledged there was opposition to fluoridation, but said: ‘I am personally persuaded that while there is a small loss of personal liberty for the person that doesn't want that one part per million [of fluoride in the water], there is a major public health gain in terms of the quality of children's dental health. Actually it improves adults' teeth as well, and that's the evidence.'

The Labour MP cautioned: ‘It can't be imposed – it's got to be a matter for local decision making by the health authorities obviously listening to local opinion.'

But stressing the need to start the ball rolling across the UK, he said: ‘I have always felt quite strongly about it. If we know of a health gain that could improve children's lives, on what basis would we not put that question to a local population? Because we're frightened of the debate that might create? Let's have that debate.'
Mr Burnham complained that the debate over fluoridation was often taken in ‘a certain direction' by a minority of ‘very vociferous people'.

He said: ‘Sometimes, the other side of the story does not come out as clearly as it might. I am not aware of a clamour in the West Midlands to remove [fluoride] but I am aware of major evidence of improved child dental health in the West Midlands.
‘You can't look at evidence like that and say we can't have a debate about it. I think
there's a very powerful case for fluoridation, but it shouldn't be imposed on anybody.'

Author
Andy Tate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlrEn3KKF_c

Daily Mail letter - Do GPs deserve high earnings?

THE new GP contract has produced losers as well as winners. Essex might have the highest earning full-time GP in the country, but it also has the lowest earner.
My Primary Care Trust (PCD is more Interested In politics than patients. My last pay cheque was in April 2007, and our PCT's answer to the problem Is that I should retire on paper, so that I can carry on working and use my pension to fund the practice. I'm sure the chief executive of my strategic health authority - who Is paid £60,000 more than Gordon Brown (and has a £2.4 million pension pot) - wouldn't accept this. These people are far too busy lining their own pockets. The sooner we get rid of them and put the money to good use, the better the situation will become for
patients and the people who do the real work of the NHS.
DrJOHN CORMACK, Chelmsford, Essex.

Daily Echo

Fluoridaton questions
REGARDING flupri-dation, Olga Senior of the SHA said in the Echo: "The consultation highlights the challenge of discussing public health issues in the age of the Internet, where people need to try to evaluate a huge range of complex scientific information available on water fluoridation, some of which is clearly inaccurate and has often been reproduced by local campaigners."
In the interests of clarity, and to eliminate any misinformed rumours on the Internet, would Olga Senior please describe in detail the origin of the fluoride that she and her fellow SHA board members intend to add to the water supply?
Where does it come from, and what processes will it undergo before it reaches Otterbourne Water Works?
SALLY MclNTYRE, Southampton.

fluoride p 3 : 12

A toothless argument

A toothless argument
Peter Preston: The success of Britain's anti-fluoride brigade is a dismal commentary on a rigid, embattled nation
Sunday, 09 August 2009
Long ago, far down memory lane, I was writing editorials for the Daily Post in Liverpool, where Suralick, much like the now further ennobled Suralan, was proprietor "over the bridge". Each morning, the Post's editor would hurry over that bridge to see what Suralick wanted said – and, as often as not, he'd commission a fresh blast on the evils of fluoridation, one of his abiding preoccupations. So I excoriated mass medication by bureaucratic fiat as instructed, and happily forgot about the whole damned convoluted subject when I left to go to Manchester. But half a lifetime later, nothing's changed.
Suppose you're in New York or Los Angeles reading this, and you feel like a glass of tap water. It will be fluoridated: 70% of America's water supplies – including all the big city ones – are treated thus. Thirsty down under? Australia is nearly 70% fluoridated, too – just like Ireland, where the average number of decayed or filled teeth per child is 1.3, against 2.3 in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. But the same glass of water in Britain has only a one in 10 chance of stopping such rot. Our wan efforts at fluoridation mostly ground to a halt before Harold Wilson entered Downing Street, with under six million covered. And only today, at long, aching last, are we trying to do better.

