Daily Echo - Everyone should have a say

Everyone should have a say.
David Callaghan prospective Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test.
ONE of the many things that have angered all of us opposed to the plan to add fluoride to Southampton's drinking water is that the decision was made by unelected officials.
Members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority board, who made the decision to fluoridate the city's water, are either paid staff or are given their role as non-executive directors by the NHS Appointments Commission.
In other words there is no opportunity for local people to have a say in who runs their health services, and of course, no way of stopping these unelected people from doing whatever they want.
Southampton Liberal Democrats are totally opposed to the proposal to add fluoride to drinking water. We also have policies for the way local health services are run that would make it unlikely a decision like this could be made without public support.
First of all we would scrap strategic health authorities which are expensive, unnecessary and undemocratic.
We would then set up elected health boards to replace primary care trusts (PCTs). This is important because it was a request from Southampton City PCT in 2005 that prompted the strategic health authority to first look at fluoridating Southampton's water.
These new elected health boards would not be able to ignore a public consultation which showed 72 per cent of people opposed to having fluoride in their tap water because they would be voted out.
So in Southampton each person who has a vote would get the chance to choose who they want to see running their primary care services such as GP surgeries.
Elected health boards would also take over the PCT role of commissioning hospital services. This gives them huge influence over hospitals and might, you never know, stop them raising car park charges again and again as has happened at Southampton General Hospital.
It is also Liberal Democrat policy to give local councils more power to scrutinise health authorities, and this would be another check on hospital bosses raking in millions from people who need to park their car when they are visiting a sick relative.
Health service managers have shown they cannot be trusted to apply common sense and to listen to local people - we need to give everyone a chance to have their say.

Daily Echo - Make your fluoride view plain

Make your fluoride view plain

CAMPAIGNERS have challenged the Prime Minister to make it clear if Hampshire residents should have the final say over plans to fluoridate their water, or admit the public consultation was a farce.
Gordon Brown has restated his belief decisions on fluoride should be made locally, but refused to step into the row over whether the views of people living in the affected area should have been binding.
Anti-fluoride activists have hit out at his comments, saying the Labour leader should say plainly if he thinks health bosses were right to Ignore public opinion in approving the plans, affecting nearly 200,000 people in and around Southampton.
The Daily Echo has backed calls for a referendum on the plans after 72 per cent of respondents to last year's public consultation who live in the affected areas said they don’t want fluoride in their water
Earlier this year, the PM gave hope to opponents of fluoridation just days before South Central Strategic Health Authority gave the green light to the scheme, when he said the decision should be up to local people.
But speaking to the Daily Echo during his party's conference in Brighton, he ducked the debate over the decision, which is now to be examined by Britain's high courts in a judicial review.
"I don't think you'd expect me to get involved in it," he said.
"The Government has spelt out the benefits of fluoridation, but we also understand there are local sensitivities and people have got to be able to make their decisions locally."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman, John Spottiswoode, who is standing for the Green Party on an anti-fluoridation ticket against Cabinet member and Southampton Itchen MP John Denham at the next general election, said the PM's words are "inadequate".
"It's just too vague," he said. "The legislation was all passed around the basis it would go ahead only if local people were in favour of it and agreed with it.
"The SHA should never have progressed with the scheme once it was clear a majority of people were against it.
"Gordon Brown has said this sort of thing in the past, that it's a local decision, but what that actually means isn't clear.
"The fact is, no one on the SHA board lives in the affected area, so how is that local people making the decision?
"It should be that the results of the local consultation are binding, and that's what he should say, otherwise the local consultation is pointless."
Mr Spottiswpode added campaigners have been left angered because they have had no official response to a 15,000-name petition they delivered to Downing Street in June, calling on the PM to force the SHA to rethink its decision. Although he does not want to. step into the row, Mr Brown's comments to this paper in February form part of the legal case against the decision to approve fluoridation.
Lawyers for Southampton woman Geraldine Milner argue they are just one example of ministers saying the public must be in favour of adding fluoride to the water before it can actually happen.
Speaking to the Daily Echo when he and the Cabinet visited Southampton, Mr Brown said: "It's up to local people.
"I happen to think it's been a success in helping people, but everybody has got their views and that's the purpose of local consultation. It's important you have a balanced debate."
Jon Reeve

Brush up

......The most recent addition to my homemade beauty and hygiene routine is homemade toothpaste. There are certain things I don't want in my toothpaste. One is sodium lauryl sulfates. This is what makes toothpaste foamy and is also what is used to clean garage floors. The second would be saccharine, an artificial sweetener and known cancer causing agent.

