Water tests found excess fluoride BBC Film

Excess fluoride was put into a water supply by Severn Trent Water affecting customers in the Black Country, a report has found.

Lymington Times

Legal action holds up fluoride consultation 'bias' investigation
LEGAL action has put on hold a complaint of bias against NHS chiefs who agreed fluoride plans that will affect the drinking water of 8,000 people in Totton.
New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and county councillor David Harrison both went to the health ombudsman alleging the consultation was one-sided and ignored residents' opposition.
But a Southampton resident's bid for a judicial review into adding the controversial chemical to water to Southampton and surrounding areas by 2010 — which could affect about 100,000 people in total — has
stopped an investigation for now.
The ombudsman's office wrote to Dr Lewis that it would be "inappropriate for the ombudsman to undertake an investigation until after the conclusion of any court proceedings".
Dr Lewis said: "Of the two methods of tackling this problem, the Judicial review is undoubtedly more important. It would be valuable if the ombudsman eventually condemns the flawed and biased consultation staged by the SHA.
"However, the intervention of the court, if successful, would be a far bigger setback for the pro-fluoride
fanatics." A decision on whether the court case will go ahead is expected in August.
Coun. Harrison added: "It must be increasingly obvious to the SHA that it cannot proceed without public consent. Even if the legal challenge fails, it will still have to overcome a ruling by the ombudsman."
Southampton Primary Care Trust's scheme was approved In February by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), despite a Mori poll showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
A 15,000-name petition was delivered to Downing Street calling on
the decision to be reversed and among people who responded to the consultation, 72% were against.
The bid by Geraldine Milner for a judicial review said fluoridation should not have been approved because public opinion was against it, opponents' arguments were not properly considered, and scientific evidence was misrepresented.
The SHA argued fluoridation was key to reducing above average child tooth decay in Southampton and said there was no evidence of any harm caused beyond occasional mottling of teeth, known as fluorosls.

Daily Echo - Letters

Silence of Mr Denham
WE all await, with very keen anticipation, what local MP John Denham proposes to actually do with regard to the fluoride in tap water issue.
Perhaps he will announce something in the Daily Echo!
His boss, Gordon Brown, has said that local people should decide the issue. The formal consultation resulted in 72 per cent of those expressing an opinion as against. John Denham has said that the plans should be put on hold. He seems to understand that there has been a great democratic wrong, empowering a non-elected and unaccountable Strategic Health Authority to decide the issue.
Indeed, just this week he has announced plans designed to make this and other quangos face greater levels of scrutiny by elected councillors.
Mr Denham knows the clock is ticking. We move ever nearer the proposed implementation in 2010. He needs to step in and stop the proposals from going ahead. He has the authority. The public are expecting him to take action, not just voice an opinion as if he is simply an interested commentator.
We look forward to hearing from you very soon, Mr Denham,
CLLR DAVID HARRISON, Leader, New Forest District Liberal Democrats.

Don't poison my water please
I REALLY do NOT want my tap water to be contaminated by a poison. It is outrageous that this toxic chemical (fluoride) is to be forced on us. Do we live in a democracy? I think not.
So what sort of a system is it? Communism? Dictatorship? Think about it.
A Bassett Resident, who cleans her teeth!

Barry Cockroft C.D.O. visits Halton to see war on tooth decay

Barry Cockroft, Department of Health chief dental officer, visits Halton to see war on tooth decay
Jul 29 2009 by Adrian Short, Runcorn and Widnes Weekly News
A TOP dental expert has visited Halton to see what progress has been made in the fight against rotten teeth.
Barry Cockroft, Department of Health chief dental officer, observed how cash was being spent in Halton, which has poor dental health compared with other areas.
The average Halton five-year-old has two decaying teeth compared to the English average of 1.47.
An NHS Halton and St Helens spokesman said that an “ambitious programme targeting schoolchildren” is ongoing in the borough.
During his trip Mr Cockroft was showed how “dental capacity” had been increased and a scheme to distribute 30,000 tubes of toothpaste and fluoride toothbrushes to be given to the borough’s children. He also saw how fluoride varnishing had been increased.

No mention of fluoridation!

Q: Why does Grand Rapids (USA) need so many dentists?

PORTLAND, OREGON:
Water Status: Never fluoridated
2008 Population: 550,396 (US Census Bureau Pop. Fact Finder)
Number of Dentists: 629 (AnyWho Yellow Pages, current listing)

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Water Status: Fluoridated since 1945 (first in US and world)
2008 Population: 193,627 (US Census Bureau Pop. Fact Finder)
Number of Dentists: 924 (AnyWho Yellow Pages, current listing)

Q: Why does Grand Rapids need so many dentists?


Here too in fluoridated Birmingham there are far more dentists than comparable non fluoridated areas.

Daily Echo letter

MPs must make a stand on fluoride
UNELECTED members of the Central Health Authority intend to go ahead with poisoning our water supply with their chemical fluoride. Even if a referendum should prove once and for all that the majority of Southampton citizens vote against it.
The Echo, which supports the public call for a referendum, quotes the statement by their manager, Keith McNamara, as sheer arrogance. I'm sure the citizens will agree with the Echo entirely. McNamara and the rest of this bunch of quan-goes should be kicked out of their unelected office, for showing complete disregard for the wishes of the majority There is no room in this country for dictators. A referendum has been called for and must now take place, the democracy of our country and the very fabric of our British way of life is now being challenged. I call on our two MPs, John Denham and Alan Whitehead, to stand up and be counted, to stop sitting on the fence and to support the wishes of their voters.
To ignore them would be sheer folly. I for one will not pay water rates with this chemical added. Wake up before it's too late.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.

Daily Echo - Olga knows best

Evidence is in support of fluoridation
AS Daily Echo readers will be aware the SHA carried out a public consultation to assist the SHA board in making a decision on whether to instruct Southern Water to add fluoride to the water supply in Southampton and parts of south west Hampshire.
This consultation followed a formal request from Southampton City Primary Care Trust and was carried put in line with the relevant legislation.
Legislation which was debated in Parliament by MPs and passed in a free vote. The legislation makes no provision for a referendum.
During the consultation more than 10,000 responses were received plus 2,000 in-depth telephone interviews carried out. An independent detailed report on all views received was submitted to the SHA board to assist board members in their decision making process. These results have been widely reported.
The consultation highlights the challenge of discussing public health issues in the age of the Internet where people need to try and evaluate a huge range of complex scientific information available on water fluoridation, some of which is clearly inaccurate and has often been reproduced by local campaigners.
You only need to look at some of the postings by readers on the Daily Echo website which talk of conspiracy theories to see the difficulty of using the Internet as a reliable source of information on important scientific issues.
To be clear, the results of the telephone survey showed no majority view on this issue therefore it is simply not the case that the SHA is ignoring public opinion. What it did show was a quarter of those people who opposed water fluoridation did so because of a fear that it would damage their health, but successive research studies have found no association between water fluoridation and systemic illness. I The survey also found that 69 per cent of respondents had little or no knowledge of fluoridation.
The Nuffield Council of Bioethics published a report in November 2007 which said: "Stewardship is not exercised simply by following the public vote, especially where issues involve complex scientific evidence."
In weighing up the arguments for and against water fluoridation the board was satisfied that water fluoridation at 1 ppm is a safe and effective way to tackle tooth decay in Southampton, and that the health benefits outweighed all other arguments against water fluoridation. j
The SHA, having followed the law as it has been laid out by Parliament, arrived at this conclusion and remains confident that the decision taken remains in the best interest of the health of the local population and something which will benefit future generations in the area.
Fluoridation is supported by the British Dental Association, British Medical Association and World Health Organisation, organisations whose primary purpose is to help improve the health of people.

Fluoride Overdosing Brignorth and Wolverhampton

01 Jul 2008 For 4 weeks Dimmingsdale works Overdosing of fluoride in treated water leaving works affecting 28,743 Brignorth and Wolverhampton





This is what the SCAHA said during the Southampton consultation.

