The Downing Street petition handover and meeting in Parliament with members of the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation will take place on Tuesday 9th June. We are organising a group to travel up from Southampton – Details below:
Date: Tuesday 9th June
Time: 9.15am Southampton Railway Station (9.30 train)
11.30: Petition handover at no.10 Downing St
12.30: Meeting (committee room 15) in Parliament
16.00: Train back to Southampton from Waterloo
Julian Lewis, Sandra Gidley and Chris Huhne will be there at the handover and we have the Echo plus photographer coming with us.
Train tickets will cost £12.00 if purchased through HAF. If you would like to come, please let me know before Friday 5th June.
If you would like to come to this event, please contact:
Anna Peckham 02380 493776 Peckhams@yahoo.com
30 May 2009
Daily Echo
Will fluoridation failsafe safely checks really work?THE Echo reported (Fluoride fear after chemical blunder, May 21) that a Southern Water spokeswoman said stringent safety checks will be put in place to ensure dosing errors cannot happen, this was to assure us that the overdose of fluoride in Australia could not happen here. "Systems will be designed to be failsafe," she added.
The same assurance was given by the Water Industry Operators Association of Australia. They assured Australians that fluoridation installations have multiple failsafe devices including day tanks, dual flow sensing switches, online monitoring, automatic shut downs, and other protections in place.
The above did not save parts of Brisbane being overdosed and unless informed not to drink it there is no way of knowing that the water was poisoned. If it was chlorine or aluminium you would detect it and could filter it out but not fluoride.
How can we stop this madness brought about by 12 quango members of the Strategic Health Authority when 72 per cent of the people said NO to fluoridation?
BILL EDMUNDS, Hampshire Against Fluoridation.
Don't run the Risk
There have been well over 10,000 signatures against fluoride going into our water supply, so why doesn't the health authority get the message that we don't want it.
If we were the democratic country we profess to be, then fluoride would (Missing not) be being added to tap water.
We have already had things go wrong in Australia with their monitoring system which was supposed to have been safe.
We don't want the risk of overdose, we want our water left alone. I want to know I can drink water to help wash toxins from my body not put them in.
I am very angry that they think that they can mess with our water. They are supposed to be the health authorities, but they are making people ill with the stress.
I always thought that a lot of things going on are completely mad, but to mess with our water is a crime in itself. Can't man just leave some things alone.
MRS KINCH.
Read this book
I STRONGLY object to fluoride being added to our water supply. I suggest that the people in the NHS read a book called Fluoride by Barry Groves.
In this book which I am still wading through it tells us that 1) fluoride can actually kill. It can cause genetic and chromosomal damage to our body cells, 2) it can cause bone cancer and prostrate cancer in men, 3) fluoride can damage the central nervous system, 4) has links to Alzheimer's disease and low IQ. These are just a few instances. There are many more. We should be allowed a vote on this issue. Why should a few officials be able to tell us what we have to have in our drinking water?
MRS TM TANCOCK, Southampton
Accidents can-and will-happen
I READ your article "Fluoride fear after chemical blunder" on May 21, about people near Brisbane in Australia, accidentally being given 30 times the "safe" level of artificial fluoride in their tap water.
There have been several fluoride overfeeds in USA water supplies in recent years. In Hooper Bay, Alaska, a man died and 260 people were ill after a fluoride overdose in tap water. Dublin suffered a fluoridated overdose in June 2002 when 23 people were made ill.
It is not always possible to ensure that one part per million of this chemical stays the same for all
houses. Tests by government laboratories showed that fluoride can accumulate in sediment in pipe bends and valves. For details of overdoses visit: fluoridealert.org/ health/accidents/fluoridation or Google the words "fluoride deaths"
Sooner or later it is probable that there will be a human or mechanical failure. This happened in Camelford in Cornwall when many residents received an overdose of toxic aluminium from their tap water. This could have been even more serious if the chemical involved was fluorosili-cic acid (fluoride).
A. WILLS, Ruislip.
Real poll needed
THE issue of fluoridation does not affect me very much as I hardly ever drink tap water.
However, I believe that individuals are better placed to listen to their bodies, than people detached from the environment in which the individual lives.
I can think of several things which other people say are good for you which my body rejects and I can well understand that some people might have an allergy to fluoride, a strong chemical.
I am pleased that Hampshire County Council and Eastleigh Council, the two local authorities I have most dealings with, voted against fluoridation, and I respect their ability to represent the views of local people.
There are three points I would like to make
• If fluoridation is introduced and the number of dentists is increased as a result, then it would be easy to attribute improvements in dental health to fluoridation, when in fact the reason is the increase in the number of dentists.
• The Strategic Health Authority places great emphasis on its telephone poll, but I have usually found telephone surveys unreliable.
• There can be no margin for error if the scheme goes ahead. If people are affected by an accident similar to what occurred in Australia only once in their entire lifetime, they will certainly remember it for the rest of their life.
I would like to have a further ballot, with people being able to cast votes, in an similar way to an election.
MALCOLM CLARKE,
26 May 2009
Echo letter
How can they get away with 'poisoning'? I STRONGLY object to fluoride being added to our water supply. The Health Authority are ignoring all the dangers of this toxic waste, from industry and are really keen to get it into our bodies regardless of the harm it will cause to us. Fluoridation is an outrageous and completely unacceptable proposal.
Nothing at all should be added to our water supply, except what is needed to keep it safe and pure. Water is our lifeline and it is not there for the purpose of adding anything to it, for the treatment of dental problems, or anything else, for that matter.
When water flows through our taps into our homes, each of us, the people, who pay for it, becomes the owners of that water. So, NHS hands off our water.
I have recently watched a DVD which I purchased from Hampshire Against Fluoridation, at a small cost of two pounds. It was about half an hour in length. Professional people who have studied fluoride, explained the dangers of it being added to the water supply After watching this there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it should be completely banned from all water supplies. Why are all these dangers being ignored by the NHS?
Holding each of us down forcing our mouth; open and pouring this poison down our throats is the same as putting it into the water supply Either way, it would be forced upon us. So how can they possibly get away with it?
Whatever it takes the complete madness of this proposed, irresponsible, mass poisoning must be stopped.
Name and address supplied.
23 May 2009
Daily Echo letter
Cosmetic concernMrs Place (Echo Letters, May 16) draws attention to the problem of fluoridated water possibly causing mottling of the teeth.
This is something airily dismissed by the Department of Health as "of cosmetic concern to few people".
This is not true, but even if it were we would be entitled to ask why it should be thought acceptable to put a chemical into our water capable of discolouring teeth.
Dental authorities have written that this is caused only when the concentration is at least double what the Strategic Health Authority proposes; but the York Review nine years ago found that many teeth were discoloured even at the recommended level of one ppm.
Nobody has claimed that the condition is equally serious for all affected, but it is significant that the greatest damage is to the teeth of children - the very people fluoridation is supposed to be helping.
This week we read that the Food Standards Agency is demanding reductions in salt in various foods. Let us hear them demanding the removal of unnecessary chemicals from our drinking water!