I will also gladly pass on fluoride. This one is controversial I know, but fluoride has been associated with increase cancer risk, birth defects, impaired immune function, changes in bone structure and strength, inhibits key enzymes, suppressed thyroid function and is also banned in many countries. As my friend Jay says, "When there's doubt, there is no doubt". Here is more on fluoride.........

Fluoride in Water, Heath Effects and Dangers

Daily Echo - Ignored her? I've met this lady!

Ignored her? I've met this lady!

ANNAPeckham (Letters, September 17 'Ignore us at your peril') alleges I have not responded individually to her letters concerning fluoridation.

It is true that I have written to every constituent who has contacted me on this issue with standard updates as the fluoride debate went on. However I also met personally with Ms Peckham in Parliament to discuss fluoridation. At that meeting I told her and other campaigners that I would be calling on the Strategic Health Authority to put their decision on hold due to the level of public opposition that has been voiced both during and after the SHA's official consultation period, while a proper and independent review of the consultation was carried out.

I absolutely understand that, while the judicial review of the SHA's decision is going on, fluoridation remains an emotive issue for many.

However, I hope you would agree that to say I have 'ignored' Ms Peckham is not a fair or accurate characterisation of my contact with her or other campaigners.

ALAN WHITEHEAD MP.

Comment from Anna

He may have met me but it doesn't alter the fact that he has never sent an individual reply to my letters. I have never had a personal reply from him addressing the particular issues I have written to him about - just two photocopied standard letters during the whole campaign, one turning up out of the blue a few months after I originally wrote to him. Therefore I am correct to state that "Alan Whitehead has not responded to any of my letters with an individual reply just a photocopied standard letter that others too have received". It is a fact and something I have thought was a poor way to treat a constituent. By contrast, every other MP in the area has responded individually to their constituents' letters. He is right to say it is an emotive issue but more importantly, because it is an undemocratic decision that affects thousands of local people, it is vital people can address their concerns through their MPS and receive a personal reply.

Anna

Fluoridation - Good for teeth, CANCEROUS for your body 1-3

Anti-fluoride crusader taps up Green Party in bid to become MP

Anti-fluoride crusader taps up Green Party in bid to become MP
24th Sep 2009
A leading anti-fluoride campaigner is standing for Parliament in the next General Election in a move to halt a scheme to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply.
John Spottiswoode has led the fight to stop the controversial plan to add fluoride to the city's water supply since the idea was first mooted.
Now, the chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation wants to turn the vote into the referendum on fluoridation and will challenge government minister Labour MP John Denham for his place in Parliament.
He has been selected as the Green Party candidate for the Southampton Itchen seat at the next general election, which must be held by 3 June 2010.
He will also come up against Southampton City Council deputy leader Royston Smith, who will be standing as the Conservative candidate.
The decision to forge ahead with fluoirdation was made by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) following three months public consultation in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire.
This was despite more than seven out of ten of all respondents living in the affected area saying they were against the plans, and an independent phone survey showing more people against the scheme than for it.
It was initially proposed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust in an effort to reduce ‘unacceptable' levels of dental decay among the city's children, and received the backing of Hampshire Primary Care Trust and Southampton City Council.
But last month, a high court judge gave the go-ahead for a court challenge to the plans – and the move was seen by critics of the scheme as a major breakthrough in their campaign.
The legal challenge argues that the SHA failed to have regard for the government's policy that mass fluoridation of drinking water should only go ahead in any particular area if a majority of the local people are in favour.
Mr Spottiswoode said: ‘Clearly, there are many other issues of importance in a general election and the Greens have substantial policies on all of these.
‘However, the big issue in Southampton of putting a known toxin in our water against our will goes to the heart of our democracy and what our politicians should do. What right does anyone have to force anyone else to drink what is widely considered to be a poison?
‘Further, by what right does an unelected health quango have to decide to add fluoride to our drinking water when a massive 72% rejected the idea in the public consultation, despite the authorities running a very biased pro-fluoride campaign?'
MP John Denham, the government's Communities Secretary, has consistently said that he agrees with fluoridation as a principle.
However, earlier this year he changed his stance to say that although he personally believes it is the right thing to do, the scheme should be put on hold until it can be shown that the public agrees with adding fluoride to tap water.