6.4 What happens if the water company gets the fluoride dose incorrect? When fluoride is added to the water supply, it is done so under carefully controlled conditions. Safety is a primary concern and the governments Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies, 1987, sets out strict criteria for water fluoridation. Water companies that run fluoridation schemes use sophisticated equipment to continuously monitor the level of fluoride in the water and there is an excellent safety record.

Water suppliers already routinely add fluoride to the water using robust systems which are well monitored. Although there is one major tank for fluoride chemical storage at the treatment works, a proportion is drawn off into a smaller tank for daily use and then carefully pumped into the mains water at the correct level. This reduces the chance of accidents and gives an additional safety mechanism.

Referendum will finalise the issue of fluoride

Referendum will finalise the issue of fluoride
THE importance of the debate underway in Hampshire on whether to permit mass medication of the water supply to Southampton and surrounding areas is underscored today.
This paper reveals (page 7) that the debate is being watched closely by other authorities who have their own plans to introduce fluoride to water supplies.
These have been put on hold while the Southampton issue is taken through the courts and any subsequent actions.
This is not surprising. So heated has been the debate here in Hampshire over whether it is right to add the chemical to water supplies and how much of the population is behind the scheme that other authorities realise they will face similar battles if they do not approach the issue carefully in their own areas.
At present Hampshire awaits a decision on whether there is to be a judicial review of the process that determined Southampton should receive fluoride. The Strategic Health Authority is waiting with £400,000 of health service money to fight an action to overturn the plan. This is a waste of time and money.
A simple decision to hold a binding referendum will finalise this issue once and for all.
Why won't the SHA take such a decision and show the rest of the country the best course of action to follow before fluoride should be introduced anywhere.


Let's make fluoride an election issue
SO we now know that the South Central Area Health Authority will take no notice of a referendum on fluoridation of the water supply.
To all intents and purposes it seems to be running as a petty dictatorship.
It seems to have forgotten that it is there to serve the public not to rule it. It is an unelected body.
We now need a clear statement from the opposition par coming general election, one of the first actions of their government will be to abolish the SCAHA and sack all of its board members. So come on you Conservatives and Lib Dems etc. Let's have your pledge in print that your party will take immediate action against the SCAHA and its board if you come to power. CHRIS BARKER, Southampton.

Lax thinking...
MAY I be so bold as to suggest that a strong laxative be added to the water at the strategic health authority, as a small minority may be constipated.
It may also help them to think more clearly
BRIAN H RENDLE, Hythe.

Health bosses in north-west postpone consultation scheme

HAMPSHIRE: Health bosses in north-west postpone consultation scheme
Protests put fluoride plans on back burner
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@daiiyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
PLANS to fluoridate other parts of the UK have been put on hold because of the campaign against the scheme in Hampshire.
Health bosses have postponed a consultation on a scheme to fluoridate parts of the north-west to wait for the results of a legal challenge against the decision to add the chemical to water supplies in and around Southampton.
The High Court is currently considering an application for a judicial review of South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) move to give the controversial scheme the green light. The Hampshire scheme is the first in the country to be approved since a change in the law over how fluoridation is introduced. A Southampton woman has been granted legal aid to lodge the legal bid, because she believes health bosses should not have approved the plans because of public opposition.
Papers have been filed by her solicitors and the SHA, and a senior judge is currently considering if there is a case to answer.
A decision is expected imminently. If a review goes ahead and the decision is ruled unlawful, it could mean plans to add fluoride to the water supplies of almost 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams have to be J scrapped.
The SHA has set aside £400,000 to fight the challenge, saying it has done nothing wrong. It has always insisted it met or exceeded all its legal requirements during the 14-week public consultation last year.
The pending legal action has already been given as a reason for the Government not intervening in the fluoride row, after campaigners collected 15,000 names .on a petition urging action, and the health ombudsman not investigating the SHA. Now it means other similar schemes have been put on the back burner.
Primary care trusts in the north-west were due to be asked to consider fluoridation plans this summer, but that has now been put back until at least the autumn, and possibly next year.
In a statement, NHS North West's chief executive Mike Farrar said costs of potential schemes in the area, which could cover Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria, have "increased significantly".
"Should permission be granted, the process may take several months and it is prudent for NHS North West to wait for the outcome before committing significant resources on this matter," said Mr Farrar.

Water Fluoridation Prof.Roger Masters on Alex Jones Tv Water Fluoridation 1\4

[edit] Academic career
Roger Masters has made deep and wide-ranging contributions in social science. The central concern of his career has been how biological circumstances influence individual behavior and social outcomes.

Masters began his career in political philosophy as a student of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. His dissertation and subsequent book (Masters 1968) helped demonstrate the importance of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in modern thought. He translated and edited influential new editions of Rousseau’s works (Masters 1964a, 1978), and later co-edited the only complete English edition of his Collected Writings (Masters and Kelly 1990). The role of natural science in early political thought is also addressed in books on Machiavelli and Leonardo da Vinci (Masters 1996, 1998).

Masters’ investigation of how nature influences human societies led to significant contributions in the field of international relations (Masters 1964b, 1967) as well as human ethology and sociobiology (Masters 1983, 1989, Masters and McGuire 1994). This work included pioneering laboratory experiments in political communication (Masters 1981, Masters et al. 1987). Later, Masters’ research on biology and human behavior led to new epidemiological evidence regarding the behavioral impacts of neurotoxins, first on the consequences of lead poisoning (Masters, Hone and Doshi 1998), and then on the links between a common method of water fluoridation to elevated blood lead and a higher prevalence of violent crime, substance abuse and learning disabilities (Masters and Coplan 1999, Masters et al. 2000).

Masters’ work has pioneered the application of natural science discoveries to the social sciences and government policy. He was a founding member and serves on the Executive Council of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, and leads an ongoing consultancy on biology and politics for the U.S. Department of Defense in collaboration with anthropologist Lionel Tiger and neuroscientist Michael McGuire. He served on the 2006-07 “Get the Lead out of Vermont” task force, and is frequently consulted by other government agencies or activists concerned with the behavioral consequences of environmental toxins.

Daily Echo Letters

Fluoridation: What about democracy!
WELL, now we all know what Messrs Denham and Whitehead think of democracy, they don't believe in it!
Consultation. I might point out to Messrs Denham and Whitehead that we have already had two consultations, or what passes nowadays for consultations?
In a 14 week 'consultation' 72 per cent said no to fluoridation of our water supply. In a separate telephone survey 38 per cent also said no to fluoridation.
The Strategic Health Authority, an anonymous and unelected Quango, twelve people I believe, decided that they knew best and totally ignored both 'consultations'. I would like to point out that Quangos are appointed by politicians.
What makes Mr Denham think that in my future consultation, if the vote still goes against them, the SHA will actually take any notice of the result.
What has happened to make Denham and Whitehead choose to ignore their leaders' state-" ment that the will of the people should be taken into account.
Still, never mind, there is a referendum, or as some call it, a general election, coming up next year. We can all show what we think of Messrs Denham and Whitehead then.
I do note that both our MPs state that referendums are pretty expensive. So are MPs it seems, very expensive in fact, but we have to have them!
MR A CAWS, Southampton.

ECHO readers (July 13) will have been struck by the irony of John Denham's remarks about referenda being expensive, especially given the huge amount of money already wasted on promoting fluoridation.
However, since the statement by the Department of Health that government policy was that fluoridation "should not be introduced unless the. local population was shown to be in favour", claimed the authority of the health minister in person, and since the local population is manifestly NOT in favour, I have pointed out to Mr Denham that no elaborate process is needed.
Since the SHA flagrantly disregarded that stated policy, all that is required is for health minister to make an announcement that the SHA decision is invalid, a move which can be accomplished in a few minutes, and involves no expense.
G PAYNE, Southampton.