MR G Payne, Southampton
22 May 2009
Lymington Times and Echo
9,000 sign anti fluoride petitionThe names of hundreds of people opposed to adding fluoride to Totton's water supply were added to a 9,000-strong petition to be handed to the prime minister.
The signatures were presented by Coun. David Harrison to Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) members Caroline Place and Myra Metcalfe, in front of the town's war memorial. The full list of objectors will be submitted to 10 Downing Street later.
Some 8,000 people in Totton are due to have fluoride in 2010 after the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) approved Southampton Primary Care Trust's proposal, which affects some areas outside the city because of the layout of the pipes.
About 190,000 will be affected in total and despite opponents losing the battle, they have not given up and are also planning legal action. Fluoridation could be further delayed if charges of biased consultation are upheld and a re-run is ordered.
Totton councillor Harrison told the A&T: "It seems fitting to present the petitions at the site of the war memorial — so many people fought and died in the cause of preserving democracy in this country. "It now seems that we are to be forced into consuming this medication without our consent. I thank everyone who has takcn the trouble to spell out their feelings. The battle is still on going "
HAF members plan to deliver the pettition to Downing Street in June and will be joined by local councillors , MP and supporters.
As reported In the A&T, Liberal Democrat Coun. Harrison has also joined New Forest East's Conservative MP Julian Lewis in a complaint against the SHA for the "biased" way it carried out the consultation.
Fluoridation was supported by Southampton City Council but opposed by Totton and Eling, New Forest and Hampshire councils. A Mori poll also showed more residents against than in favour.
But Southampton Primary Care Trust said it was key to cutting children's tooth decay. The decision was the first in the country taken under new laws which gave the NHS the power to compel water companies to add fluoride.
Is fluoridated water medicinal or not? Decision is against court's ruling
I RECENTLY received a letter from Southern Water which, among other things, stated that by fluoridating the public water supply, it was not classified as a medicinal product so they could not be in breach of their duty to provide 'wholesome' water as dictated to them by the South Central Strategic Health Authority.
I beg to differ due to a ruling by the European Court of .Justice (ECJ) which would suggest otherwise. It established that fluoridated water drink containing minerals, is a functional food with recognisable pharmaceutical properties. As such, it must be regulated as a medicinal product. In the absence of a relevant medicinal marketing authorization for its supply to the public, fiuoridation of public water, supplies in the UK and Ireland must stop immediately
It also went on to say that fluoridated water must not be used in the preparation of any food for retail or wholesale purposes in the UK or Ireland. The ECJ stated that no UK or Irish food manufacturer using fluoridated water in the preparation of their products may export them to any other EC country.
The decision of the court is binding on all EC member states, and is immediately enforceable in the national legislation of member states.
This decision was made in 2005 so why is the SHA and this Government still going ahead with the proposal?
MICHAEL CLEMENTS, Southampton
21 May 2009
Southampton Daily Echo
Fluoride fear after chemical blunder7:50am Thursday 21st May 2009
By Jon Reeve
FEARS have been raised over the safety of adding fluoride to Hampshire’s water, after an accident in Australia left residents drinking supplies containing 20 times their normal maximum dose.
An error during maintenance at a water plant in Queensland caused water with much higher levels of fluoride to be pumped through people’s taps.
The amount of fluoride drunk by residents near Brisbane was 30 times that proposed as the safe level for Southampton and the surrounding area.
Authorities insist the process of adding the chemical to the supplies of nearly 200,000 Hampshire homes, which could happen as soon as next year, will be completely failsafe.
But anti-fluoride campaigners say the incident Down Under – the first of its kind in the country – shows there are no guarantees and is another reason the contentious scheme should be scrapped.
“They always say they put in the technologies to ensure it can’t happen, but even things that supposedly can’t happen have a habit of happening,”
said chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, John Spottiswoode.
“You can never be completely sure it’s going to work.
“You’re relying on technology, but there is always room for human error.
“It’s another reason to be wary of fluoridation.”
Homes in Queensland, where plans were announced earlier this year to extend fluoridation to cover all communities of more than 1,000 people, received the high doses at the start of the month.
Details of the error, which meant the fluoridation supply was not shut down along with the rest of the plant, have only just been released, prompting Premier Anna Bligh to reassure residents she believes there are no health risks.
A Southern Water spokeswoman said stringent safety checks will be put in place to ensure dosing errors cannot happen.
“Systems will be designed to be fail-safe,” she added.
20 May 2009
Australia - Fluoride overdose in QLD
Thankful she boiled the water? That makes it worse, chlorine you can boil off but not fluoride.
We cannot sue the water companies either if it happened here.
18 May 2009
16 May 2009
Echo letters
These toxic argumentsIN response to Mr Guy Harkin's letter of April 30. Who said anything about a conspiracy? Perhaps you would like to write personally to the 2,400 professionals who have signed the petition asking for the ending of fluoridation. Professionals who have studied the evidence and been convinced of its adverse effects on health.
Have you ever studied the other side of the argument and looked at the evidence? The research carried out by the NRC was published and yet I doubt that you have ever read it. (Asked whether you had seen it on a television programme you declined to answer - do you remember?) As an economist I would have thought you would be more concerned with the exorbitant cost to the NHS and find better ways to spend funds.
What I still do not understand is how anyone can be comfortable with a 3-4 per cenl of the child population of the Southampton area ending up with fluorosis as an acceptable "fall-out" when introducing a so called "health measure" in an attempt to prevent the preventable? Talk about a contradiction! As a matter of interest Mr Harkin, are you familiar with the speech given by Baroness Hayman in the House of Lords on April 20 1999? I quote: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity since it is partly caused by bloodborne fluoride."
If this stuff doesn't have any adverse effects why does my toothpaste packaging tell me not to use it if I'm allergic to fluoride? Even the toothpaste manufacturers acknowledge the health issues! Perhaps you could also tell me why a leading health publication recently warned athletes against using fluoridated toothpaste?
You obviously don't know about the research, that's linked fluoride with tendon and joint problems especially in heavily fluoridated Australia.
MRS PLACE, Southampton.
Throw out fluoride dictators
HOW dare they try to force feed poisonous stuff to the general public, when over 70 per cent have voted against it! Is the so called democracy in UK a sham? How can a bunch of unelected people overturn a democratic decision? This is the thin end of the wedge, throw out these dictators. Wonder how many actually live in the area.
There are wars being fought in Iraq, Afgahnistan, etc, to bring democracy. If democracy doesn't work, what is our government doing there, putting our soldiers' lives at risk? Is there a hidden agenda there as well? When the majority of the world, backed up by science, is rejecting fluorida-tion - See "Fifty reasons to oppose flouridation". So, what's their real agenda? Above all, how can they manipulate the rules and override our democratic and human rights! I presume Southampton City Council, having supported SHA, will be providing bottled drinking . water to its citizens! If not, then I suggest that people of Southampton stop paying council tax and take SCC to court.
MIKE VASHISHT, Southampton.