Andy Burnham to bankrupt NHS with push to fluoridate UK drinking water

Andy Burnham to bankrupt NHS with push to fluoridate UK drinking water
George Glasser
"Let’s press ahead with fluoridation of water supplies, given the clear evidence that it can improve children’s dental health." 12/06/2009 - Health Secretary Andy Burnham’s speech to NHS Confederation Annual Conference.
"The NHS must slash its budget by up to £20billion as part of the Government’s new spending cut plans, Health Secretary Andy Burnham has warned." 19/11/2009 – Daily Mail.
While the NHS titters at the edge of financial oblivion, Health Secretary Andy Burnham (former Vice President of the British Fluoridation Society) is pressing ahead with plans to implement his pet project: The fluoridation of UK drinking water at a possible cost of billions of pounds to financially stressed NHS Trusts.
If you listen to the propaganda, you would believe that fluoridating the drinking water is a simple process – a matter of machine adding drops of fluoride to drinking water. ‘And it only costs pennies per month, per person!’ However, that’s not the case. It’s quite costly to fluoridate drinking water.
In fact, because of the highly corrosive nature of the fluoride added to the water, a separate facility is required because, otherwise, the corrosive fumes from the fluoride will damage other water treatment equipment and they are also a health hazard to the personnel.
Because fluoride is poisonous, fluoridating drinking water requires failsafe instrumentation to assure that the right amount of fluoride is added to the water.
Alarms and monitoring equipment are essential to the process because if there is an accidental overfeed, a whole area population could be poisoned.
Finally, personnel need specialised training to handle the fluoride and maintain the equipment.
All these factors add-up to a very costly endeavor.
So, in spite of what Health Secretary Burnham would have you believe, the tooth fairy doesn’t flitter over the reservoir at night sprinkling fluoride dust into the water.
The fluoridation amendment, 2002 UK Water Bill spelled out guidelines for the SHAs to follow before implementing a fluoridation scheme.
By law, a Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is required, first, to do a fluoridation feasibility study which can cost upwards to £50K+.
Then the SHA has to do a public consultation to see if the people actually want their water fluoridated which can cost from £300K – £1.0M+. However, it’s a foregone conclusion that the decision of the SHA health bosses supersedes public opinion.
After all, they are the self-titled "Health Bosses," and make the final decision on everything regarding your health. So, even if the public says no, the fluoridation scheme will continue as planned – public opinion is irrelevant.
Then if someone contests the consultation process on valid legal grounds, as in South Hampshire, you can add another £600K or more on top of that for legal fees and court costs.
Next, the SHA has to work out legal agreements with the water companies. (How much do corporate lawyers cost per hour and how long will they drag out the process so they can get a generous cut of the action from the public purse?)
At that point, the water company comes into the picture – they’re responsible for designing and building the fluoridation facilities. They’re not altruistic and do not have the public interest at heart. They’re ‘for profit private companies.’ One can be assured they will make substantial profit on every aspect of the facility designs and engineering.
Next, we have the construction which the water companies will oversee and hire subcontractors to construct the facilities. Of course, the water company will take a cut of the action off the top of construction costs and charge administration fees on top of that.
All this costs money, and where does the money come from?
The funding, of course, comes out of the SHA budget – not the tooth fairy like Health Secretary Burnham’s PR people would have you believe. The government only offers a £15K fluoridation grant, which doesn’t even cover the feasibility study costs.
Not only is the SHA responsible for paying the start-up cost and all the legal fees, but they are also responsible for funding the ongoing manning and maintenance of the facilities and cost of fluoride to put in the water (the water company will at least double the cost on the fluoride).
From the time the SHA starts the bureaucracy in motion to implement a fluoridation scheme to its hypothetical completion; we are probably looking at five years with ever-increasing costs due to inflation.
A feasibility study done to fluoridate Manchester a few years ago indicated that the start-up costs would be £35M in 2006 - £102M in 2007 - £210M in 2009.
They estimated that it would take another £5M per year for chemicals, manning, and maintenance, which again will come out of the Manchester SHA budget while they are simultaneously cutting costs in order to survive.
In spite of facing bankruptcy, the Manchester health bosses push onward and keep spending even more money on their suicidal plan to fluoridate the drinking water.
As part of a cost cutting measure to save £44K a year in 2006, Manchester SHA health bosses told NHS hospital nurses that they had to supply their own milk for tea – if they got caught using hospital milk, they would be subject to disciplinary action and possible sacking.
Meanwhile, the Manchester SHA is closing hospitals, axing essential services, and laying-off staff, but the health bosses can still find £210M in the budget to fluoridate the city’s drinking water.
The one thing you can be sure of with any government project is that you can safely add 500% onto the estimated cost. This is because the private sector knows that once they have got the contracts, they can milk dim-witted bureaucrats and sycophant politicians for any amount of public funds.
Consequently, who knows how much it will cost to fluoridate Manchester’s drinking water? The actual cost of fluoridating Manchester could be a billion pounds by the time they’re finished because the cost seems to double with every passing year.
Now, how realistic are fluoridation schemes? Well, not very.
First of all, it will take upwards to five years to implement a regional fluoridation scheme and cost hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions.
Then offering the promoters the benefit of the doubt, and agreeing the fluoridation will "Dramatically reduce tooth decay in children," it will take another five years to see any significant improvement in dental health among the population.
So, the bottom-line is that it will take at least ten years or more before any improvement in dental health is seen - that is, if fluoridation actually worked.
Does that do anything to improve children’s dental health in the short term?
It’s very doubtful unless you believe in the tooth fairy like the SHA health bosses and Health Secretary Andy Burnham.
Who really stands to profit from fluoridation?
The water companies because they will take a cut of the action off the top and charge administration fees for every aspect of the operation; and subsequently, transforming fluoridation into a long-term profit generator for the company.
Next and most important, who are the losers?
Well, it’s the usual losers in any ill-fated government health scheme: The unquestioning public who are dependent on the NHS for their health care.
Why is the UK public the loser in the fluoridation game?
Well, it’s because Health Secretary Burnham’s ambitious scheme to fluoridate the UK is financed by the Strategic Health Authorities who are always in a state of financial crises.
What does this mean to a nation that depends on the NHS for its health care?
Further cutting of essential services?
Shutting down more hospitals, birthing centres, cancer facilities, and causality units?
Sacking even more nurses and essential personnel to balance the budget? (137 thousand NHS personnel are to be losing their jobs in the next five years.)
Denying even more people access to life-saving drugs and treatments?
Putting even more people into quality of service postcode lotteries?
So, what's next from Health Secretary Burnham; DIY organ transplants as a means to cut NHS spending so he can see his pet project implemented?
Burnham is now talking about further draconian cutbacks in NHS funding - £20billion, but he still seems to have the money to pour into fluoridation schemes, even at the cost of bankrupting the NHS.