Who’s Really Guarding Your Water Supply?

A Special Interview with Dr. Bill Osmunson
By Dr. Mercola

Click title to hear interview or above to read transcript.

Lymington Times - Health chiefs have vowed that their decision to add fluoride to Totton's water supply will not be overturned

Health chiefs have vowed that their decision to add fluoride to Totton's water supply will not be overturned despite Hampshire County Council agreeing to look into the possibility of a referendum.
The measure to fight child tooth decay, which is targeted at Southampton, will affect about 8,000 Totton residents if it comes into force in 2010 due to the layout of the pipes and will mean an increase in fluoride from its current level of 0.08 parts per million to one part per million.
The decision was unanimously made by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) in February after proposals from Southampton Primary Care Trust despite 72% of residents stating they did not want it.
At a meeting of the full county council on Thursday in last week, Totton south and Marchwood member David Harrison proposed that a public vote on fluoride should be taken.
He said: "The Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that local people should decide the issue. Clearly then,
some sort of public vote should take place so that this can happen."
In noting the motion, the county council referred it for consideration to the health overview and scrutiny committee which will assess the logistical, cost and legal implications of making a request for a public referendum and whether it would be possible for such a request to be carried out at a sub-regional level. The committee is due to report back in September.
Leader of the council, Coun. Ken Thornber, said: "We have already made our views very clear on this matter and do not support fluoridation. Although we understand the wish to tackle tooth decay rates among children in specific Hampshire communities, the case for widespread fluoridation has not been made scientifically.
"Our concern remains that there are still too many unanswered questions surrounding the effects of fluoride, not only on otherwise healthy teeth that may develop a degree of fluorosis as a result, but also on the body as a whole.
"We do need to engage with the strategic health authority on the possibilities for a future referendum or public ballot, but any decision in support of such action should be deferred until we have had a chance to first look carefully at several issues.
"We would not want to jeopardise the strong arguments we intend to make as part of our witness statement for the judicial review of the strategic health authority's final decision, nor would we wish to fully support a referendum without knowing the legal position of such a move.
"Similarly it's important to carefully examine how any public vote could be conducted so that the process has integrity and that there is public confidence in the result. We would also wish to clarify what costs there might be to the public and what resources might be needed."
He added that an actual referendum would need to be the subject of a specific bill approved by Parliament and at this stage it was unclear what powers the government has to ask for a referendum in a sub-region.
Coun. Harrison added: "I'm pleased with this outcome. Almost all members seem to agree that the plans should not proceed without public consent. This latest development will add to the pressure on the strategic health authority to put their plans on hold."
However a spokesperson for the health authority told the 'A&T': "Having followed due process and arrived at this conclusion, the SHA is confident that the decision taken remains in the best interest of the local population in the fight against childhood tooth decay.
"The authority is not aware of any additional evidence or reason that would justify the decision to fluoridate the water in Southampton to be reversed."

Health regulators will not examine controversial decision

HAMPSHIRE: Health regulators will not examine controversial decision
Ombudsman: we won't look at fluoride verdict
newsdesk@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
Health regulators will not scrutinise the controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies. The health service ombudsman says it won't examine concerns over South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) public consultation on the scheme because of a potential legal challenge going through the courts. But they left the door open to carrying out an investigation if the judicial review fails to answer campaigners' complaints.
‘Biased’
New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Totton county councillor David Harrrison jointly asked the regulators to examine the way the SHA carried out last year's consultation, fore giving the scheme the goahead in February
They claimed the authority had been "hopelessly biased" in its advice to residents on the arguments surrounding the plans to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes. The politicians are also unhappy because they believe health bosses ignored public opinion by approving fluoridation for parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. The Daily Echo has backed campaigners calls for a referendum on the scheme, giving residents the final say on the plans.
Dr Lewis said the ombudsman's decision is disappointing, but not a major setback.
"Of the two methods of tackling this problem, the judicial review is undoubtedly more important," he said. "It would be valuable if the ombudsman eventually condemns the flawed and biased consultation staged by the SHA.
"However, the intervention of the court, if successful, would be a far bigger setback to the pro-fluoride fanatics."
More than 10,000 people responded to the 14-week consultation, with 72 per cent of those from the affected area saying they were opposed to the plans.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent were against fluoridation compared to 32 per cent who said they supported it.
The SHA has always insisted it met or exceeded all its legal obligations in carrying out the consultation, and they took people's views on board before approving the plans.
Guidance said bosses also had to consider scientific evidence before agreeing or rejecting a scheme.
The ombudsman said that, although the issue is one it might normally investigate, it would be inappropriate to do so until the conclusion of any court proceedings.
A high court judge is currently considering whether there is a case to answer against the SHA.
But the ombudsman added that it would assess a further complaint if the judicial review leaves any unanswered questions.
Councillor Harrison said: "It must be increasingly obvious to the SHA that it cannot proceed without public consent. Even if the legal challenge fails, it will have to overcome a ruling by the ombudsman."

Australia - Fluoride sickness claims rubbished

Fluoride sickness claims rubbished
Andrew Mathieson
23rd July 2009 03:34:51 PM
Residents from across the region are contacting State Government complaining fluoridation of the water supply is making them sick, according to Department of Human Services. TheY have complained of problems including nausea, bloating, urgent and frequent urination, fatigue, increased thirst, aching limbs, poor sleep and itchy skin or rashes over the past two weeks. But department spokesperson Bram Alexander dismissed their fears that fluoridation was making them sick. “I wouldn’t have thought there would be an issue because fluoride has been in Melbourne for over 30 years,” he said. “It is our advice that, in terms of hyper-sensitivity and allergic reaction, we are not aware of any clinical or scientific evidence that is credible. “Just because they have contacted us to say they think something might be going on, doesn’t mean it is.” Mr Alexander said traces of fluoride were a “naturally occurring substance”, which had always been in Geelong’s water supply at low levels. But a research officer for a lobby group fighting fluoridation in the region backed up the complaints. Phillip Robertson said health authorities were putting their “head in the sand”. “Their only answers are that it is quite safe,” he said. “They cannot simply admit people are becoming sick because they would have to stop fluoridation immediately.” The registered poison entered Geelong’s water on June 22 after years of protest from Barwon Association for Freedom from Fluoridation. Victorian and national health authorities claim small doses help protect teeth against decay. Mr Robertson expected the number of sufferers to further swell as more people built up allergies and toxic reactions. He said about “a couple a day” were reporting ailments potentially due to fluoridation. “This is consistent with research that has been in many countries overseas where about four or five per cent of the community drinking or bathing in the water becomes ill,” Mr Robertson said. “I would say we are still scratching the surface of the first initial reaction.” Mr Robertson, a naturopath, said many of his patients had left Melbourne because fluoride was “making them sick”.

Manchester - Fluoride plan hit by delay

Fluoride plan hit by delay
Amanda Crook
July 23, 2009
PLANS to add fluoride to the water in Greater Manchester have been delayed because of a legal challenge to a similar proposal elsewhere.
Health bosses have decided to wait and see whether campaigners opposed to a fluoridation scheme in Southampton win a judicial review there before deciding whether to hold a public consultation into the issue here.

Primary care trusts - PCTs - were due to be asked to consider detailed plans for a local scheme over the summer but this will now be delayed until at least the autumn but possibly until next year.

Mike Farrar, chief executive of NHS North West, which is researching the scheme and would hold a public consultation on the plans on behalf of the PCTs, says costs of a possible scheme have 'increased significantly'.

In a statement to the NHS North West board he said: "Following the decision of NHS South Central to proceed with a fluoridation scheme in Southampton, local opponents have sought permission for a judicial review.