Welcome to Southampton where the primary health care trust and strategic health care authority are agreeing the final details with Southern Water. Fluoridation gets under way there next year. Maybe Bristol and Manchester will manage to follow on soon. Maybe the absolutely overwhelming weight of medical evidence in favour of fluoridation will tell in the end. But don't celebrate yet because the whole non-history of treating water here in the UK is a saga of doomy tunes, manic melodies and democratic impotence.

Our children's teeth have endured decades of decay because we left progress to pressure groups making noise. What didn't happen next is a wider text for the times.

To begin with, in broad-brush terms, Whitehall generally endorsed fluoridation but didn't specifically enjoin Britain's water companies to follow suit. The companies, apprehensive about legal challenges, sat on the sidelines. In 2003, a new Water Act lifted courtroom shadows and made the whole implementation business reasonably automatic as long as profound local consultations took place. Southampton jumped through those hoops last year in a blizzard of learned paperwork.

Some 10,000 residents – out of 200,000 or more – took sides. The Daily Echo demanded a referendum. The tide of opinion ran 75% to 25% against fluoridating. But still the health authority went ahead. And quite right, too.

Forget, for a moment, the morass of conflicting expert opinion available here.– studies by York University, pronouncements by the World Health Organisation, countervailing scraps of research from hither and yon. It isn't sensible to get bogged down amid the scientific tit and tat of 40 years past. The plain fact is that 350 million or more people around the globe drink fluoridated water, show no evident sign of debility as a result (bar a little occasional staining) and enjoy markedly less dental decay.

Nobody, for all the hysteria, thinks that Obama's America is sliding down a devilish medical slope because it drinks fluoridated water. Nobody reckons that Birmingham is sick of some unidentified palsy that non-fluoridated Manchester escapes. Nobody can point to evident affliction in fluoridated Newcastle or Gateshead. Nobody can mount an effective argument against the entire weight of British and international evidence. It's a done deal, a redundant debate, a long overdue moment to move on.

Yet we don't. The 7,500 dissidents in Southampton – supported by the Green party and Daily Mail – banged away just as ferociously as when Suralick ordered another editorial blast. Science didn't wither their fury. Decades of irrefutable evidence were harangued out of existence. And it will be like that all over again when any caravan of commonsense leaves the Solent and moves on.

Community politics, the mantra of the moment? They only work if the dozily reasonable who know that fluoridation is a good thing for their kids get off their backsides and challenge the green ink brigade. They only function if the obvious holes in the counter-arguments are drilled and filled. It's a dismal commentary on unchanging, embattled Britain. Perhaps Suralick would have moved on to Frankenstein Foods and GM nightmares by now, if he'd lived: but he still wouldn't be drinking the water.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2009

Just one man's opinion. Go to article by clicking title for your right to make a comment.

Daily Echo letters

Consultation concerns

OLGA Senior, 'In my view" dated July 28, what a sad indictment of Ms. Senior's so called 'findings' with regard to the public consultation in respect of fluoride. Sadly, her article suggests a pomposity beyond normal requirements befitting a committee representing the thoughts and wishes of thousands of citizens in our city, and suburbs.
On a more personal level, I have personally not been contacted, either by post, telephone or spoken to personally or attended a meeting by the SHA; and not one of my associates, friends or neighbours have either. When the subject of fluoride has been discussed all have remarked 'no thanks, we take care of our children's health and their teeth'. ALL have said they have not received any invitations or consultations by the above body South Central Strategic Health Authority
Sadly, many people are unable to communicate, do not have a land phone, or computer; do not have registered accommodation/house/flat/room, or indeed the hundreds of students at colleges and university, although it's possible all have a mobile phone. It would be rather imprudent of me to say that there are thousands who do not understand the implications of fluoride but nevertheless have a sound opinion as to wanting their children to have good health checks at school, even school dentistry but, of course, this is not forthcoming. Can I ask the SHA, have they spoken to these parents I would also like to ask Ms Olga Senior, has she ascertained the opinions of parents at work, actually arranged to talk to thousands in factories, offices or stores, or indeed had a 'referendum' with parents? May I refer to the Daily Echo 'postings'. Who are we to question that readers are suggesting 'conspiracy theories', dictatorship, or indeed it may be humour, satrical, sarcasm or bitter, nevertheless the public are conveying their concerns at the way the SHA is conducting its consultation.
J MOORBY, Southampton.