Daily Echo - Children's teeth just used as an excuse

Children's teeth just used as an excuse
REGARDING the fluoride debate, if this toxic waste goes into our water supply, then we will all know that this is definitely not a democratic country any more.
How could it be, with the majority of people against this crazy scheme?
We have enough problems in the world without our water supply being tainted as well.
Whatever the reason for the SHA wanting to put it in is beyond me, -because it sure is not for children's teeth - that, in my opinion, is just a ploy
SHA, can you tell us the real reason, please?
I would think that if they were so concerned about children's teeth they would drop this idea and think of something that is more practical, like good old fashioned cod liver oil and milk, like what we used to have in schools for good teeth and bones.
Can the SHA comment on why we don't have those two things in schools now?
So please SHA stop using children's teeth as an excuse to medicate us all.
The people of Southampton and surrounding areas have made it very clear that they don't want a toxic fluoride and a lot of these people have young children who also don't want it.
When are you going to listen? What does it take to get through? We all pay our water rates at the moment for water that we accept to be fit enough to drink.
I and others will not accept a toxic waste fluoride!
Name and address supplied.

Water Fluoridation by George Glasser

Click top right to toggle to full screen
You can increase the font size as well on full screen

Water Fluoridation

Fluoride debate made simple

Fluoride debate made simple
Date: 21 September 2009
Duck Hill
Pecket Well,
IN response to the letter by David Sutherland (Your say September 7) and the previous letter by Barbara Sutcliffe (August 27, "Dennis is boxed into a corner").
I have previously answered Barbara Sutcliffe's questions adequately, particularly by quoting an article in the Farmers Guardian in 1982 concerning the fluoride poisoning of an entire herd of cattle at Rawmarsh near Sheffield resulting from a high fluoride intake derived from both hay meadows and pastures. For some reason best known to the editor, that passage was deleted from my letter.
At the time of recording a conversation with the farmer, Reg Ellis, a former German prisoner of war who had settled in Britain joined in the conversation and related how a neighbouring farmer who like Reg Ellis had accepted sewage sludge containing a high fluoride content from the Old Yorkshire Water Authority to use as what he had considered to be organic manure, was directed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to destroy his entire crop of cabbage which had grown exceedingly well.
Reg Ellis had the sludge delivered in September 1976 and by 1977 his entire herd of cattle had either died or had to be destroyed. The WYA settled his claim out of court and Mr Ellis would not reveal the amount but Farmers Guardian believed it to be in excess of £20,000 and Mr Ellis was so pleased with the settlement he told me and my two companions that they could poison his cattle again anytime.
The media has been putting out misinformation for decades, quoting the so-called experts of health authorities who simplistically and repeatedly claim that "fluoride is safe and effective as one part per million."
Donald Sutherland asks why people living in Northumberland and other areas where fluoride occurs naturally and in regions where it has been artificially fluoridated for 40 years have not been affected with the ailments that I have mentioned?
The simple answer to that question is that they have, but the Health Service has been attempting to conceal it by instructing pathology labs not to examine urine, blood or other biological specimens for fluoride levels, particularly in cases of paediatric illness or sudden infant deaths.
Let me make this simple for both these ill-informed advocates of fluoride to understand. In the case of most, if not all prescription drugs, good doctors and vets do not prescribe the same amount of drug for a baby as they might for an adult, due to the much lower body weight.
Likewise a vet would not administer the same amount of an anthelmintic to worm a corgi as he would to a St Bernard or Newfoundland, otherwise he would kill the dog as well as the worms.
Dennis Edmondson

Daily Echo - Fluoride: 'No' really does mean 'no'

Fluoride: 'No' really does mean 'no'
CONGRATULATIONS to Sue Dumacesq. for her 'In my View' on (August 19).
I would like first to say that I have a letter from the Department of Health which states 'that the implementation of fluoridation in this area can only go ahead with the approval of the local population'. Since when has opposition of 70 per cent been seen as approval?
No matter how the SHA juggles the figures it is still a resounding NO to fluoride in our water supply. The SHA seems to have a hidden agenda and a dogged determination to go ahead and it must be stopped.
If people think their children's teeth are being protected with this noxious substance, they will not mend their ways. The sugary substances and poor oral hygiene will continue, creating the obese adults of the future. Parents must be made responsible for their own children's welfare and not involve the £14m it will cost the taxpayer to put fluoride in the water supply.
The Department of Health admits it may damage some people's health and also cause fluorosis in teeth, which they describe as cosmetic. Not to those affected I expect.
MRS E M CLEMENTS, Southampton.