"At the time of writing the outcome of this application is not yet known. Should permission be granted, the process may take several months and it is prudent for NHS North West to wait for the outcome before committing significant resources on this matter."
Ruling
The High Court is expected to make a preliminary ruling on whether there is a case to answer in Southampton any time now.

If campaigners meet the criteria to allow the case to go ahead it is expected to be listed late this year and NHS North West will wait for the outcome of the case before taking the next step.

When the Southampton case finishes, all 24 of the north west's PCTs will be sent the updated plans. which are expected to include details of four possible schemes. Last year a report suggested it would cost between £35m and £102m to set up as scheme for adding fluoride to the water system in parts of the region but all of them include most of Greater Manchester.

Health chiefs have identified four options: to add fluoride to the entire north west water supply (80 water plants); water supplied to Greater Manchester, Merseyside and parts of Lancashire (21 plants); Greater Manchester, Merseyside, parts of Lancashire and Cumbria (21 plants); 18 plants which supply most of Greater Manchester and Merseyside and parts of Lancashire and Cumbria.

The schemes would cost between £2m and £6.5m a year to run.

The British Dental Association say putting fluoride into some water supplies 'could dramatically reduce the levels of tooth decay and give children a decent start in life'.

But anti-fluoride campaigners say it is potentially dangerous mass medication. They oppose a public consultation, claiming people are being misled.

Daily Echo

Will of people must prevail.
THE issue of whether or not fluoride is added to tap water is of huge significance. It is about how we wish to order society. It is a fundamental test. Do we live in a democracy or have we given up on the idea?
I have always entertained the notion that important decisions should be made by those that we elect. If those who exercise power over us fail to deliver, we can get rid of them.
I had thought that a consultation was an exercise in finding out what people think. I didn't expect that the Strategic Health Authority (SNA) undertaking a consultation would ever expect to get away with promoting only one side of an argument.
Worse still, when it was clear that most people expressing an opinion were against the proposals, they decided to go ahead anyway. Now, they are busy telling us that their wishes will prevail, no matter what a future further ballot, opinion poll or referendum might say.
It seems that our government gave the SHA the power to determine this issue. The fact that only one of the 12 unelect-ed board members lives in the area to receive the fluoride makes a mockery of the assurance from Prime Minister Gordon Brown that local people will decide.
I am a member of a town council, a district council and Hampshire County Council. , On all three levels of government we debated the issue. I and other elected councillors, who represent thousands of people, decided that we should not support adding fluoride to tap water. The SHA have given no greater weighting to this than they would have to any individual making a view known.
Where detailed questions and concerns have been raised about the proposals, the SHA have often failed to address them.
The consultation process was flawed and will be challenged. The proposals themselves may in fact be illegal. The fact that the water companies have required an absolute indemnity from any legal claims arising from fluoride added to tap water, might just offer a clue about the significance of the risk.
You and I, the taxpayer, are picking up the bill for this sham of a consultation. You will also be paying for the fluoride to be added to tap water. You will in turn be picking up the bill for any legal costs and successful claims made by individuals demonstrating harm from fluoride in the tap water.
Can we tolerate this? Absolutely not! Join groups like Hampshire Against Fluoride, write to your MPs, send notice that you will .refuse to pay for tap water that has fluoride added to it. The will of the people must prevail.

MP Julian Lewis's speech in the House

In the time available to me tonight, I want to touch on a principle, a policy and a tribute. The principle is that the fluoridation of water should not be carried out without the general consent of the people affected by it. In an unusual, and quite positive, cross-party alliance, the Liberal Democrat councillor, Councillor David Harrison, who represents Totton in my constituency, and I, as the Conservative MP, have been working together to try to involve the ombudsman in exposing the corruption of a flawed consultation process that completely ignored the fact that 72 per cent. of the people who responded to it were against that kind of mass medication.

I will say no more about the specifics of that case, however, because the matter is now subject to judicial review and I do not wish to trespass on that territory. That is why I shall talk only about the principle. The problem was first highlighted in March 2005, when the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 were being debated in the upper House. Earl Howe, the shadow Health Minister, drew the House's attention to regulation 5, which was passed into law. It states:

"A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority are satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding."

The noble Earl Howe asked what this was supposed to mean, and pointed out:

"When we debated Section 58 of the 2003 Act, the Minster emphasised that:

'no new fluoridation scheme would go ahead without the support of the majority of the local population determined by local consultations conducted by strategic health authorities in England and the National Assembly in Wales'."

Earl Howe emphasised the words "majority of the local population" and went on to observe:

"I see nothing in the order which fulfils that undertaking."—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 8 March 0005; Vol. 670, c. 709.]

Neither do I. However, even if 72 per cent.—or 100 per cent.—of the people oppose mass fluoridation of a water supply, as long as the strategic health authority can satisfy itself that the health arguments outweigh the opinions of the people affected, their opinions can be ignored. Only the courts and the ombudsman can do something about this; MPs evidently have no influence, and we must await the results of the case to which I have alluded.


Barbara Keeley (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Worsley, Labour)

Dr. Lewis raised the tricky question of fluoridation, which also arises for us in the north-west. He covered the issues well, noting that it is difficult for MPs to influence the situation because the decisions are taken out of our hands.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

There is an active all-party group on fluoridation, which has exposed some practices and the way in which area health authorities have tried to drive fluoridation forward. Should not the House have a further opportunity to review the use of fluoridation as an alternative to good dental practice? It is not acceptable, and that should be said loud and clear.

Barbara Keeley(Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Worsley, Labour)

That is an interesting thought. I have a dental surgeon friend, who probably would not agree, but the point is worth making.

Barbara Keeley(Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Worsley, Labour)

That is an interesting thought. I have a dental surgeon friend, who probably would not agree, but the point is worth making.

Daily Echo - Heads we win, tails you lose.

Heads we win, tails you lose.
WELL done John Denham and Alan Whitehead for opposing a fluoridation referendum.
The local residents have already voted on a consultation instigated by the SHA, not by us. The SHA should now abide by that result and not hide behind a section of law that allows them to play 'Heads we win, tails you lose!'.
Being local MPs, please look at Statutory Instrument 2005 No.921, Section 5, Outcome of Consultation and ask yourselves, and us, how and why this section should be rewritten. The current wording makes a mockery of any vote or consultation as it allows the 'Shahs' of England to override all opposition.
JWE POPE, Southampton.

OSTEOSARCOMA CASE STUDYSERUM FLUORIDE AND SIALIC ACID LEVELS IN OSTEOSARCOMA

Fluoride 42(2)157April-June 2009
OSTEOSARCOMA CASE STUDYSERUM FLUORIDE AND SIALIC ACID LEVELS IN OSTEOSARCOMA
Osteosarcoma is a rare malignant bone tumor disease presenting painfulswelling that occurs most commonly in children and young adults. Variousproposed etiological factors for osteosarcoma are ionizing radiation, family historyof bone disorders and cancer, chemicals (fluoride, beryllium, and vinyl chloride),and viruses. The status of fluoride levels in serum of osteosarcoma is still not clear,although recent reports indicate there may be a link between fluoride exposure andosteosarcoma. Glycoproteins and glycosaminoglycans are an integral part of bone,and prolonged exposure to fluoride for long duration has been shown to causedegradation of collagen and ground substance in bones. The present study wasplanned to analyze serum fluoride, sialic acid, calcium, phosphorus, and alkalinephosphatase levels in 25 osteosarcoma patients and to compare them with those oftwo 25 age- and sex-matched groups of patients: (1) a group with bone-formingtumors other than osteosarcoma and (2) a control group with musculo-skeletalpain. Fluoride levels were analyzed by the ion selective F electrode, and sialic acidwas analyzed by Warren’s method. The mean serum fluoride concentration wassignificantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma compared with the other twogroups. The mean value of serum fluoride in patients with other bone formingtumors was approximately 50% of the osteosarcoma group; however, it wassignificantly higher than in the musculo-skeletal-pain control group. Compared tothe control group, serum sialic acid concentration was also significantly higher inpatients with osteosarcoma as well as in the group with other bone-formingtumors. There was, however, no significant difference in sialic acid levels in thepatients with osteosarcoma and those with other types of bone-forming tumors.These results showing a higher serum fluoride level in osteosarcoma patients thanin the two other groups suggest a role of fluoride in the etiology of osteosarcoma.Authors: Sandhu R, Lal H, Kharb S.Correspondence: Department of Biochemistry, Pt B D Sharma University of Health Sciences, HNo 1447, sector-1, Urban Estate, Rohtak 124001, Haryana, India.e-mail: simmikh@rediffmail.comKeywords: Alkaline phosphatase; Osteosarcoma; Sialic acid; Serum fluorideSource: Biol Trace Elem Res 2009;24 April.[Epub ahead of print 2009, DOI 10.1007/s12011-009-