A cautionary tale of too much fluoride..

I WOULD like to quote the cautionary warning that came from BBC Regional News for West Midlands on Ceefax (July 30).
"Too much fluoride was put into the water supply after a new dosing system at Severn Trent Water failed, the Watchdog said.
"The Drinking Water Inspectorate said that a fault happened at the pumping station which supplies 29,000 homes between Bridgnorth and Wolverhampton last June.
"Two tests on treated water at the station failed, with one showing fluoride at twice the target level. Severn Trent Water apologised but said the water had still been safe to drink".
It speaks for itself!
C WINDSOR, Southampton.

fluoride p 2 : 12

fluoride p 1 : 12

Daily Echo - letter - The law should support us

The law should support us
I REFER to the contribution by Olga Senior in 'In My View' and would draw attention to something which the Director of Communications and Corporate Affairs, SC SHA appears to have overlooked. Adding fluoride to the water supplies of an entire region to combat poor dental hygiene amounts to the enforced medication of everyone in the area. Since I live in the designated area this is clearly an infringement of my right to choose what medicine I want to take for myself or give to my family or indeed decide if I need to take it at all.
Personally I wouldn't choose to have fluoride in my drinking water. My children are local and have never had a single tooth cavity Why would I agree to anyone adding fluoride to my drinking water when my experience proves to me it isn't necessary? I know that poor dental health in Southampton affects many families in the deprived areas but the real culprit for the epidemic of dental disease in Southampton children's teeth is irregular brushing and poor diet, especially too much sugar often, I think, unscrupulously hidden for commercial reasons in processed foods and fizzy drinks.
We all know that PCT has an obligation to improve the dental health of the city's children but treating the symptoms of poor diet and poor oral hygiene by adding fluoride to the drinking water is a desperate measure. It isn't necessary for people to know much about fluoride to have a view as Olga Senior believes.
The issue really is; what right in natural justice does the PCT have to tamper with the drinking water for the wholesale medication of the population? It isn't enough to say the SHA has the law on its side. It appears the PCT is looking to rescue the statistical situation regarding dental health in the city and is trusting to technology to provide the answer. My experience says I don't need to agree to that and the majority agree with me. The law should support us;
EDWIN LEACH, Southampton.

Lymington Times - Children and water fluoridation

Children and water fluoridation
SIR, — With regard to the decision to add fluoride to Totton's water supply in the fight against childhood tooth decay, is there any evidence to show that children actually drink tap water?
From my knowledge, most schoolchildren prefer canned or fizzy drinks, occasionally bottled water, fruit juice or milk-based drinks; but rarely tap water, tea or coffee.
Fruit squash made with tap water is popular at some family meal times, but most fruit squashes have a very high sugar content.
D. Mills
Windrush Way, Hythe.

Leave water alone

Leave water alone
OLGA SENIOR (SHA) is more or less calling all us campaigners stupid for thinking about our health. Yes, we are very concerned about what this fluoride will do to the rest of the body over the years. She says studies have found no association between water fluoridation and systemic illness.
None of us has seen this so-called evidence. Can they post it to us? Also, what I would like to say is that if this fluoride goes in and people become ill over the years it is obvious that the SHA will not blame fluoride.
Now let's get back to the consultation. I was there and I know a scam when I see one. "Unelected" members making an important decision like messing with our water - doesn't that tell you something in itself? The public being told, more or less, to keep quiet while they go ahead and taint our water.
The fact remains that our water is not there to treat children's teeth, it is there for us to have a refreshing drink and it must be kept as pure as possible for all our well-being. If they lived up to their name, the SHA, and really did care about our health they would stop this stupid idea and think about the health that has been affected by stress with the thought of this going in. My health has suffered because of this scheme.
The bottom line, Olga Senior, is that we the public pay our water rates and we have a say as to how our water is looked after and I don't think you have quite got the message. We don't want fluoride. Leave our water supplies alone. We never needed anything added before and we don't need it now.
I have toothpaste without fluoride and my teeth are fine. All we need is a healthy diet and good healthy untouched drinking water.
Name and address withheld.