15 May 2009
14 May 2009
WORST AUSTRALIAN FLUORIDE ACCIDENT
Media Release: 14th May 2009 Queenslanders For Safe Water Air and Food Inc
WORST AUSTRALIAN FLUORIDE ACCIDENT
Premier Bligh today announced an accident at the North Pine Dam Water treatment plant on May 1st when water massively overdosed with Sodium Silicofluoride was released into the public water supply.
About 4,000 homes are believed to have received water containing 30mg/l fluoride. This level is nearly 40 times higher than the 0.8 mg/L Qld Health advised in Nov 2008 was to be the level for water supplies in SE Qld.
Water with 30 mg/L fluoride ion is equivalent to 120 fluoride tablets per litre of water, or 30 fluoride tablets per 250 ml glass, yet the Premier has denied that there was a health risk.
At a media opportunity on 5th October 2008 , the spokesperson for Prominent, supplier of fluoridation equipment used in Qld, told Stephen Robertson, then Qld Health Minister, that the maximum fluoridators could inject was 0.8 mg/L.
It appears that there has been three major malfunctions , one with the injector continuing to inject much more fluoride into the water than it was supposed to, combined with failures of the automatic inline monitoring and automatic failsafe shutdown system.
Despite fluoride levels being able to be measured in seconds with ion selective electrodes, it was not until 12 days after the accident that SEQ Water received test results showing the extremely high fluoride levels. WHY THIS HUGE DELAY ????
Despite the Premiers denial of harm, persons consuming this water were overdosed 40 fold with fluoride. People particularly at risk of harm include Diabetics, the Kidney impaired , people with chemical sensitivity or hypersensitivity to fluoride and infants.
Mothers in the suburbs affected, who made up a day’s worth of baby bottles with tap water on the morning of 1st May would have overdosed vulnerable infants at every feed . The huge bolus dose of fluoride could have permanently damaged children’s developing teeth but this damage, Dental Fluorosis, will not be seen until their teeth erupt from the gums.
The Premier has previously received documented medical evidence that exposure to fluoride at 1mg/L can drastically reduce lung function in a sensitive person. It can only be imagined what could happen with a sensitive person drinking water at 30mg/L.
Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc demand that the Premier and Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young immediately shut down all Prominent fluoride dosage units at all treatment plants until a full investigation is carried out.
Authorised by Merilyn Haines spokesperson for Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc www.qawf.org
media contact 0418 777 112
FLUORIDE DOSING LEVELS (Advice from Qld Health received 19/11/2008 from Environmental Health Branch-Queensland Health Ph. 3234 1258)
Zone 1: 0.6mg/L ( North East Queensland) Zone 2: 0.7mg/L ( Rest of Qld) Zone 3: 0.8mg/L ( South East Queensland)
End
WORST AUSTRALIAN FLUORIDE ACCIDENT
Premier Bligh today announced an accident at the North Pine Dam Water treatment plant on May 1st when water massively overdosed with Sodium Silicofluoride was released into the public water supply.
About 4,000 homes are believed to have received water containing 30mg/l fluoride. This level is nearly 40 times higher than the 0.8 mg/L Qld Health advised in Nov 2008 was to be the level for water supplies in SE Qld.
Water with 30 mg/L fluoride ion is equivalent to 120 fluoride tablets per litre of water, or 30 fluoride tablets per 250 ml glass, yet the Premier has denied that there was a health risk.
At a media opportunity on 5th October 2008 , the spokesperson for Prominent, supplier of fluoridation equipment used in Qld, told Stephen Robertson, then Qld Health Minister, that the maximum fluoridators could inject was 0.8 mg/L.
It appears that there has been three major malfunctions , one with the injector continuing to inject much more fluoride into the water than it was supposed to, combined with failures of the automatic inline monitoring and automatic failsafe shutdown system.
Despite fluoride levels being able to be measured in seconds with ion selective electrodes, it was not until 12 days after the accident that SEQ Water received test results showing the extremely high fluoride levels. WHY THIS HUGE DELAY ????
Despite the Premiers denial of harm, persons consuming this water were overdosed 40 fold with fluoride. People particularly at risk of harm include Diabetics, the Kidney impaired , people with chemical sensitivity or hypersensitivity to fluoride and infants.
Mothers in the suburbs affected, who made up a day’s worth of baby bottles with tap water on the morning of 1st May would have overdosed vulnerable infants at every feed . The huge bolus dose of fluoride could have permanently damaged children’s developing teeth but this damage, Dental Fluorosis, will not be seen until their teeth erupt from the gums.
The Premier has previously received documented medical evidence that exposure to fluoride at 1mg/L can drastically reduce lung function in a sensitive person. It can only be imagined what could happen with a sensitive person drinking water at 30mg/L.
Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc demand that the Premier and Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young immediately shut down all Prominent fluoride dosage units at all treatment plants until a full investigation is carried out.
Authorised by Merilyn Haines spokesperson for Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc www.qawf.org
media contact 0418 777 112
FLUORIDE DOSING LEVELS (Advice from Qld Health received 19/11/2008 from Environmental Health Branch-Queensland Health Ph. 3234 1258)
Zone 1: 0.6mg/L ( North East Queensland) Zone 2: 0.7mg/L ( Rest of Qld) Zone 3: 0.8mg/L ( South East Queensland)
End
Australia - Fluoride overdose strikes Brisbane's water supply
Patrick Lion and AAP
May 14, 2009 05:15pm
ABOUT 20 times the recommended fluoride was accidentally added to Brisbane water supplies two weeks ago.
Premier Anna Bligh today said the first breach of safety guidelines had occurred between 9am and midday on Friday May 1.
The water should have had 1.5 milligrams per litre of fluoride but test results released this week showed it had between 30 and 31 milligrams per litre.
About 300,000 litres of water was released from a fluoride treatment plant at North Pine Dam.
The water flowed into as many as 4000 households in Brendale and Warner on Brisbane's northside.
Ms Bligh, who was alerted to the issue last night, today moved to reassure people, saying there was a very remote chance of any health issues, particularly given symptoms would have emerged by now .
Queensland Health has not received any reports of ill-effects.
The effects of a fluoride overdose are symptoms similar to gastro enteritis.
Ms Bligh said she was angry about the bungle and has ordered a full investigation.
"While I am very concerned about this incident, it does not concern me in relation to the benefits of fluoride in our drinking system,'' she said.
"Our plants treat our water for a range of safety purposes, so I want to understand what happened in this case.
"But it does not for one minute shake my confidence that fluoride is one of the most significant public health leaps forward of the last century.''
Ms Bligh said the incident was unprecedented at any other fluoride treatment plant in Australia.
"There will be a thorough investigation of this issue,'' she said.
There are at least three safety checks which are believed to have failed.
The bungle is believed to have occurred during a routine shutdown for maintenance at the plant.
Operations shut down but the fluoride pump didn't.
It effectively overdosed an amount of water which was released into the pipes when the plant resumed operations.
Chief health officer Dr Jeannette Young said the amount of fluoride that passed through the pipes over a three hour period was "of no health concern at all''.