Australia - Government guilty after fluoride overdose

Government guilty after fluoride overdose
20 Jul 09 @ 09:59am by Joel Gould
PINE Rivers residents may be able to sue the State Government for the over fluoridation of the water supply in May, Queensland Council for Civil Liberties president Michael Cope said.
An investigation by the International Water Centre slammed SEQwater’s performance regarding the incident, that occurred due to malfunctions at the North Pine Water Treatment plant. SEQwater was found to have breached the Water Supply Act and Water Fluoridation Act, both of 2008. Natural Resources, Mines and Energy Minister Stephen Robertson put SEQwater ``on notice’’ for the breach but Mr Cope pointed out that was tantamount to the government criticising the government. ``At the end of the day it (SEQwater) is a statutory authority owned by the government. It is the government,’’ Mr Cope said. Of larger concern to Mr Cope and of far greater interest to Pine Rivers residents is the government’s attempts to grant itself immunity from litigation in such a case. Section 94 of the Water Fluoridation Act states: ``A person does not have a civil right or remedy against a public potable (drinkable) water supplier in relation to the fluoridation of a public potable water supply under this act.’’ Mr Cope said the spirit of the section was to try and stop people from suing just because fluoride had been put in the water. But that was different from an overdose of fluoride that could lead to poisoning, he said. ``It may well be that a lawyer could work their way around that section,’’ Mr Cope said.

``The immunity the government have given themselves may actually be very limited. That section may well be read down in a situation like this where the evidence is that there has been a massive overdosing. ``If somebody can convince the court that what they have done is negligent then the government should be held liable.’’ Mr Cope said it was a matter of principle that the government should not be giving itself immunity from litigation in these circumstances. ``The government should be just as liable as any other citizen if it’s negligent. It is wrong for the government to put itself above the law,’’ he said.

Echo letters

Better ways of offering us fluoride I AGREE that a referendum is a fairer way to decide if the Southampton area should be fluoridated than a vote by 12 unelected SHA members. Care would need to be taken to ask an unbiased question which does not lead or influence the person voting. It should be something like "Do you want fluoride to be added to your tap water supply?" Tick 'Yes' or 'No'. "Sometimes a biased question has been asked such as 'If fluoride could help children's teeth would you be in favour?'" However, the idea of adding a chemical to tap water to bring about changes in the human body is just not ethical. If even one person does not want to be forced to drink this chemical, no matter what anybody else wants, then it is not acceptable to force them to drink it. There are very few illnesses where a doctor can insist a patient must have treatment forced upon him. In France fluoride is added to salt, but non-fluoridated salt is available so people still have the choice. Fluoridated school milk is available but parents would be asked whether or not they give their permission. There are many ways to help children's teeth, but medicating everyone is not the answer. A WILLS, Ruislip. Poll us over fluoride with our water bills SOUTHAMPTON'S two MPs show little support for democracy in their stance on the issue of fluoridation, if all they can suggest is for the SHA to again promote the pro-fluoridation view. Most households facing the introduction of fluoride into drinking water receive an invoice at least annually from Southern Water. A tear-off slip on the invoice could ask those at the address to indicate Yes or No to fluoridation. This should not be too costly a polling device and would probably bring in a larger response than that achieved in local council elections. A safeguard would be for all replies to be sent to a neutral source for counting! Jim Horrocks, Hill Lane, Southampton.

Daily Echo - 'Sheer arrogance'

'Sheer arrogance'
Health chiefs say they will plough ahead with fluoridation regardless of another public vote EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds!
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
That's the message from health chiefs who say they will plough ahead with plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies regardless of whether the public get another chance to air their views.
Bosses at South Central Strategic Health Authority say it has already taken on board the opinions of county residents during a mass consultation -and another huge scale vote would not alter the outcome.
The Daily Echo is backing growing calls for a referendum on fluoridation for Southampton and surrounding areas, because campaigners argue the people's voices were ignored.
Today they branded the SHA "arrogant" for refusing to reconsider the decision in face of fierce opposition.
They were backed by one MP who claimed health chiefs were "in denial" over public opinion.
More than 10,000 people responded to the consultation, with 72 per cent of those living in the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against it.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent opposed fluoridation compared to 32 per cent in favour.
Last week, Eastleigh Borough Council voted to demand the SHA holds a public poll, and is bound by its result, while several MPs have also said they believe it is the best way to resolve the issue.
But SHA campaigns manager Kevin McNamara insists the decision has already been made, adding: "We've done the opinion poll on this issue and the board would not reconsider its decision on the outcome of another one.
"A consultation has taken place and gathered a broad range of public opinion, and the board had to take into account all those points in making its decision. Any future polls or surveys would not alter the result."
"We're absolutely comfortable that at that stage it was a fair representation of public opinion in Southampton."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman John Spottiswoode said the SHA's stance shows it is not interested in the voices of the people whose lives it is affecting. "It just confirms what we thought, that they are just sheer arrogant and not going to listen to what the people say," he said. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said it is highly unethical to medicate people without their consent. The SHA is effectively saying they know better than anyone else, and won't listen to the research which shows it doesn't work and is damaging." Southampton North MP Sandra Gidley said the SHA is being "defensive" because it has failed to make the case for fluoridation. "The SHA has always been in denial over public feeling because it's quite clear to me that when the responses started coming in and were so heavily weighted in favour, they then produced their own poll," she said. "But even that showed that among those who had an opinion, people were against fluoridation so there's always been an agenda there. "To me it seems the only way of having proper clarity about public opinion is to ensure people have a vote and have access to the facts."

Daily Echo

'Sheer arrogance'
Health chiefs say they will plough ahead with fluoridation regardless of another public vote EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds!
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
That's the message from health chiefs who say they will plough ahead with plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies regardless of whether the public get another chance to air their views.
Bosses at South Central Strategic Health Authority say it has already taken on board the opinions of county residents during a mass consultation -and another huge scale vote would not alter the outcome.
The Daily Echo is backing growing calls for a referendum on fluoridation for Southampton and surrounding areas, because campaigners argue the people's voices were ignored.
Today they branded the SHA "arrogant" for refusing to reconsider the decision in face of fierce opposition.
They were backed by one MP who claimed health chiefs were "in denial" over public opinion.
More than 10,000 people responded to the consultation, with 72 per cent of those living in the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against it.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent opposed fluoridation compared to 32 per cent in favour.
Last week, Eastleigh Borough Council voted to demand the SHA holds a public poll, and is bound by its result, while several MPs have also said they believe it is the best way to resolve the issue.
But SHA campaigns manager Kevin McNamara insists the decision has already been made, adding: "We've done the opinion poll on this issue and the board would not reconsider its decision on the outcome of another one.
"A consultation has taken place and gathered a broad range of public opinion, and the board had to take into account all those points in making its decision. Any future polls or surveys would not alter the result."
"We're absolutely comfortable that at that stage it was a fair representation of public opinion in Southampton."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman John Spottiswoode said the SHA's stance shows it is not interested in the voices of the people whose lives it is affecting. "It just confirms what we thought, that they are just sheer arrogant and not going to listen to what the people say," he said. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said it is highly unethical to medicate people without their consent. The SHA is effectively saying they know better than anyone else, and won't listen to the research which shows it doesn't work and is damaging." Southampton North MP Sandra Gidley said the SHA is being "defensive" because it has failed to make the case for fluoridation. "The SHA has always been in denial over public feeling because it's quite clear to me that when the responses started coming in and were so heavily weighted in favour, they then produced their own poll," she said. "But even that showed that among those who had an opinion, people were against fluoridation so there's always been an agenda there. "To me it seems the only way of having proper clarity about public opinion is to ensure people have a vote and have access to the facts."