Daily Echo

Click to enlarge to read, unable to scan properly

Australia - OPINION: Citizens are being misled

Dr Paul Connett, PhD, (pictured) has researched the fluoride issue for 13 years and is currently the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (http://www.fluoridealert.org/).
Latest News from Australia
OPINION: Citizens are being misled
THE 20 signatories to this piece are among the 2600 professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide ( www.FluorideAlert.org )
We would like to respond to a letter signed by Dr John Carnie, Chief Health Officer, Department of Human Services, Victoria, and others. ( Experts back fluoride , Sunraysia Daily, Wednesday, September 2).
In Dr Carnie’s letter, we see very familiar tactics. Instead of marshaling scientific evidence to support their case, they rely on endorsements and tame reviews by bodies that sadly toe the government’s line on fluoridation.
Dr Carnie’s notion of ‘consulting’ with the community is to mail everyone a one-sided brochure.
His agency finds it easier to answer its own questions than those of its opponents. Here are eight questions we challenge Dr Carnie to answer.
1) Why is the level of fluoride so low in mothers milk (0.004 ppm)?
2) Is Dr Carnie not concerned that a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community will get 250 times more fluoride than nature intended?
3) Why does Dr Carnie ignore the World Health Organization’s (WHO) advice that before fluoridation is begun an estimate be made of the total fluoride dose children are already receiving?
4) How can Dr Carnie maintain that fluoridation is ‘safe’ when no randomized clinical trials have been performed to demonstrate the safety (or effectiveness) of ingesting fluoride
5) How can Dr Carnie claim that no one has been harmed by fluoridation when virtually no health studies have been conducted in fluoridated communities in Australia?
6) Why has there been no response in 18 years to two recommendations made in 1991 by the NHMRC: a) that fluoride bone levels be monitored and b) that the numerous reports of people claiming to be sensitive to fluoride be investigated in a scientific manner?
7) How can Dr Carnie explain that, according to WHO data, there is practically no difference in tooth decay in 12-year olds, between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries ( http://www.FluorideAlert.org/who-dmft.htm )?
8) Why does Dr Carnie continue to perpetuate the elementary confusion between concentration and dose of fluoride? While engineers can control the concentration of the fluoride added to the water supply no one can control the dose people get each day. This will depend on how much water they drink and how much fluoride they get from other sources.
We see Dr Carnie exploit this confusion when he claims that IQ studies done in China dealt with “children’s exposure in ‘high fluoride areas’ where fluoride levels are substantially higher than the levels used in Australia.”
This is not correct.
In one of 23 studies published on this matter (see http://www.FluorideAlert.org/brain ) the authors found a 5-10 point IQ difference in children between a village with fluoride levels in well-water below 0.7 ppm and another village with well-water between 2.5 and 4.5 ppm.
The authors estimated that IQ would begin to be lowered at 1.9 ppm.
A child drinking two liters of water at 1 ppm would get a higher dose of fluoride than a child drinking one liter at 1.9 ppm, thus it is preposterous to claim that this study is irrelevant to Australia.
There is no adequate margin of safety to protect Australian children from this.
Not only may children be put at risk drinking fluoridated water, fluoride toxicity was experienced by adult patients of a practitioner signing this article (Robertson) after Melbourne was fluoridated over thirty years ago and documented in several other fluoridated countries (see the book Fluoride Fatigue authored by another signer, Spittle).
Side effects from fluoridated water have similarly been occurring to Geelong people after their water was recently fluoridated.
Dr Carnie has been made aware of this situation but has done nothing about it.
In 2006, the US National Research Council published a 507-page review entitled Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards .
The NRC authors, including three of those signing this article concluded that fluoride exposure was associated with damage to teeth, bone, the brain, the endocrine system and might also cause bone cancer.