"I''m confident the risk of anyone having suffered any adverse health outcome is remote - if indeed not zero,'' she said.
Dr Young said for there to be a health risk the levels would have to be much higher and for much longer than three hours.
"It's a high level in terms of what's provided in the water but it's a low level in terms of any risk,'' she said.
Ms Bligh said Mark Pascoe, CEO of the International Water Centre based in Brisbane, will run the investigation.
"As an immediate precaution when any water treatment plants are shut down for normal maintenance, there will be a manual shutdown of the fluoride dosing equipment,'' she said.
May 14, 2009 05:15pm
ABOUT 20 times the recommended fluoride was accidentally added to Brisbane water supplies two weeks ago.
Premier Anna Bligh today said the first breach of safety guidelines had occurred between 9am and midday on Friday May 1.
The water should have had 1.5 milligrams per litre of fluoride but test results released this week showed it had between 30 and 31 milligrams per litre.
About 300,000 litres of water was released from a fluoride treatment plant at North Pine Dam.
The water flowed into as many as 4000 households in Brendale and Warner on Brisbane's northside.
Ms Bligh, who was alerted to the issue last night, today moved to reassure people, saying there was a very remote chance of any health issues, particularly given symptoms would have emerged by now .
Queensland Health has not received any reports of ill-effects.
The effects of a fluoride overdose are symptoms similar to gastro enteritis.
Ms Bligh said she was angry about the bungle and has ordered a full investigation.
"While I am very concerned about this incident, it does not concern me in relation to the benefits of fluoride in our drinking system,'' she said.
"Our plants treat our water for a range of safety purposes, so I want to understand what happened in this case.
"But it does not for one minute shake my confidence that fluoride is one of the most significant public health leaps forward of the last century.''
Ms Bligh said the incident was unprecedented at any other fluoride treatment plant in Australia.
"There will be a thorough investigation of this issue,'' she said.
There are at least three safety checks which are believed to have failed.
The bungle is believed to have occurred during a routine shutdown for maintenance at the plant.
Operations shut down but the fluoride pump didn't.
It effectively overdosed an amount of water which was released into the pipes when the plant resumed operations.
Chief health officer Dr Jeannette Young said the amount of fluoride that passed through the pipes over a three hour period was "of no health concern at all''.
"I''m confident the risk of anyone having suffered any adverse health outcome is remote - if indeed not zero,'' she said.
Dr Young said for there to be a health risk the levels would have to be much higher and for much longer than three hours.
"It's a high level in terms of what's provided in the water but it's a low level in terms of any risk,'' she said.
Ms Bligh said Mark Pascoe, CEO of the International Water Centre based in Brisbane, will run the investigation.
"As an immediate precaution when any water treatment plants are shut down for normal maintenance, there will be a manual shutdown of the fluoride dosing equipment,'' she said.
Echo Letter
Quote...unquote...GUY Harkin of Bolton on the subject of fluoridation says one aspect is never explained by the opponents of fluoridation namely why is it supported by every mainstream body in the world of medicine and dentistry (April 30).
Often there are only two or three key people who give their support and their organizations do no original work of their own and simply endorse each other's opinions. As for MP's there is an All Party Group Against Fluoridation who believe passionately that fluoridation is wrong including Lord Baldwin who was on the York Review.
In a letter sent to the SHA it mentions Guy Harkin: http://www.fluoridealert.org/south-hatnpton.html Quote - Anthony Ryder, director Communities Against Toxics wrote of a meeting he attended conducted on Manchester breakfast TV. Also invited was economist Guy Harkin of the North West Fluoridation Evaluation, a group that had the task of recommending on whether to add fluoride to the drinking water of Manchester. Even though Harkin was supposed to be looking into the issue of fluoride and his recommendations would be very influential, it was blatantly obvious he was already a strong supporter of fluoride 'mass medication', despite demonstrating no knowledge (or even interest) in the studies indicating health risks. He shamefully regurgitated parrot-fashion the pro-fluoride script, showing no original self-thoughts. End of quote
Guy Harkin of Bolton is like the 12 unelected quango members of the SHA who ignored the 72 per cent of Southampton people who voted against fluoridation and only listened to their own panel member Prof Newton, who ignores anything that does not come down from the pyramid of NHS accepted truths.
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam, Hampshire Against Fluoridation
13 May 2009
Daily Echo - Disillusioned by our local MPs
Disillusioned by our local MPsHAVING been a solid Labour supporter for more years than I care to remember I have however become more and more disillusioned with, what is now called, New Labour. Disillusioned not only with New Labour, Brown, Darling, Smith, Prescott and Co., but even more so with our two local MPs Messrs Denham and Whitehead. Particularly over the past few months. Lately we have had the fluoride fiasco. Seventy two per cent of those consulted and I use the word consulted loosely, did not want fluoride added to the water supplies. Twelve, unelected, seemingly anonymous, members of a quango decided otherwise.
The silence on this subject from Messrs Denham and Whitehead has been deafening. Then came the debate in Parliament concerning the Gurkhas being able to settle in this country.
To cap it all, for me anyway, these same two gentlemen slavishly follow the party line and vote FOR the rigorous qualifications proposed that would deny many many brave and courageous men the right to live in a country that hundreds of their countrymen gave their lives to defend.
A CAWS, Southampton.
12 May 2009
Daily Echo
It's forced upon usWHY is it at least over 70 per cent of us do not want the deadly poison, fluoride in our water, yet we are to be forced to have it and forced to pay for it.
I want to choose what I put in my body and all my life I have treated it with respect, now because a few individuals cannot be bothered to simply brush their own teeth my choice is to be taken away.
Fluoride is one of the most deadliest poisons known to man yet I will have to pay for it to be administered to me against my will. I find this insulting, dangerous and perverse. People have to take responsibility for their own health and lifestyles and not impose it upon others. If you do not take that responsibility why is it then forced on others, financially and medically?
Southern Water will now charge us to have poison put into out water whether we want it or not and the vast majority certainly do not. Southern Water is now a privatised rip off mess. This was once an excellent, efficient company that provided quality water at a fraction of the cost that it is now, thanks to a disastrous Tory privatisation.
As Southern Water has no staff at the sharp end, its work is contracted out to Clancy Docra. They may be very good at digging holes but do you want them in charge of putting a deadly poison into your water? I find this very worrying that a contracted out company is doing our water with unnecessary fluoride at great cost to us the end user. Southern Water is now a hedge fund and no longer interested in providing a service thanks to Tory privatisation, only milking the customer for more money, as is all the privatised companies, for a reduced inefficient and now poisonous supply. Of course the over-worked PR department of Southern Water will deny this!
P PRENDERGAST, Shirley
11 May 2009
Southampton Daily Echo
Almost 9,000 names on fluoride petitionNEARLY 9,000 people have now signed a petition against fluoride being added to the tap water of thousands of homes across Hampshire.
(Dozens of new signatures were added at a special drop-in session in Eastleigh. Eastleigh MP Chris Huhne, prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Eastleigh Maria Hutchings and several Eastleigh councillors were among those who signed up on Saturday.