The Dangers Of Fluoride

Sugar may prevent tooth decay in children

Sugar may prevent tooth decay in children
Last Update: 7/14 6:16 am
Researchers are developing a new strategy aimed at preventing tooth decay among children.
*It has been reported that as many as 28% of U.S. children between two- and five-years-old are affected by tooth decay.
A new study conducted by the University of Washington in Seattle, found that tooth decay could be significantly reduced after treating children with xylitol, a sugar substitute commonly found in chewing gum and hard candy.
The number of decay-causing bacteria is reduced by xylitol as it affects the bacteria's ability to produce lactic acid, which damages teeth.
''This study gives us a lot of optimism about an agent that's relatively inexpensive, easy to apply, and safe to prevent tooth decay,'' said Dr. Paul Casamassimo, chief of dentistry at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Ohio.

*This is despite the USA being mainly fluoridated for years.

Fluoride & The Pineal Gland

Julian Lewis MP Press Release

Dr JULIAN LEWIS MP (NEW FOREST EAST)
Shadow Defence Minister

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A OAA
PRESS INFORMATION
Friday, 17 July 2009

NO ACTION FROM OMBUDSMAN BEFORE JUDICIAL REVIEW ON FLUORIDE

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has decided not to mount an investigation into the way the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) conducted its inquiry into fluoridating the water supply in Southampton and elsewhere locally pending the outcome of legal proceedings for judicial review.
The Ombudsman was responding to a formal complaint jointly submitted by New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Totton County Councillor David Harrison. The text of the letter to Dr Lewis from the Ombudsman's Director of Customer Service and Assessment, James Johnstone, follows. Mr Johnstone wrote: "If the judicial review does take place in due course, it may be that your concerns will be resolved. If, however, once the proceedings have ended, you do have remaining concerns, not dealt with in the proceedings, you may complain again to the Ombudsman and we will assess your complaint."
Commenting later Dr Lewis said: "Of the two methods of tackling this problem, the judicial review is undoubtedly more important. It would be valuable if the Ombudsman eventually condemns the flawed and biased consultation staged by the SHA. However, the intervention of the Court, if successful, would be a far bigger setback for the pro-fluoride fanatics."
Cllr Harrison added: "It must be increasingly obvious to the SHA that it cannot proceed without public consent. Even if the legal challenge fails, it will still have to overcome a ruling by the Ombudsman."

ENDS
Contact: COLIN SMITH on 023-8081 4817
Parliamentary Assistant to Julian Lewis MP

Lymington Times

Call to county council to back flouride referendum
ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigners are trying; to force a referendum on whether the chemical should be added to Totton's drinking water in an NHS plan affecting 190,000 people.
Opponents have not given up since Southampton Primary Care Trust's scheme was approved in February by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), despite a Mori poll showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
Totton councillor David Harrison was due to put a motion to Hampshire County Council on Thursday calling on members to back a referendum. They cannot order one but their support for the idea would add pressure on health chiefs to consider it.
Opponents to fluoride fear it has harmful side effects, but the SHA argues it is key to reducing above average child tooth decay in Southampton. Totton is included because of the layout of the pipes.
Coun. Harrison said: "When the prime minister visited Southampton he clearly said that this is an issue for local people to decide. I agree with him. There is no better way of settling the matter once and for all than by holding a referendum.
"If Hampshire County Council supports my motion, it will be impossible for the government and the strategic health authority to ignore." In Totton 8,000 people will be affected by the scheme if it goes ahead next year.
Liberal Democrat Coun. Harrison has also joined with the Conservative New Forest East MP, Julian Lewis, in submitting a joint complaint to the health ombudsman, alleging the consultation was biased.
Dr Lewis said: "I strongly welcome this initiative and urge the county council to back it. The SHA is riding roughshod over people's wishes.
"Even the Labour MPs for Southampton, who support fluoridation in
principle, have called for it not to go ahead in the absence of public support. A referendum can and should be organised to resolve the matter once and for all."
The original three-month consultation cost £166,440, according to the SHA. The costs could be even higher if a referendum is held or the consultation is re-run should Dr Lewis and Coun. Harrison's complaint of bias be upheld.
The call for a referendum opens up yet another front in the anti fluoride battle which already features a bid by a Southampton woman for a judicial review. Hampshire County Councillor voted last year voted to object to fluoridation.
Prime minister Gordon Brown's reported comments that fluoridation should be "up to local people" was claimed by junior health minister Ann Keen to be a reference to the SHA's legal duties to consult and ascertain opinion before deciding.

Daily Echo - Let voters decide on Fluoride

Hampshire: One council demands a public poll on tapwater treatment while county stops short, pending a court hearing
Let voters decide on Fluoride
GIVE the people the choice.
That is the message to health chiefs from a Hampshire council backing the Daily Echo's calls demanding a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate water supplies in the county. Eastleigh Borough Council last night voted overwhelmingly to urge South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to hold a public poll - and be bound by its results. The move came just hours after Hampshire County Council reaffirmed its opposition to fluori-dation, but stopped short of calling for a referendum, for now. County council leader Ken Thornber said he wants to delay voting on the motion to avoid prejudicing the possible judicial review of the decision.
Eastleigh's councillors last night backed the calls from campaigners angry at the way they believe public will has been ignored over the plans to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to almost 200,000 Hampshire homes. During last year's consultation, the SHA received more than 10,000 responses, with 72 per cent of those from people in the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - saying they don' t want fluoridation. A separate phone survey of 2,000 residents found 38 per cent opposed fluoridation, compared with 32 per cent in favour. But in February, the SHA's board voted unanimously to give fluoridation the green light, saying they had been convinced by scientific evidence showing it will improve dental health.
Cllr Wayne Irish, who proposed the Eastleigh council motion, told the Daily Echo it is essential for democracy that the people are now given a binding vote on the subject. "This unelected quango, who don't even live in the area, have not listened to people at all through the consultation and that's why it is vital that we have a referendum," he said. "It is not right to give enforced medication, people should have the right to choose." The SHA has consistently insisted it met or exceeded all its requirements under the legislation governing how fluoridation can be introduced.
But many remain unhappy with the decision. A Southampton woman has lodged an application for a judicial review of the SHA's considered by the courts.
Last month, Hampshire Against Fluoridation delivered a 15,300-name to Downing Street, urging Prime Minister Gordon Brown to step in to force the SHA to put its plans on hold. And Southampton's Labour MPs Alan Whitehead and cabinet member John Denham - both supporters of fluoridation - said the scheme should be delayed in the face of public opposition.
New Forest East MP Julian Lewis, Romsey and Southampton representative Sandra Gidley and Eastleigh MP Chris Huhne have all gone further and said the pub-lie must be given a vote on the issue.
The county council motion backing those calls was proposed by Totton councillor David Harrison, who with Dr Lewis has already submitted a complaint to the health services ombudsman about the "biased" nature of the consultation.
"Local people should decide the issue, which as it stands they clearly cannot," he told yesterday's full council meeting. "If the SHA are successful then it will not stop there. Every one of you councillors will be seeing an uprising of residents saying they don't want fluoridation." He said given the results of the public consultation, councillors should challenge SHA's decision with "all the democratic means available".
During the consultation, Hampshire, East1eigh ,Test Valley Borough and New Forest District councils all opposed fluoridation. Cllr Thornber said: "We do need to engage with the Strategic Health Authority on the possibilities for a future referendum or public ballot, but any decision in support of such action should be deferred until we have had a chance to first look carefully at several issues." He said the legal position of a potential referendum needs to be examined before the council votes on it, how much it would cost, who would pay, and how it would be conducted.