Daily Echo - Letters

We're losing our freedoms
IF there has been any topic that has prompted so many people to write into the Echo as plans to add fluoride to our drinking water, I cannot remember it.
Week after week, there have been more and more letters published by individuals, almost all opposed.
They aren't just from politicians or members of lobbies. Vast numbers of people have realised that they are about to be medicated without their consent.
Even with a clear majority saying they don't want it, there is a
real danger that the unelected Strategic Health Authority will be instructing Southern Water to go ahead.
In the absence of any effective action from our Prime Minister or John Denham MP, what are we supposed to do? Do we live in a democracy or not?
Seems odd that our troops are killed overseas fighting for freedoms we are losing in our own country
CLLR. DAVID HARRISON,
Leader, New Forest District Liberal Democrats.

I won't pay my water bill
SO Southern Water has been fined after a 'catastrophic' pollution spill following the failure of all three pumps at Ashurst bridge - one of 137 incidents recorded against Southern Water since July 1990.
This is the same water company that is going to deliver a toxic waste, which acts on the metabolism and inhibits enzyme action, into our water next year.
I shall not be paying my water bills when fluoridation is forced on us.
LORDSWOOD RESIDENT

Daily Echo - We're not too dumb to decide

We're not too dumb to decide
By Cllr David Harrison
Leader of the New Forest Liberal Democrats
OLGA Senior urges us all to believe that adding fluoride to our tap water is a good thing. As director of communications for the Strategic Health Authority (SHA), she cleverly leaves her most powerful arguments to last, telling us that such proposals are supported by the British Dental Association, The British Medical Association and the World Health Organisation.
I thought it might be useful to give some critical thought to the points she makes. In the first place, I don't really think that the British Dental Association would be appropriate experts to comment on all the long-term effects of medicating the entire population. They have something of value to add about what they think would be the likely impact on teeth. If people were no more than teeth, their view would be significant.
So, what of the British Medical Association? Olga Senior claims unqualified support for the plans. However, a quick check of their website reveals that they only support such moves after appropriate public consultation. It must seem obvious that a consultation that started off with one arm of the NHS actively promoting the benefits, while another arm of the NHS was claiming to be open-minded and willing to listen is hardly appropriate consultation.
Olga leaves out of her article the inconvenient truth that, despite the expensive promotion, 72 per cent of those expressing an opinion clearly said they did not want fluoride added to the water. Surely no doctor could feel justified and comfortable in medicating a majority of the population who are against the plans. Want fluoride? Then brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste!
So, that leaves the World Health Organisation. Do they, as Olga implies, think that fluoride should be added to the tap water wherever it is needed in the world? I invite anyone reading this to visit the World Health Organisation website and read some of the published research on the subject.
I'm not being especially selective but you will see that there appears to be no evidence that any of us actually need fluoride. It is present naturally in water and food at different levels, depending on geography. It is extremely toxic at high dosage levels. This is hardly the ringing endorsement one might expect.
I do not buy the argument that the SHA is merely following procedures in a proper way. Clearly Parliament did not anticipate a situation in which an unelected and unaccountable quango would think it right, as good stewardship, to impose this upon an unwilling public.
With all local MPs, including the minister for local government, saying that the plans should be put on hold, you might think that the SHA would concede, rather than setting aside a further £400,000 of badly needed health funds to fight off legal challenges.
Perhaps the greatest sin Olga makes is in suggesting that we are all too dumb to understand the science, that we just believe inaccurate information and the conspiracy theories. It needs politicians, who have a little more respect for the abilities and opinions of the people, to be making decisions as important as this.

