Letter in Daily Echo

Hit and myths of fluoride

by Stephen Peckham
of Southampton , a member of Hampshire Against Fluoridation

Click image to see larger picture.
Last line missing is - that way too.

Lymington Times

26th March Daily Echo

Echo letters 25 March

David Goodall Lib Dem

Prospective Liberal Democratic parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen writes in the Echo "In my view" 25 March

USA - Crash may promote more thinking about fluoridation

Wind Gap crash may promote more thinking about fluoridation
Paul Carpenter
March 25, 2009
The whole country was concerned over the crash of a tanker truck full of hydrofluoric acid near Wind Gap, causing the evacuation of thousands.
Our daughter called from Tennessee to make sure we were all right after it was a top news item there.
My reaction, once I learned there was no significant spill of the chemical, was that maybe this incident will, at long last, focus attention on the biggest fraud ever perpetrated by U.S. government officials.
The hydrofluoric acid in that truck had been made in Ontario and was on its way to the Philadelphia area to be used to refine gasoline.
Sunday's account said this chemical can cause various problems, including death, and is used to make refrigerants, herbicides and other things in addition to gasoline. It did not mention its most controversial use.
Hydrofluoric acid is used to make ''hex,'' or uranium hexafluoride. Millions of tons of hex were needed in the 1940s to enrich a few pounds of weapons-grade uranium for nuclear bombs.
After World War II, the main concern was what hex had done to farms near a du Pont plant that made fluorides for the Manhattan Project, and how to get rid of the nasty toxic waste.
The feds concocted a gigantic hoax to convince Americans they needed fluorides in drinking water. Reports about that hoax have been pooh-poohed for years, including what I wrote about it in the 1990s.
Now, however, official reports have been declassified and a 2004 book tells essentially the same story.
I always had an interest in this issue because I once worked in the Manhattan Project -- then going by a new name. Intense secrecy surrounded such work, but now you can learn most of what I knew about nuclear weapons at a public library.
Here is how the hydrofluoric and hex hoax evolved:
In 1943, farms in Gloucester and Salem counties in New Jersey were contaminated by du Pont fluorides being made for the Manhattan Project. Crops were damaged, animals died and people became ill. After the war, some farmers sued.
To deflect lawsuits, the government had the University of Rochester study the toxic effects of fluorides, but the labs there were owned by the Manhattan Project and headed by the late Harold Hodge. They proclaimed fluorides to be beneficial for tooth decay.
Meanwhile, another study looked into the health of workers producing hex. A secret report disclosed that the workers lost all their teeth, but the version released to the public said only that workers now had fewer cavities. It would be comical if not so sinister.
The first push for fluoridation of water was in Newburgh, N.Y. After checking results, the American Dental Association proclaimed fluoridation to be safe. And who performed that research? Why, it was Hodge, who was up to his ears in Manhattan Project money from the Rochester scam.
Obviously, if the ADA ever admitted its role in a half-century of deceit, it would destroy that organization's credibility, so it still sticks to the same story.
Since my days of working on nukes, nearly all the information has been declassified, and two publications have been especially damaging to those seeking to keep the fluorides fraud going.
One was a 1997 report called ''Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb'' by medical researcher Joel Griffiths and journalist Christopher Bryson. In 2004, Bryson wrote a book called ''The Fluoride Deception.''
Those and other materials, including objective research (never done in the United States), reversed the trend to fluoridate water in most advanced parts of the world. Besides America, only Australia and a few other nations still push fluoridation. Most of Canada and Western Europe have come to their senses.
The world is full of toxic chemicals and some are useful. I support the use of fluorides in manufacturing, despite the risks. We need them to make aluminum, fuel and other products.
The accident near Wind Gap, however, may help illustrate why we need to question the value of putting poison in public water -- just to perpetuate more than a half-century of lies.
paul.carpenter@mcall.com 610-820-6176

Daily Echo

Hampshire Against Fluoridation Newsletter
March 2009

This is the first newsletter since the Strategic Health Authority ignored all our protests and decided to impose fluoridation on Southampton, Totton and Eastleigh. The twelve people who made up the SHA Board were seemingly kept from seeing all of the evidence presented to them. Their ignorance was demonstrated by one member asking if fluorosis was permanent, after 3 months consultation she did not know that!

Public Meeting
Hampshire Against Fluoridation have organised an open public meeting where there will be an opportunity to sign the petition, find out more about what we are doing since the decision and how you can help. This will take place on Saturday 4th April at:
Central Baptist Church
Devonshire Road
Southampton
Come along at any time between 12 – 6pm.
Legal Fighting Fund
We have launched a Fighting Fund and are seeking donations to help fight the SHA decision. We are currently taking legal advice to challenge this decision. All contributions gratefully accepted!