Have your say about Health and Social Care in Southampton.

Have your say about Health and Social Care in Southampton.
Come to the AGM and open evening of
The Southampton Local Involvement Network (S-LINK)
On Tuesday 21st July 2009 7-9 pm at the Novotel, West Quay Rd, Southampton.
Refreshments from 6.30 pm
Guest Presentation by Andrew Mortimore, Director of Public Health and Social care.
Buffet - Live music

You have to telephone 0845 601 5849 and let them know you are going - so they can cater for the right number.

Dr John Rengen Virapen, Whistleblower of the Psychopathic Pharmaceutical Industry, Speaks Out

Daily Echo letter

Democracy is dead, pure and simple
Clean and pure water is a basic human right.
This is what we are told when charities ask for our help to provide this in under developed countries.
Yet it seems that we are now to be denied this against our will in our own country Fluoride is not a necessity for the health of the majority of the population of this area. If it is needed by a minority of the people - children in particular - this should be provided by the medical and dental profession on the basis of need.
Only this week we have been told that to name escaped prisoners would be against their human rights. The decision by the SHA to introduce fluoride to the water supply of a law abiding public is against our human rights. Surely we also have a democratic right to a vote on this decision. As we are required to pay for our clean, pure water supply if that water supply is no longer pure we will reserve the right to withdraw our payment for this.
If enough people withdraw payment maybe the authorities will think again. Democracy is dead in this country
RAM and GRAHAM WHYTE, Southampton

Free milk left a sour taste for me at school
In reply to C Jordan's letter I personally wish free school milk had been banned when I was at school as I hated having to drink it, and at that stage preferred water. It was certainly a waste of public money to allocate free milk to me, and like many others I suspect I like to be free to choose what I drink, and what enters my body.
However I also think that C Jordan is right in questioning whether the introduction of more dental services would be a more sensible solution, and I have already raised the issue of whether any improvement in dental health in fluoridated areas could be attributed to increasing the number of dentists.
Also it appears that the people of Hamble will be shortly benefiting from another dental surgery.
What I personally feel is that the people opposed to fluoridation are a diverse group, containing people of many different political stances.
I also feel that a referendum is a good idea, and do not think this would set any dangerous precedents. It appears from what I can make out that is the first instance in this country of the application of the new law which gives the Health Authority the power to determine whether or not to fluoridate a water supply. Surely when a new law is applied for the first time and the opposition is as widespread as this has been, it is sensible I feel to review the effectiveness of the new law.
MALCOLM CLARKE
Leigh Road
Eastleigh

Daily Echo

SOUTHAMPTON: Pressure mounts for referendum
Councils to vote on fluoride poll
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve8dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - daiiyecho.co.uk
TWO local authorities could be set to add their voices to the growing clamour for a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water.
Hampshire County and Eastleigh Borough councils will this week vote on motions demanding South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) holds a public poll on the plan.
There have been increasing calls for a referendum on fluoridation as campaigners say the people have been ignored over the plans to add the chemical to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes.
If they pass the motions at meetings on Thursday, the authorities would join Hampshire MPs Julian Lewis, Sandra Gidley and Chris Huhne in calling for the public to be given a vote.
Southampton's Labour MPs Alan Whitehead and Cabinet member John Denham have both said fluoridation should be put on hold because of widespread opposition, but do not believe a referendum is the right way to decide the issue.
More than 10,000 people gave their views during last year's consultation, with 72 per cent of respondents in the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - opposed.
In a separate phone survey of 2,000 residents, 32 per cent backed fluoridation compared to 38 per cent against it.But the SHA board unanimously approved fluoridation, saying it had been convinced by scientific evidence showing it will improve dental health.
Both Hampshire and Eastleigh councils, along with New Forest District and Test Valley Borough councils, voted not to support fluoridation when they debated it during the consultation. The county council motion has been put forward by Totton councillor David Harrison, who with Dr Lewis has also jointly submitted a complaint to the health services ombudsman claiming the SHA was "biased". The SHA has always insisted it met or exceeded all its legal obligations during the consultation.
"When the Prime Minister visited Southampton he clearly said that this is an issue for local people to decide. I agree with him," said Cllr Harrison. "If Hampshire County Council supports my motion, it will be impossible for the Government and the Strategic Health Authority to ignore." The Eastleigh motion calls on the SHA to hold a referendum "and abide by the results".

Echo Comments

SINCE South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) voted to approve fluoridation for Southampton, along with parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, there have been claims that public opinion was being ignored on the subject
More than 10,000 people had their say during the 14-week public consultation last year, with 72 per cent of responses from those in the affected area opposing the scheme.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 people, 38 per cent said they were against fluoridation, compared to 32 per cent in favour of it.
The SHA insists it followed the legal guidelines required of it before making its decision, but campaigners now argue the only fair way of allowing it to go forward is if there is a majority in a public vote. Those calls have been backed by some of the area's high-profile MPs and councillors, but others - namely Southampton's two Labour MPs - have argued it is not practical or appropriate.
In Saturday's News Review in the Daily Echo Jon Reeve looked at the viability of a referendum on the subject,
Below are some of the comments it evoked from the Daily Echo website.
Southampton's two New Labour MPs are obviously slavishly backing the SHA, which is secretly implementing this lousy rightwing government's agenda,
So like well trained parrots they keep on repeating that referendum is not practical and rest of the bull on sovereignty of the parliament.
But the hypocrites did not think of that while promising us referendum on the EU constitution during last election.
Oh well they did not fulfil that promise either did they?
Paramjit Bahia. Southampton
I have to laugh at all the people who are obsessed with homeopathic amounts of fluoride in water yet are happy to dose themselves up with alcohol and other poisons by the litre and not even think about the ludicrous dichotomy of their position.
Me? I drink alcohol, I consume all sorts of additives and I'm happy to add fluoride to the list because it's just one tiny insignificant chemical among the thousands I already consume.
I am healthier and will probably live longer than any of my unfortunate ancestors yet I am surrounded by people who want to panic about everyday life but aren't sure what to panic about.
I guess fluoride in water is as good as anything. Next week it might be the artificial addition of sodium chloride into most foods ...and has anyone actually looked at what pringles are made of?
I wonder how many fluoride panickers happily sit in front of the telly stuffing any kind of fast food into their gobs without thinking twice? duh.
Andy, Locks Heath
You may be happy doing all that Andy, but where your argument falls flat on its face is ignoring the fact that you can choose whether or not to eat Pringles etc, but you can't choose your water supply.
Jenjo, Southampton
Absolutely agree with you Jenjo, I make the choice for me and my family to eat and live as healthily as possible and if others choose not to that their choice, and that's what it comes down to CHOICE.
Lisa99
Sadly, Andy, I have a vibe that you are being antagonistic towards anyone that has a weakness for a certain food or drink - What authority can police what a little bit of what we fancy does us good.
The sad fact of life is we no longer sit by our old log fire and ruminate the ills of this little old world - BUT eventually human kind must take stock of itself and then it will sort the wheat from the chaff - god I feel a religious feeling coming upon me!
goard, Southampton
Dr Hardy Limeback is the head of the Department of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto and the President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research.
Once a leading promoter of fluoride in public drinking water, he has since become an opponent of fluoridation. He claims that Canada currently spends more effort on treating dental fluorosis than treating cavities. He also reports lower cavity rates in areas where there is no fluoridation.
steve7676, Lima, Ohio