Ghis, Author of the Medical Mafia, Talks About Vaccination

Vaccination 101 with Ghis-1
by Personocratia

Daily Echo - Legal? It doesn't make it moral

Legal? It doesn't make it moral
ONCE again, in these columns, we have been treated to a diatribe by Olga Senior, from South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) (In My View July 28).
Her article was entitled "Evidence is in support of fluoridation". In my view the question that needs to be answered is if the evidence really is in support of fluoridation, why is it that the pro-fluoridationists, seem unable to quote any published research, with references, done by completely independent laboratories, that show this?
By independent I mean not funded by any pro-fluoride group such as governments, which already do, or intend to, fluoridate, or by any company with a vested interest in the outcome, such as the chemical companies, which produce the stuff and have to dispose of it somehow.
The answer is quite simply because any research which has been conducted independently and in an unbiased way has revealed that fluoridation is not only ineffectual it is also harmful to the very thing it is purported to protect - teeth.
There are literally hundreds of published studies, by well qualified people, that show the harmful effects of fluoridation, but the pro-fluoridationists dismiss them all as quackery. Why? Perhaps the answer lies more in something I was told by one of the politicians I spoke to during the visit to Westminster.
That person, who I will not name, said to me: "This is not about children's teeth, it never has been. This is all about money."
Olga Senior again pushes the point that the SHA followed the law. Well, so did most of the MPs who have been held to account in the expenses scandal. Just because something is legal it does not make it moral.
The wording of the Bill she keeps quoting had been manipulated in between readings in Parliament, to make it appear to the MPs voting on it that fluoridation would only take place after the people it affected had chosen to have it in a public consultation. But, because of the way the wording has been twisted it leaves the door wide open for any unscrupulous health authority to impose it on people against their will. All they have to say is: "We are satisfied that water fluoridation is safe and effective."
This after having probably done as little research into the subject as the SHA board member who, I am told, asked her colleagues in the meeting at St Mary's Stadium: "Can dental fluorosis be reversed?" Unbelievable ignorance is not the word.
By the way Mrs Senior, please do not imply in your letters to the paper that the majority of people using the Internet are too thick to understand what they are reading. Perhaps you would like to quote us the reference for the research papers that you say are inaccurate so that we can research them ourselves.
If instead of fighting the judicial review, the SHA were to spend the £400,000 (of our money) that it has set aside for that purpose, on educating the children (and their parents) that they say this is about, they could afford to have a dozen full time health workers and a couple of dentists doing just that for the next year or more and forget the forced medication of the rest of us.

FLUORIDE is being added to the drinking water of more than 50,000 households in Yorkshire.

Exclusive: Households in region have fluoride added to their water
Date: 02 August 2009
By Grace Hammond
FLUORIDE is being added to the drinking water of more than 50,000 households in Yorkshire.
FLUORIDE is being added to the drinking water of more than 50,000 households in Yorkshire.
Around 56,000 homes in the Sheffield area receive supplies mixed with the mineral.
The figure, released under the Freedom of InformationADVERTISEMENTAct, comes as an official investigation into the pros and cons of mixing Yorkshire's drinking water with fluoride takes place.
The measure, which is intended to stave off tooth decay in children but has raised health concerns from critics, is being investigated by the Yorkshire and Humber Strategic Health Authority (SHA).
But because homes in parts of Sheffield are supplied by Severn Trent Water and not Yorkshire Water, they already have a fluoride content in their water, Yorkshire and Humber SHA says.
The authority confirmed that fluoridated water is pumped to some homes in South Yorkshire due to technical reasons.
It said: "This is because of the complexity of the water supply system which results in fluoridated water being mixed with water from non-fluoridated waterworks."
As reported by the Yorkshire Post the authority has been approached by Bradford and Airedale Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Kirklees PCT, which asked it to begin a feasibility study.
"Topping water up with more fluoride could be an effective way of helping to improve dental health and reduce health inequalities locally," it said.
"The aim of the feasibility study would be to ascertain whether topping water up with more fluoride would be technically possible and cost effective in terms of achieving healthier outcomes."
A spokesman for Severn Trent Water said the decision to add fluoride to supplies was beyond its control.
"The decision is taken solely by the health authorities and not by the water company," a spokesman said.
"By law, it must first consult the relevant local authorities before reaching a decision on any new fluoridation proposals. In future, any new schemes must involve formal public consultation, organised by the SHAs."
Critics have already slammed the step as little more than forced medication.
Calder Valley MP Chris McCafferty, who sits on an all-party group against fluoridation, said: "We've fought it off before and we'll continue to oppose it.
"It's medication without consent or dosage regulation and anyone who wishes may obtain fluoride tablets at the chemist or buy fluoride toothpaste."