Visitors to the event at the Wells Place Centre were also able to get a copy of the DVD which gives scientific evidence from some of the world's leading experts on fluoride.
Organisers Hampshire Against Fluoridation are planning to travel to Downing Street early next month to present it to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Later the same day they hope to meet with the All Party Parliamentary Group against Fluoridation.
Health chiefs plan to add fluoride to the tap water of almost 200,000 Hampshire residents after South Central Strategic Health Authority approved it as a way to improve children's teeth.
Two-thirds of Southampton will be affected as well as areas of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Poisoning our waterI AM writing again about fluoride being added to our water supplies.
This is such a crazy idea, for the sake of a few children's teeth we are being forced to have a toxic waste added to our water. The SHA have admitted that it is a hexafluorosili-cic acid.
It is a toxic and corrosive industrial waste by-product derived from the scrubbings of the factory chimneys of the super-phosphate fertiliser industry. Fluorides are medically categorised as protoplanic poisons and are used in commercial rat poisons.
It is more toxic than lead and only marginally less poisonous than arsenic, and we all know about the efforts to remove lead from drinking water supplies over the last century. Worse still, the hexafluorosilicic acid used is not a pure compound of medical quality but is itself contaminated with other poisons, such as arsenic and cancer-causing heavy metals such as cadmium and even mercury.
So come on SHA, who are you kidding that fluoride reduces tooth decay in under 12s? Recent large-scale studies in the USA, Canada and New Zealand show this to be an inaccurate claim. Even in the UK, studies have shown there is no difference in incidents of decayed, missing or filled teeth between fluoridated Gateshead and socially comparable and unfluoridated Liverpool.
Stop using children's teeth as an excuse to add fluoride to our water. Please try again to listen to what the people are saying, it goes something like this: "We don't want it. We don't need it and as far as we are concerned, we are not having it".
If, after all this, you stupidly go ahead, then the people will not be paying for poison (hope you are listening too Water Board).
MRS KINCH, Southampton.
10 May 2009
Eastleigh drop in
Picture - Chris Huhne and two HAF membersGood response from the public at the Eastleigh drop in at the Baptist Church Hall to sign the petition with people waiting to enter when HAF members arrived. Many were generous in helping with donations. Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Eastleigh and Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department and prospective MP Maria Hutchings dropped in to register their support.
Nothing Like a Guiness Beer with a Fluoride Chaser
Nothing Like a Guiness Beer with a Fluoride Chaserby Treacy Hogan
Environmental Correspondent
fluoridealert.org
GUINNESS gives you a good pint and fluoride, much to the annoyance of a Dublin nun spearheading an anti-fluoride campaign. Guinness Ireland has disclosed that Dublin stout can have as much as six times the fluoride level of stout brewed in London.
The reason: the Park Royal Brewery in London uses unfluoridated water in a treatment process that further reduces the natural background level of fluoride to 0.1 parts per million.
Following a number of queries from the public, Guinness Ireland wrote to one consumer on March 27 explaining that Dublin uses town water which is fluoridated at a typical level of 0.75 parts per million.
“Thus it is possible that Dublin stout has six times the fluoride level of London stout,” said the company. The company said the high quality water was fluoridated, along with every other public supply in the country, following a Supreme Court decision obliging the authorities to add fluoride.
However, a statement issued by the Fluoride Free Water Group campaign care of Sr Rachel Hoey, who is attached to St Raphaela’s Convent, Stillorgan, Dublin, yesterday stated there are increasing health concerns about total fluoride intake.
It said the agent used to fluoridate water was called hydrofluosilicic acid, which it claimed was a toxic waste product of the fertiliser industry.
The group said most of Europe had rejected artificially fluoridate water, with bans in Denmark, Sweden and Holland. “Therefore, these countries will be surprised to learn that they are drinking artificial fluoride in imported Irish stout.”
The group quoted the union representing scientists, lawyers and other professionals at the US Environment Protection Agency.
It said their review of evidence over the last 11 years indicated a causal link between fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Recent epidemiology studies had linked fluoride exposures to lower IQ levels in children.
However, Tom Leahy, deputy city engineer with Dublin Corporation, said he was satisfied there was no risk to public health.
9 May 2009
Daily Echo
MP Wrote that he was policy-bound on fluoride
IT IS heartening to read that certain groups of Southampton's citizens intend to petition the John Den ham Labour MP for Southampton with regards to fluoridation.
To what avail? I wrote to him, offering information regarding the scientific and medical research findings on the detrimental effects of fluoridation.
His reply dated June 10 2008 was: "No fluoridation scheme would go ahead unless there has been wide consultations, in which both proponents and opponents had been encouraged to participate, and it was clearly evident that local community was in favour.
The extra funding announced by the minister means that should local people decide to support fluoridation, Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) have the resources to implement it. You have asked for my thoughts regarding this issue, perhaps I should clarify as a Government minister I will be backing Government policy." One wonders why the sudden and very unusual visit to Southampton, for an unelected quango to order the addition of fluoride into Southampton's water supply at a fluoride to water ratio of one part per million (Ippm) a ratio which was found, in Japanese medical research (Dr. Tsutsuis's study. Valerian, Val Perceptions "On the Toxic Nature of Fluorides" September/October 1995) to produce cancer in cells.
And (b) A proposed port tax on shipping coming into Southampton at a • time when the port is attracting more custom, ie large container ships and cruise liners.
A tax of such magnitude which if imposed will mean shipping lines going elsewhere resulting undoubtedly in unemployment, the closure and loss of many businesses affecting the overall welfare and prosperity of the city. JOHN HAYWARD, Southampton.
WHEN parliament allowed health authorities the power to decide to put fluoride into drinking water it bypassed the most obvious right of the people to have their supply as unpolluted as possible. It is one thing for the law to say what levels of contaminants may be accept-
able or tolerable when they occur naturally, but quite another to permit such things to be added.
Considerable attention has been given to additives in food capable of causing medical or behavioural problems. Yet here we have a highly suspect chemical being put into the most basic and vital food of all.
It may be of interest that Southern Water state that there will be no reduction in charges for those who will thus receive water of poorer quality.
G PAYNE, Southampton
Slick U-tum Jeremy
IT is interesting to see that the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test has now changed his mind after supporting the move to add fluoride to the city's drinking water.
Why has he made this U-turn I wonder? Could it be that he now realises he may lose votes otherwise? It is strange for someone to vote in favour of the move knowing that it would be the South Central Strategic Health Authority's final decision, and then to say afterwards he doesn't think it should have that power. He should have voted against it if he was concerned that the authority was unaccountable.
The only major party with two parliamentary candidates who are opposed to it are the Liberal Democrats. Local Lib Dem MPs Sandra Gidley and Chris Huhne are also strongly against. Labour MPs Alan Whitehead and John Denham are strangely quiet on this issue.
I am against the principle of trying to medicate one part of the community by subjecting everyone to fluoride in their drinking water, and will work closely with Hampshire Against Fluoridation to fight these plans.