Hampshire: Minister refuses to back calls for referendum on water issue

Denham says no to public fluoride vote
By Matt Smith
matt.smith@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
SOUTHAMPTON MP and Cabinet minister John Denham has refused to hack calls for a public vote on whether fluoride should be added to Hampshire tap water.
The newly promoted Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said a referendum, which is supported by the Daily Echo, was not the way forward.
He said more "effective opinion polling" was needed rather than a vote that could open the floodgates for similar polls on every "controversial issue".
But the MP for Itchen said health bosses needed to prove they had public support to add fluoride to the tap water of nearly 200,000 homes in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams or scrap the scheme.
More than 10,000 people had their say during the 14-week public consultation last year, with 72 per cent of responses from those in the affected area opposing the scheme.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 people, 38 per cent said they were against fluoridation, compared to 32 per cent in favour of it.
Mr Denham, who had already written to the strategic health authority (SHA) urging it to put its decision on hold, said: "I've never disguised the fact that I'm personally in favour of fluoridation but there are some issues where you can't proceed until you have got public confidence." Of referenda, he said: "I don't say they should never happen but I'm not keen on them.
"They are pretty expensive and if you do it on one issue you will be under pres-
sure do it on every single controversial issue."
"I prefer at the moment to keep the pressure on the SHA to pause their plans for implementation and make renewed efforts to win public confidence for this. I think if they do that there maybe be many much cheaper and easier ways, through effective opinion polling and so on, to establish public support and that's where they should put their efforts for the moment."
The SHA insists it followed required legal guidelines before making its decision, but campaigners now argue the only fair way of allowing fluoridation to go forward is if there is a majority in a public vote. Those calls have been backed by some of the area's high-profile MPs and councillors
Hampshire Against Fluoridation has already collected more than 15,000 names on a petition calling on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to step in and force the SHA to reconsider its decision.

Why are so many dentists so ignorant of the facts about fluoridation?

Why are so many dentists so ignorant of the facts about fluoridation?

A letter sent by a dentist to an MP with these qualifications BDS.,LDS.,DDPH, MA, claimed that he had studied fluoridation in considerable detail for many years.
In his letter he wrote.
"Outside this country, natural water fluoridation occurs in very many parts of the World, in some, the concentration is well above this level and as far as I know, no harm to the health of people or animals consuming this water has been reported."

Even a brief search will find UNICEF reporting:

"in Khadaubujurg village of Dhar district, as it contained fluoride in excess of permissible limits. Here too children suffer from fluorosis. Santosh, 11, walks with great difficulty. Rangita, a little girl has her legs and arms badly bent and affected. Madan, who is slightly older, is already suffering from advanced stage of fluorosis."
Rest assured I have informed the MP by sending him horrific pictures of Indian villagers crippled with fluorosis. I also wrote to the dentist but no reply so far.
Bill

100% Fluoridated Ireland

Survey reveals Irish dental habits
10th Jul 2009
Over two-thirds of Irish people do not visit the dentist on a regular basis, according to a new survey by Landsdowne Marketing on behalf of Wrigley's Orbit Complete.
The research reveals that only 32% of Irish people over 30 visit the dentist every six months, while 16% confess to going less than every two years. When it comes to which of the sexes is most likely to visit the dentist on a regular basis, women take the lead, with a conscientious 42% stating they visit the dentist every six months compared to 35% of men.
Aside from the lack of regular dental check-ups, the population's oral care routine at home leaves a lot to be desired, with 36% of people polled saying they have never used dental floss and 14% saying they would only floss if they had a dental appointment coming up. Only a meagre 11% of Irish people claim to floss after each meal.
The findings also show that there appears to be a direct correlation between poor dental habits and tooth decay, with 61% of Irish people over 30 claiming to have lost at least one adult tooth in their lifetime and, alarmingly, over one-third (38%) of people have lost more than three adult teeth.
The research also suggests that people are less likely to visit the dentist the worst their dental health gets - 40% of people who have lost more than three teeth admitted to visiting the dentist less often than once a year.
When it comes to fighting plaque we fare a little better in our oral care habits, with % of people questioned saying they know what plaque is. One in 10 of us say that we chew sugarfree gum to help keep plaque at bay and over half claim to floss or brush or use mouthwash to stop the build-up of plaque. In addition, frequent flossers are more likely to have their adult teeth, with 14% of people who floss after each meal saying they have a complete set of teeth.
Commenting on the survey, Dr Tiernan O'Brien said that it is evident from these results that Irish people need to take a more active role in maintaining good oral care habits to prevent problems such as gum disease and tooth decay.

Daily Echo

IT'S not often us Brits get asked what we really think. We get to vote in national, local and European elections every few years, and in the meantime our views might be gathered for an opinion poll or focus group.
But rarely are we given the chance to put our cross in a box on a specific issue.
If campaigners have their way, that could change in Hampshire.
Since South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) voted to approve fluoridation for Southampton, along with parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, there have been claims that public opinion was being ignored on the subject.
More than 10,000 people had their say during the 14-week public consultation last year, with 72 per cent of responses from those in the affected area opposing the scheme.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 people, 38 per cent said they were against fluoridation, compared to 32 per cent in favour of it.
The SHA insists it followed the legal guidelines required of it before making its decision, but campaigners now argue the only fair way of allowing it to go forward is if there is a majority in a public vote. Those calls have been backed by some of the area's high-profile MPs and councillors, but others - namely Southampton's two Labour MPs - have argued it is not practical or appropriate. So how feasible an idea is it, and would it be worthwhile? Graham Smith, professor of politics at the University of Southampton, said that while single-issue public votes are rare, they are not unheard of. Because of the way the law works, they are never legally binding, but can send a powerful message.
To fluoridate or not to fluoridate: a public vote could overthrow the SHA's decision to add the chemical to our water. A vote could be carried out through a postal ballot, online, through phone polling or text messaging, or a combination of all of them, but it would cost.
The SHA spent almost £25,000 on its 2,000 people survey, and although polling companies said they could not guess at amounts because of the different options available, all said a larger vote would be "expensive".
But for any vote to have legitimacy, it is important it is done properly.
"The less professional it is the less people will know about it and the lower turnout, so the lower the legitimacy of it," said Professor Smith.
"We don't have a history of referenda in this country- it's not something used very often because the Government sets its stall in parliamentary sovereignty and nothing else should detract from that.
"We have seen votes on whether we should join the European Union, and on setting up Scottish and Welsh assemblies, but they have always only been advisory, although the Government said it would follow the will of the people.
"But anyone can run an advisory referendum, it's just how can you make sure everyone who legitimately can vote, can vote?
"How would you check people aren't voting six times, and people aren't coming down from Basingstoke or somewhere else to vote?
"Any public vote would send a signal, and there are examples of where just the threat of a referendum has led to policy change."
There has only been one time when the whole of the UK was given a vote on a single subject, in 1974 when the country was asked if it wanted to stay a member of the European Economic Community.
Since then, mere have been votes on the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, regional assemblies, the future of Northern Ireland, the creation of mayors in London and other major cities, and congestion charging.
But there-are signs that could change. "Switzerland and the USA have initiatives, where it goes to a ballot if there's enough support for something, but in this country we're very behind in this sort of public involvement," said Professor Smith.
A similar system to that in some American states would mean if ten per cent of the population feel strongly enough about an issue, they could ask for a public vote on it.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation has already collected more than 15,000 names on a petition calling on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to step in and force the SHA to reconsider its decision. And Professor Smith said the nature of the decision on fluoridation, and who made it, makes a vote more relevant.
"This is clearly an example where the legitimacy of a referendum is increased because it's not a national policy being dictated by a democratically elected authority," he said.
"We've got this quango who are making this decision on scientific evidence without a systematic public voice - they're a bunch of technocrats making a decision almost in political isolation, and that's a reason for a referendum."