The panel recommended that the US drinking water standard for fluoride (4 ppm) be lowered.
After 3 years the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not done this.
However, former EPA risk assessment expert Dr Robert Carton, has concluded that there is no adequate margin of safety between the doses found to cause harm reported in the NRC review and the doses some people receive in fluoridated communities (Carton, 2006).
The NHMRC (2007) authors exploit the same “confusion between concentration and dose” when they cavalierly dismissed the NRC’s findings in one sentence:
“The NAS report refers to the adverse health effects from fluoride at 2-4 mg/L, the reader is alerted to the fact that fluoridation of Australia’s drinking water occurs in the range of 0.6 to 1.1. mg/L.”
To claim that the findings of the NRC review are irrelevant to Australia is irresponsible.
The NRC panel provides an exposure analysis that makes it clear that some people living in artificially fluoridated communities (at the same levels used in Australia) are likely to be exceeding the EPA’s reference dose for injury from fluoride (RfD) of 0.06 mg/kg bodyweight per day.
These include bottle-fed babies.
A 4 kg infant that drinks 1 liter of fluoridated tap water formula per day receives a dose of 0.25 mg/kg/day or over four times higher than the EPA’s reference dose for injury.
Dr Carnie is wrong to assert that the American Dental Association’s advice to parents not to use artificially fluoridated water (to make up baby formula) was restricted to water containing high natural levels of fluoride. The ADA advice states:
“If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents or caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.” ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/scher/ada.egram-2006.pdf )
For some inexplicable reason Dr Carnie and other fluoridation promoters appear more intent on protecting this outdated practice than protecting the health of the Australian people.
He and his colleagues can only get away with this because they have the power and prestige of their respective organizations. But opinions on this issue which are unsupported by scientific data cannot be taken seriously. Hopefully, citizens in Mildura, and throughout Australia will have the fortitude to challenge Dr Carnie and other fluoridation promoters to defend the practice scientifically or abandon it forthwith.
Meanwhile, we marvel that Dr Carnie is prepared to force this measure on communities without a vote being taken.
This would be unacceptable even if the proponents had presented sound scientific evidence for both its effectiveness and safety, but having done neither, their arrogance is breathtaking.
Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD, co-author Fluoridation the Great Dilemma (1978)
Paul Connett, PhD, director, Fluoride Action Network, USA
Doug Everingham, MD, former Australian Minister of Health
Andrew Harms, BDS, former President, Australian Dental Association (SA branch)
J. William Hirzy, PhD, former research scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency
Professor C V Howard, MB, ChB, PhD, FRCPath, past President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, Northern Ireland
Robert Isaacson, PhD, panel member for the National Research Council report (NRC, 2006), USA
David Kennedy, DDS, past President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, USA
Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, past President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research and panel member for the National Research Council report,Canada
David McRae BSc, co-ordinator, Barwon Freedom from Fluoridation, Geelong
H. S. Micklem, D. Phil, retired immunologist, Edinburgh, Scotland
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH, Aesthetic Dentistry, USA
Gilles Parent, ND.A , Co-author of La fluoration: autopsie d'une error scientifique (2005), Canada
Philip Robertson, BHSc, ND, Carmoora Clinic, Geelong
John Ryan, MBBS, MSc, FRACGP, DCH, FAMAC, FACNEM, FICAN, Brisbane
Jean Ryan, BHSc, Brisbane
Bruce Spittle, MB, ChB, DPM, FRANZCP, Author of Fluoride Fatigue (2008)
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH, senior Operations Officer, Lillie Center, USA
Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD, panel member for the National Research Council report, USA