There was a clear majority against adding fluoride to drinking water in the health authority's own consultation, and that has been ignored. It is an injustice and a completely undemocratic decision by a group of unelected individuals.
DAVID CALLAGHAN, Prospective Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton Test
IT IS heartening to read that certain groups of Southampton's citizens intend to petition the John Den ham Labour MP for Southampton with regards to fluoridation.
To what avail? I wrote to him, offering information regarding the scientific and medical research findings on the detrimental effects of fluoridation.
His reply dated June 10 2008 was: "No fluoridation scheme would go ahead unless there has been wide consultations, in which both proponents and opponents had been encouraged to participate, and it was clearly evident that local community was in favour.
The extra funding announced by the minister means that should local people decide to support fluoridation, Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) have the resources to implement it. You have asked for my thoughts regarding this issue, perhaps I should clarify as a Government minister I will be backing Government policy." One wonders why the sudden and very unusual visit to Southampton, for an unelected quango to order the addition of fluoride into Southampton's water supply at a fluoride to water ratio of one part per million (Ippm) a ratio which was found, in Japanese medical research (Dr. Tsutsuis's study. Valerian, Val Perceptions "On the Toxic Nature of Fluorides" September/October 1995) to produce cancer in cells.
And (b) A proposed port tax on shipping coming into Southampton at a • time when the port is attracting more custom, ie large container ships and cruise liners.
A tax of such magnitude which if imposed will mean shipping lines going elsewhere resulting undoubtedly in unemployment, the closure and loss of many businesses affecting the overall welfare and prosperity of the city. JOHN HAYWARD, Southampton.
WHEN parliament allowed health authorities the power to decide to put fluoride into drinking water it bypassed the most obvious right of the people to have their supply as unpolluted as possible. It is one thing for the law to say what levels of contaminants may be accept-
able or tolerable when they occur naturally, but quite another to permit such things to be added.
Considerable attention has been given to additives in food capable of causing medical or behavioural problems. Yet here we have a highly suspect chemical being put into the most basic and vital food of all.
It may be of interest that Southern Water state that there will be no reduction in charges for those who will thus receive water of poorer quality.
G PAYNE, Southampton
Slick U-tum Jeremy
IT is interesting to see that the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test has now changed his mind after supporting the move to add fluoride to the city's drinking water.
Why has he made this U-turn I wonder? Could it be that he now realises he may lose votes otherwise? It is strange for someone to vote in favour of the move knowing that it would be the South Central Strategic Health Authority's final decision, and then to say afterwards he doesn't think it should have that power. He should have voted against it if he was concerned that the authority was unaccountable.
The only major party with two parliamentary candidates who are opposed to it are the Liberal Democrats. Local Lib Dem MPs Sandra Gidley and Chris Huhne are also strongly against. Labour MPs Alan Whitehead and John Denham are strangely quiet on this issue.
I am against the principle of trying to medicate one part of the community by subjecting everyone to fluoride in their drinking water, and will work closely with Hampshire Against Fluoridation to fight these plans.
There was a clear majority against adding fluoride to drinking water in the health authority's own consultation, and that has been ignored. It is an injustice and a completely undemocratic decision by a group of unelected individuals.
DAVID CALLAGHAN, Prospective Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton Test
8 May 2009
Lymington Times
Fluoridation
SIR, — In all the years I have served the community of Totton as a town, district and county councillor, I cannot recall an issue that has angered so many local people as the decision of the strategic health authority to add fluoride to our water supply.
Every day, I receive literally hundreds of written representations insisting that the decision be reversed.
I believe everybody knows that the consultation process was a complete sham. They also have no respect for a decision taken by 12 unelected officials, only one of which lives in the area. The statement that prime minister Gordon Brown made: "Let local people decide," seems particularly shocking, when it is widely known that 75% of the population are against the plans, as are the vast majority of local councillors and MPs.
On this issue, I have agreed to submit a joint complaint, along with my local MP, Dr Julian Lewis, to the health ombudsman. Politicians of all colours must join together in common purpose when such vital issues of health and democracy are at stake.
Conn. David Harrison
25 Rushington Avenue,
Totton.
SIR, — In all the years I have served the community of Totton as a town, district and county councillor, I cannot recall an issue that has angered so many local people as the decision of the strategic health authority to add fluoride to our water supply.
Every day, I receive literally hundreds of written representations insisting that the decision be reversed.
I believe everybody knows that the consultation process was a complete sham. They also have no respect for a decision taken by 12 unelected officials, only one of which lives in the area. The statement that prime minister Gordon Brown made: "Let local people decide," seems particularly shocking, when it is widely known that 75% of the population are against the plans, as are the vast majority of local councillors and MPs.
On this issue, I have agreed to submit a joint complaint, along with my local MP, Dr Julian Lewis, to the health ombudsman. Politicians of all colours must join together in common purpose when such vital issues of health and democracy are at stake.
Conn. David Harrison
25 Rushington Avenue,
Totton.
Daily Echo
In my view
By Donald Smith of Southampton
Time to listen to the people
Could I venture to suggest that in the article by Olga Senior (In My View, April 22) "the facts on fluoridation", I think the word she required was "fantasies".
I have never heard such a pre-posterous argument put forward to support her so called facts.
According to her, the "fact" that every survey was against the use of fluoride and there were many, some organised by Strategic Health Authority itself, more than 70 per cent against, indicates that this was only the voice of the vociferous and therefore the majority who didn't vote were ergo in favour of its use.
Would I be right I wonder that if those survey results had been in favour by such a percentage she would have reversed her decision because, ergo, the majority were not in favour. Some hopes! She would have proclaimed its result from the rooftops, of that I am quite sure.
One aspect of fluoridation I have not seen mentioned is cost, checking on just the past five years of my water rates I find they have never gone up by less than six per cent and one of those years was more than eight per cent. Are they going to pro-vide this pollutant free? I think not; it will almost certainly become yet another excuse to increase costs.
One other disappointing aspect of this farcical debate is the political one. I understand that both of our MPs and a substan-tial proportion of Southampton councillors supported using fluoride.
Now bear in mind these are the people who eternally exhort us to use our democratic vote at election times, but it seems at other times, like this one, our vote doesn't matter.
As far as I have seen, in spite of the overwhelming opposition expressed, not one of these people has had the moral fibre to stand up and suggest that the will of the people should be respected and the unpopular decision on implementation of fluoride reversed.
I take eight different pre-scribed drugs per day in 13 dif-ferent tablets and insulin, nec-essary to sustain me.
Why should I have to take a totally unnecessary poison, that may not even be compatible, just because some irresponsible parents can't be bothered to see their under-five-year-olds clean their teeth?
And apparently it is only under-fives that are mostly affected, so we are talking about milk teeth anyway.
As a lad back in the twenties and thirties, we were taught at school that if we couldn't afford toothpaste, and we really could-n't in those days, use salt on the tip of our finger to clean our teeth. Not the best idea I admit, but it did work and I still have most all of my teeth, no false ones.