Donations to the fighting fund: Hampshire Against Fluoridation
Ann Richards
4 South Road, Hayling Island, Hampshire PO11 9AE
Tel: 023 9246 3761

MPs act on fluoridation
Hampshire Against Fluoridation and the MP for New Forest East Dr Julian Lewis have started the process of appealing to the NHS Ombudsman. We have also officially complained about one City councillor an employee of the City Primary Care Trust for not withdrawing at the critical City Council meeting where Councillors passed a vote for fluoridation. Every other Council, Totton, New Forest District, Eastleigh, Test Valley. Hampshire County, all opposed fluoridation.

Hampshire MP Chris Huhne is calling for the Environment Agency to study the potential effect of fluoridating Southampton's tap water. He hopes the authority will look at the risks involved in the scheme to rivers and water courses.
On Wednesday, 18 March, Stephen Peckham met Lord Edward Baldwin and attended the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation meeting. Julian Lewis (MP for new Forest) and Sandra Gidley (MP for Romsey and Bassett) were there too along with Chris Huhne's (MP for Eastleigh) researcher. Stephen gave a brief summary of what had happened in Southampton and then what we are currently doing about the petition, complaints etc. There was a lively discussion - there were three other MPs and three Lords present. Clearly Julian Lewis and Sandra Gidley are very angry and want to take as much action as possible. Current suggestions for Parliamentary action are an Early Day Motion in the next few weeks and possibly an adjournment debate when there is a health topic. They will also table questions. There was also discussion about tabling an amendment to the Health Bill passing through Parliament at the moment.
Note: it was an early day motion that began the latest legislation for fluoridation in 2003

Downing Street Petition
We are distributing petition forms to demonstrate that there is an overwhelming rejection of fluoridation in Southampton. We aim to get at least 10,000 signatures and take our petition to Gordon Brown who said on a recent visit to Southampton " It was vital local people made the choice themselves".
The forms are attached and if you too can pass them on to sympathetic sources it will help to raise at least 10,000 signatures. Please print the petition and collect signatures and either return them to us or contact us and we will collect them. We have been collecting signatures in the city centre and have also put forms in shops around the city (see list below). Various students from colleges and university have also taken copies to get signed. In the main I would say 95% of people asked signed. The petition launch was filmed by Meridian TV.
Locations where people can sign petitions:
Tesco, Trebourba Way (ask at customer service desk)
Highfield News, Highfield Lane.
October Books, Portswood.
Naturally Yours, Bedford Place.
Yoma Cafe, Bedford Place.
The Art House, 178 Above Bar (from beginning of April)
Chris Stewart Chiropodist, 10 Portsmouth Rd, Woolston.
Newsagents in St. James Road, Shirley.
Holland and Barrett, Shirley High Street.
Afro-Caribean shop in Shirley High Street.
GNC, East Street, Southampton
Peter Rhodes Books & Cafe, Portswood Road

The petition form is also on the web:
Click here for petition
To print click on "more" and the menu drops down to the print menu or you can download as a document file.

Other things you can do.
Write to your MP to complain about the consultation and the way the SHA ignored the evidence and wishes of the local people. You can write to them at the:
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Sandra Gidley MP (Romsey/Chilworth)
Alan Whitehead MP (Southampton Test)
John Denham MP (Southampton Itchen)
Chris Huhne MP (Eastleigh)
Julian Lewis MP (New Forest)
Write to your local councillor. Lists of councillors are available on the Council websites:
Southampton City (http://www.southampton.gov.uk/thecouncil/thecouncil/organisation/city-councillors/list.asp#0)
Eastleigh (http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings/mgMemberIndex.asp?fn=ward)
New Forest (http://www.newforest.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=606&articleaction=wardlist&CFID=19087375&CFTOKEN=46479337)
Test Valley (http://www.testvalley.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=194&vs=bGV2ZWwxPUVB&qslbid=lbBoroughCouncillor&qslbcn=level2&qslbca=EA%3bBOROUGH+COUNCILLOR)
Hampshire County Council (http://www3.hants.gov.uk/yourcountycouncillors/findyourcouncillor/findyourcouncillorbydivision.htm)

Other Places to write and complain to:
Southern Water
Southern House, Yeoman Road, Worthing BN13 3NX
www.southernwater.co.uk
The UKCAF web page http://alturl.com/w76 has suggestions that you can follow in the way of writing letters to the Water Company and advice on how to go about legally in claiming money back to cover cost of bottled water or equipment to filter it out.

Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London SW1P 4QP
www.ombudsman.org.uk

Dental care essential to pet's overall health

By Brian J. Lowney
Fur, fin and feathers
March 22, 2009 6:00 AM
When was the last time you checked your pet's mouth?
According to veterinary experts, one important aspect of animal health that is often neglected is dental care.
"A lot of other diseases frequently start as a sequel to periodontal disease," reports Dr. Timothy Donovan, owner of Kindred Spirits Mobile Veterinary Service in Mattapoisett. When dental problems go untreated, they produce harmful bacteria that can eventually lead to heart and kidney problems and other conditions.
Dr. Donovan emphasizes that every cat and dog should receive a comprehensive dental checkup during the animal's yearly veterinary examination, and owners should periodically check for broken teeth, cuts and gum infections. Despite "tough economic times, dental care should not be overlooked," and is just as important as grooming the animal to keep it healthy, Dr. Donovan says.
"At home, make a visual inspection of the teeth and smell the animal's breath," he says, noting that halitosis, drooling and changes in eating habits are warning signs of dental disease.
"I think the biggest fallacy is that feeding a cat dry food will maintain dental health," Dr. Donovan says. "It's not true. Cats don't chew long enough for the texture to make a significant difference. Keeping teeth clean shouldn't be a reason for feeding dry food."

If a feline is cooperative, its teeth should be brushed periodically with toothpaste made especially for cats. Don't use human toothpaste — the fluoride can make animals sick.

And humans.

USA - Fear of hydrofluoric acid leak prompts evacuation of 5,000 in Pennsylvania

Fear of hydrofluoric acid leak prompts evacuation of 5,000 in Pennsylvania
A tractor trailer carrying hydrofluoric acid sits on its side on Route 33 south near Wind Gap, Pa., on Saturday, March 21, 2009. (Xinhuanet/AP Photo)
Safety concerns resulting from the crash of a truck carrying large amount of hydrofluoric acid prompted evacuation of some 5,000 people in eastern Pennsylvania early Saturday, authorities said.
The truck was carrying some 33,000 pounds (14.9 tons) of acid and the acid spilled after the truck crashed near Wind Gap, Pennsylvania, Jeff Steiert with the local Office of Emergency Management told reporters.
About 5,000 people within a 1 mile (1.609 km) radius of the accident were ordered to evacuate as a precaution, and could be away for up to 24 hours, he said.
The driver, who was briefly trapped in the truck, was treated at a hospital and released. No other injuries had been reported, Steiert said.

In the USA they have an emergency alert phone system this was activated, a recorded message is auto-dialed to all land-line phone numbers in evacuation area

Echo March letters

Petition

Petition Form

If you are in the Southampton area and want to become active print off the petition and get as many signatures as you can. We have over 2000 already.

Daily Echo 19th March

Letters

A good question what is the present intake of fluoride - do they really look?









"Not aware of any adverse effects," because they again don't seriously look for any. Anecdotally I could relate some but that is as accurate as those who claim that there are none.

Australia - QLD gov forcing mass medication

QLD GOV' FORCES PEOPLE TO HAVE MASS MEDICATION AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLL, 87% of Qld said NO TO FLUORIDE and 93% said NO TO RECYCLED WATER

Sounds familiar we have the same disregard of people's choice in Southampton by the Strategic Health Authority.

Start of the petition campaign

Fluoridation plan praised by Alliance

The alliance comprised of more than 60 health organizations says the SHA should be applauded for "not allowing itself to be blown off course by the strident voices of those who shouted the loudest"

Definition od strident : harsh, shrill
On http://www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.org/ there are 6 hours of video film of the debate between those proposing and those against fluoridation and I do not think in any way the HAF representatives could ever be described as that.

Chris Huhne wants Environment Agency to study impact of adding fluoride to Southampton's water

5:56pm Tuesday 10th March 2009
By Jon Reeve »
A HAMPSHIRE MP is calling for the Environment Agency to study the potential effect of fluoridating Southampton's tap water.
Chris Huhne, part of whose Eastleigh constituency will also have fluoride added to its water supplies, hopes the authority will look at the risks involved in the scheme to rivers and water courses.
The controversial plan to top up the level of fluoride in the water received by nearly 200,000 Hampshire homes from 0.08 parts per million to one part per million, was approved by health chiefs last month despite widespread public opposition.

Fluoride decision slammed as 'dangerous, undemocratic and potentially illegal'

Fluoride decision slammed as 'dangerous, undemocratic and potentially illegal'
10:20am Saturday 7th March 2009
THE Green Party has called South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate south Hampshire’s tap water "dangerous, undemocratic and potentially illegal."
Stuart Jeffery, the party's health spokesperson, described fluoridation as a "sticking plaster with side effects solution." "This appalling decision also seems to have been taken without any regard for the voice of local people, the majority of whom were opposed to mass medication with fluoride," he said.