WARNING AUSTRALIA!!!!! Fluoride PROTEST !!

USA - States slash health care programs in budget crisis

States slash health care programs in budget crisis
By SUSAN HAIGH (AP) – 2 days ago
HARTFORD, Conn. — Aurice Barlow knows what happens when someone can't afford dental care.
"I see people walking the streets with toothaches, teeth hanging out of their mouths," said the former nurse's aide. At least 30 percent of the people in this city of 124,500 are impoverished.
"Nobody cares," she says.
Barlow is worried she'll now become one of them................


This in Connecticut where fluoridation is state-mandated:NYSCOF

Daily Echo letters

Health chief is insulting readers over fluoride issue

OLGA Senior, pictured, of the South Central Strategic health Authority (SHA), (In my View July 28), is insulting the majority of your readers by stating the SHA knows best over the merits or otherwise of adding fluoride to our water supply. She goes on to say that legislation passed in Parliament now gives them the right, in law, to medicate us without our permission.
This legislation was revised in 2005 to specifically do just that without recourse to a referendum. One has to seriously ask why was this necessary?
To allegedly "help" a minority of children with dental problems, whose parents seemingly cannot be bothered with them, 2oo,ooo people are to be permanently force-fed this fluoride substitute.
It is on record that a majority of people voted against its introduction, not through fear or misguided information as she maintains, but with the democratic right to choose what is added to our water.
To compare; If I have a pain, I seek proprietary pain relief, I do not expect it to be added to drinking water in case of recurrence.
Despite Mrs Senior's assertion that the British Dental Association, The BMA and World Health Organisation all support it, can she explain why so many countries have banned the proposal altogether? M A CLEMENTS, Southampton.

Statement is factually incorrect

IF Olga Senior (In My View, July 28) is representing the facts as seen by the SHA it is not surprising that they reached the decision they did.
She states that "successive research studies have found no association between water fluoridation and systemic illness".
This is factually incorrect and anyone who has read the York. Australian NHMRC and USA NRC reviews and the huge scientific literature would know this.
The SHA also provided inaccurate information regarding fluorosis, fluoride exposure and the nature of hexaflnorosilicic acid - perhaps they had been using the wrong Internet sites!
She is correct to say that "the consultation highlights the challenge of discussing public health issues" but it helps if those running such consultations made accurate and unbiased information available to the public rather than simply attempting to persuade people to also believe that water fluoridation is a good thing - unsuccessfully of course.
STEPHEN PECKHAM, Southampton.

Acting like dictators

IN reply to Olga Senior on her support for fluoridation.
1. Bet you don't live in an area to be affected?
2. If children's teeth are so bad why can't every child be given fluoride tablets? Children under 5 DON'T drink water.
3. Why is Thornhill not included when it was one of the areas known for children with bad teeth?
4. You are obviously ignoring any reports that oppose fluoridation.
5. YOU CANNOT GUARANTEE 100 PER CENT THAT THIS TOXIN WILL NOT HARM MY BODY IN ANY WAY.
You and the SHA are acting like dictators and imposing on us your views. If I smoke, drink, take drugs, that's MY CHOICE. You (unelected body at that) are taking away my human right to drink water without toxins in it. I, and many people I know, will not be paying our water bills if this fluoride is added as we will have to buy bottled water to drink.
I don't care that organisations say it is harmless and will be beneficial to future generations, I don't want it in my water. SANDY KNIGHT, Southampton.