Since I could afford it I have always used good old Eucryl powder, a product originally made in Oakley Road, Southampton.
The one "fact" I do understand is even if fluoride guaranteed excellent teeth and we would all live to be 150, the people do not want it and that view is para-mount and should be respected.
Ian Murray, editor of the daily Echo is absolutely right in calling for a proper vote on the issue.
By Donald Smith of Southampton
Time to listen to the people
Could I venture to suggest that in the article by Olga Senior (In My View, April 22) "the facts on fluoridation", I think the word she required was "fantasies".
I have never heard such a pre-posterous argument put forward to support her so called facts.
According to her, the "fact" that every survey was against the use of fluoride and there were many, some organised by Strategic Health Authority itself, more than 70 per cent against, indicates that this was only the voice of the vociferous and therefore the majority who didn't vote were ergo in favour of its use.
Would I be right I wonder that if those survey results had been in favour by such a percentage she would have reversed her decision because, ergo, the majority were not in favour. Some hopes! She would have proclaimed its result from the rooftops, of that I am quite sure.
One aspect of fluoridation I have not seen mentioned is cost, checking on just the past five years of my water rates I find they have never gone up by less than six per cent and one of those years was more than eight per cent. Are they going to pro-vide this pollutant free? I think not; it will almost certainly become yet another excuse to increase costs.
One other disappointing aspect of this farcical debate is the political one. I understand that both of our MPs and a substan-tial proportion of Southampton councillors supported using fluoride.
Now bear in mind these are the people who eternally exhort us to use our democratic vote at election times, but it seems at other times, like this one, our vote doesn't matter.
As far as I have seen, in spite of the overwhelming opposition expressed, not one of these people has had the moral fibre to stand up and suggest that the will of the people should be respected and the unpopular decision on implementation of fluoride reversed.
I take eight different pre-scribed drugs per day in 13 dif-ferent tablets and insulin, nec-essary to sustain me.
Why should I have to take a totally unnecessary poison, that may not even be compatible, just because some irresponsible parents can't be bothered to see their under-five-year-olds clean their teeth?
And apparently it is only under-fives that are mostly affected, so we are talking about milk teeth anyway.
As a lad back in the twenties and thirties, we were taught at school that if we couldn't afford toothpaste, and we really could-n't in those days, use salt on the tip of our finger to clean our teeth. Not the best idea I admit, but it did work and I still have most all of my teeth, no false ones.
Since I could afford it I have always used good old Eucryl powder, a product originally made in Oakley Road, Southampton.
The one "fact" I do understand is even if fluoride guaranteed excellent teeth and we would all live to be 150, the people do not want it and that view is para-mount and should be respected.
Ian Murray, editor of the daily Echo is absolutely right in calling for a proper vote on the issue.
Hampshire Chronicle 7th May letters
Ignoring an inconvenient truth
SIR — Dr Bullock in his letter (Chronicle, March 26) is guilty of putting forward a spurious argument.
The doctor confuses the very necessary need of a trace element in our diet (correctly citing iodine deficiency as being a major cause of thyroid disease) with the intake of a very toxic element, fluoride.
This is not a trace element necessary for our health. While fluoridation of water supply is known to reduce the incidence of an unpleasant disease, it is one which is preventable by far less drastic methods.
It is a coincidence that Dr Bullock's letter should come so soon after we have had yet another example of a sham consultation on this so-called public health measure.
The investigating committee of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) approved water fluoridation for part of Southampton, unanimously. This particular consultation was run, as a fig leaf of democracy and at considerable cost to the NHS. By Act of Parliament a "consultation" was required and from the beginning it was stressed that it was never intended to be a referendum.
In the best traditions of Sir Humphrey in Yes Prime Minister, the careful selection of members of an enquiry can ensure that the desired conclusion is delivered.
The decision of the SHA would have been more convincing had some of the committee dissented. Unanimity only serves to support the idea that the decision was not in doubt from the beginning.
It is true that the study of fluoridation of the water supply has been advocated for over 40 years. Were fluoridation as safe and ethically acceptable, as it is purported to be, then why is further research still needed?
An inconvenient truth, often not mentioned, is that fluoridation of the public water supply has now been discontinued in a number of countries world wide.
Why is this?
Prof Richard Johns,
St Cross Road,
Winchester.
SIR — Dr Bullock in his letter (Chronicle, March 26) is guilty of putting forward a spurious argument.
The doctor confuses the very necessary need of a trace element in our diet (correctly citing iodine deficiency as being a major cause of thyroid disease) with the intake of a very toxic element, fluoride.
This is not a trace element necessary for our health. While fluoridation of water supply is known to reduce the incidence of an unpleasant disease, it is one which is preventable by far less drastic methods.
It is a coincidence that Dr Bullock's letter should come so soon after we have had yet another example of a sham consultation on this so-called public health measure.
The investigating committee of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) approved water fluoridation for part of Southampton, unanimously. This particular consultation was run, as a fig leaf of democracy and at considerable cost to the NHS. By Act of Parliament a "consultation" was required and from the beginning it was stressed that it was never intended to be a referendum.
In the best traditions of Sir Humphrey in Yes Prime Minister, the careful selection of members of an enquiry can ensure that the desired conclusion is delivered.
The decision of the SHA would have been more convincing had some of the committee dissented. Unanimity only serves to support the idea that the decision was not in doubt from the beginning.
It is true that the study of fluoridation of the water supply has been advocated for over 40 years. Were fluoridation as safe and ethically acceptable, as it is purported to be, then why is further research still needed?
An inconvenient truth, often not mentioned, is that fluoridation of the public water supply has now been discontinued in a number of countries world wide.
Why is this?
Prof Richard Johns,
St Cross Road,
Winchester.
7 May 2009
Daily Echo - Tapping in to the water dilemma
Tapping in to the water dilemma
IT seems the Strategic Health Authority neglected the needs of the most vulnerable people in society when they voted to impose fluoridation on us.
In order to protect babies and young children, fluoride levels should be near zero, so fluoridated tap water is totally unsuitable for making up baby bottle feeds.
Bottled water is not a suitable alternative as the mineral content may exceed safe levels, and some sources may also be contaminated with bacteria or uranium and chemicals leached from the plastic bottle. Also, bottles labelled as 'spring water', conjuring up images of pure mountain springs, may just be nothing more than filtered tap water! As most filtration systems do not remove fluoride, what are mothers supposed to do? Use boiled rainwater?
CAROL SCARBOROUGH, Southampton
IT seems the Strategic Health Authority neglected the needs of the most vulnerable people in society when they voted to impose fluoridation on us.
In order to protect babies and young children, fluoride levels should be near zero, so fluoridated tap water is totally unsuitable for making up baby bottle feeds.
Bottled water is not a suitable alternative as the mineral content may exceed safe levels, and some sources may also be contaminated with bacteria or uranium and chemicals leached from the plastic bottle. Also, bottles labelled as 'spring water', conjuring up images of pure mountain springs, may just be nothing more than filtered tap water! As most filtration systems do not remove fluoride, what are mothers supposed to do? Use boiled rainwater?