Daily Echo

Fluorosis

Lymington Times

FLUORIDE--YESTERDAYS MEDICINE

FLUORIDE--YESTERDAYS MEDICINE @ Yahoo! Video

Echo letter

Trust them to keep their word!

Lord Warner (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Labour

We have been over this ground many times. I believe that, with the guidance we will be providing, these consultation regulations provide a satisfactory way forward for implementing the legislation that was put in place under the Water Act 2003.

I reiterate that the Government have no intention of imposing fluoridation in any area. It has been our policy throughout, and continues to be our policy, that decisions must be taken locally, following well-informed consultations on the issues involved.

Daily Echo

The 'consultation' with only one answer

The 'consultation' with only one answer
Why ask people what they think if you then do the opposite, wonders Philip Johnston.
By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 5:05PM GMT 01 Mar 2009
Local people should be able to decide whether their water is medicated Photo: PA When a public body says it is to carry out a consultation exercise, what does that suggest to you? Naively, I once believed that it involved asking people what they thought about a particular policy, setting out all the facts in an objective fashion, and if those likely to be affected did not like what they saw to drop or modify the original plan. It turns out, however, to mean nothing of the sort.

Ask the people of Southampton and its environs in south-west Hampshire. They have just been the subject of a "consultation" on whether to add fluoride to their water supply. There were 10,000 responses, 78 per cent of which were opposed. The local health authority carried out a telephone poll, which also showed a majority against. But it is going ahead anyway. Not only is this an affront to any concept of local decision-making, it is a breathtaking piece of social authoritarianism. Whether or not fluoride helps reduce tooth decay is irrelevant. Medication should not be added to the water supply; and especially when the people who drink it say they do not want it.

The history of this episode is especially revealing about the way the public has become utterly disenfranchised in a world where bureaucrats arrogantly assume they know what is good for the rest us. Although many people believe they already have fluoride in their tap water, only around six million actually do. Most of them live in the West Midlands and the North East, where artificial fluoride was first added about 40 years ago and around half a million are in areas where fluoride occurs naturally in the water. Successive governments have always wanted to increase coverage, believing it would be good for dental health. But the water companies did not want to fluoridate the supply, fearing they would be sued. They also did not consider public health to be their responsibility.

Matters came to a head in the early Nineties when health authorities in the North East, claiming the support of 70 per cent of the local population, proposed a fluoridation scheme, only for it to be rejected by Northumbria Water. So the Government decided to change the law. The 2003 Water Act gave the 28 strategic health authorities in England and Wales the power to order fluoridation, with water companies indemnified against any legal liabilities. There was one proviso: there would have to be a thorough consultation before proceeding. If artificial fluoride is safe, what do the water companies need to be indemnified against? Furthermore, the law was changed to prevent the water companies thwarting the wishes of local people; yet it is now being used to do the precise opposite. This is democracy EU style: you can give any answer so long as it's yes.

What is a consultation for? This one was carried out purely and simply because the legislation said it had to be. The process was heavily skewed in favour of acceptance. The local health authority and the Government bombarded the people of Southampton with scientific information purporting to show that fluoridation was safe and efficacious. Yet still a substantial majority did not want it to happen.

The reason is pretty obvious. They did not like the idea of forced mass medication. The Government maintains that because fluoride is preventative this is not medication, but that is just casuistry. On that basis, why not put statins or anti-depressants in the water? Supporters say that chlorine is added without anyone making a fuss; but that is to make the water safe to drink, which is a different matter altogether. Fluoride can be obtained from toothpaste should people wish it.

With some justice, opponents say the consultation exercise was a sham and the health authority was intent on proceeding come what may. The arrogance of this decision is quite astonishing. The facts were put out for people to see and the issue was straightforward enough: do you want fluoride or not? More than three quarters said no, which is a pretty conclusive proportion opposed by any measure. But then again, what do the local people know? They are obviously too stupid to understand the concept of adding a substance to the water supply; and they only have to drink it.

Opponents say there are potential health risks from fluoridation, including bone cancer and hip fractures in older people. Supporters say this is rubbish and that it is safely used in other countries. But this debate is now something of a sideshow set against the refusal to acknowledge the strength of local feeling against the proposal. It is possible to argue against enforced medication whether or not it is good for us. And when people, presented with both sides of the case, make it clear that, on balance, they would rather not have an artificial substance added to their water, it is outrageous simply to ignore them and carry on regardless.

It is apparent that Southampton is the vanguard of an attempt to fluoridate the whole of England (Scotland decided not to pursue fluoridation more than four years ago). It is reported that health authorities in the North West, Derbyshire, Bristol, and Kirklees in West Yorkshire are among those preparing to press ahead with similar proposals. But if you live there, don't worry. You will all be consulted first.