CAROL SCARBOROUGH, Southampton
6 May 2009
Dental danger of drugs
Using antidepressants in fluoridated areas substantially increases fluoride intakeDental danger of drugs
Last updated 14:51, Tuesday, 05 May 2009
Many of your readers will already be concerned about the proven consequences of water fluoridation , dental fluorosis.
This mottling and discolouring frequently seen as white patches or brown stains is noticeable on the teeth of many young people and children in West Cumbria. It is the only visible indicator of an excessive amount of fluoride in the body.
Though the damage to the teeth is obvious no effective research has been undertaken into the long term impact it will have upon health.
We have requested in vain for years that local health authorities test individual fluoride intake.
In the absence of any testing or information from the Strategic Health Authority we have advised local people to keep fluoride levels low by avoiding tea, fish and fluoridated toothpaste.
We would now add to that a group of medicines, SSRIs, which are commonly used to treat depression: Prozac, Paroxetine and Citalopram are some examples. It is inevitable in these times of difficulties and recession that many are accepting these medications to tackle their problems.
It is negligence on the part of the health bodies not to issue a warning that in fluoridated areas using them will substantially increase fluoride intake and impact upon current and future health.
More information about water fluoridation can be found on our website www.cumbrians-against-fluoridation.org.uk
DIANNE STANDEN
Cumbrians against Fluoridation
High St
Maryport
4 May 2009
Daily Echo
______________ Monday May 4, 2009
Campaigners continue fight against water fluoridation
ACTION group Hampshire Against Fluoridation is hold a third public meeting this Saturday.(9th May) Campaigners will be at Well Centre, part of Eastleigh Baptist Church in Well Place, Eastleigh, from midday until 6pm. Members of the public will be invited to sign the group's petition against plans to add fluoride to the water.
Petition organisers have already 8,000 signatures that they they want to present to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Caroline Place said that local councillors and MPs had been invited to the meeting.
She said: "We are holding other meeting to give the public a voice as they feel they have not been listened to."
Health chiefs plan to add fluoride to the tap water of almost 200,000 Hampshire residents after South Central Strategic Health Authority approved it as a way to improve children's teeth.
Two-thirds of Southampton will be affected as well as areas of Eastleigh. Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Anti-fluoridation protesters are continuing to collect donations for their fighting fund to launch a potential legal challenge to the SHA decision.
The SHA insists the consultation was carried out fairly and that fluoridation will benefit generations of children.
Campaigners continue fight against water fluoridation
ACTION group Hampshire Against Fluoridation is hold a third public meeting this Saturday.(9th May) Campaigners will be at Well Centre, part of Eastleigh Baptist Church in Well Place, Eastleigh, from midday until 6pm. Members of the public will be invited to sign the group's petition against plans to add fluoride to the water.
Petition organisers have already 8,000 signatures that they they want to present to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Caroline Place said that local councillors and MPs had been invited to the meeting.
She said: "We are holding other meeting to give the public a voice as they feel they have not been listened to."
Health chiefs plan to add fluoride to the tap water of almost 200,000 Hampshire residents after South Central Strategic Health Authority approved it as a way to improve children's teeth.
Two-thirds of Southampton will be affected as well as areas of Eastleigh. Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Anti-fluoridation protesters are continuing to collect donations for their fighting fund to launch a potential legal challenge to the SHA decision.
The SHA insists the consultation was carried out fairly and that fluoridation will benefit generations of children.
2 May 2009
Daily Echo
The causes of osteosarcoma are not known. Questions remain about whether radium, or fluoride, in drinking water can act as "environmental triggers" for increasing the incidence of the disease
1 May 2009
Dail Echo In my view by Royston Smith
Deputy leader Southampton City Council
Fluoride: Let me clarify my position
THE fluoride debate has now been raging for months. I am constantly asked in my capacity as prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen to clarify my position.
I am now receiving dozens of e-mails and letters from anti-fluoridation lobbyists, and feel ; that this article may be the quickest and most efficient way of answering the recurring question. Firstly, some of the campaigners have made accusations and suggestions that are simply untrue.
There are two sides to every story and occasionally - in the heat of battle - people take positions and assume that those that don't agree with their position must in some way have an ulterior motive. There is none. The health professionals believe that by adding fluoride to the water they will be improving the dental health of our children. That is an admirable ambition and we should applaud them for their determination and commitment even if we don't agree with them.
To clarify my position, I fundamentally disagree with the addition of fluoride to our water supply. I completely disagree with mass medication of any sort and I abhor having the choice of whether I want to use fluoride or not taken away from me.
How many people die from tooth decay? Is dental health so serious that the
decision has to be taken away from parents by the state? Will the Labour Government be introducing legislation that dictates what parents can feed their children next? We constantly say people should :: take responsibility for their lives and then the Labour Government takes it away from them. i
I spoke in the recent fluoridation debate in the Southampton council chamber. I spoke against the addition of fluoride to Southampton's water supplies and I voted against it. However, we were not successful at that time because a majority of councillors voted in favour.
People talk of politicians and their relevance. The Labour Government very skilfully gave the decision of whether fluoride should be added to our water to the Strategic Health Authority, thereby deflecting blame from themselves.In my opinion this was an act of political cowardice and further weakens our political process. For complete clarity: my Labour opponent at the next general election is in favour of adding fluoride to water in his constituency, I am not.
Fluoride: Let me clarify my position
THE fluoride debate has now been raging for months. I am constantly asked in my capacity as prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen to clarify my position.
I am now receiving dozens of e-mails and letters from anti-fluoridation lobbyists, and feel ; that this article may be the quickest and most efficient way of answering the recurring question. Firstly, some of the campaigners have made accusations and suggestions that are simply untrue.
There are two sides to every story and occasionally - in the heat of battle - people take positions and assume that those that don't agree with their position must in some way have an ulterior motive. There is none. The health professionals believe that by adding fluoride to the water they will be improving the dental health of our children. That is an admirable ambition and we should applaud them for their determination and commitment even if we don't agree with them.
To clarify my position, I fundamentally disagree with the addition of fluoride to our water supply. I completely disagree with mass medication of any sort and I abhor having the choice of whether I want to use fluoride or not taken away from me.
How many people die from tooth decay? Is dental health so serious that the
decision has to be taken away from parents by the state? Will the Labour Government be introducing legislation that dictates what parents can feed their children next? We constantly say people should :: take responsibility for their lives and then the Labour Government takes it away from them. i
I spoke in the recent fluoridation debate in the Southampton council chamber. I spoke against the addition of fluoride to Southampton's water supplies and I voted against it. However, we were not successful at that time because a majority of councillors voted in favour.
People talk of politicians and their relevance. The Labour Government very skilfully gave the decision of whether fluoride should be added to our water to the Strategic Health Authority, thereby deflecting blame from themselves.In my opinion this was an act of political cowardice and further weakens our political process. For complete clarity: my Labour opponent at the next general election is in favour of adding fluoride to water in his constituency, I am not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