Daily Echo - Why should I be forced to drink this poison?

Why should I be forced to drink this poison?
I FIND the attitude of these 'health chiefs' beyond my comprehension.
These public servants are being paid to serve the public, not become its masters.
Why should I be forced to drink a poison which I don't want?
Fluoride is supposed to improve dental health. We have a dental service to take care of our teeth - or at least we did have until a certain prime minister decided we should let our teeth rot if we couldn't afford exorbitant fees. Is fluoridation going to replace our NHS Dental Service or 'unrot' our decaying teeth?
Perhaps it will place a lot of very wealthy dentists on Jobseekers Allowance, have these people who intend to force us to drink fluorid-ed water considered what a wasteful decision this will be. We will flush about nine litres of treated water down the toilet, as well as another nine or ten litres every time we wash or do the washing up - more if we have a dishwasher - a further 20 litres or so down the plughole for a shower, and at least a hundred litres flushed away for a bath.
Then there is of course watering our gardens. Which 'expert' has told these health chiefs that all our flowers and vegetables will benefit from yet another chemical addition to our household water supply, some of which already only prosper on rainwater?
I also suspect the motives involved. There is such an outcry against fluoridation, that I foresee the biggest boost to the bottled water industry ever - is this a hidden agenda?
Finally, this country spent six years and lost a lot of citizens fighting overseas dictatorship, why should we now have a homegrown one?
Let those who prefer drinking fluoridated water, buy it in the form of toothpaste or some form of bottled water, and let the rest of us -the majority - carry on with what we have had for the last 100 years or so, clean water.
L T N COWNE, Hythe.

Daily Echo - comments from website

HE has led the fight to stop fluoride being added to Hampshire's water. Now John Spottiswoode is to challenge Government minister John Denham for his place in Parliament. Mr Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against fluoridation, wants to turn the vote into the referendum on fluoridation that has so far been denied to the 200,000 people in and around the city affected by it.
He has been selected as the Green Party candidate for the Southampton Itchen seat at the next general election, which must be held by June 3 next year,

Here are a few of your comments taken from the Daily Echo website:
Southy, Redbrldge, says...
He would do better going for Southampton North and Romsey. Here he might get a chance to get elected than take on Itchen. If the Greens stand in Itchen or Test all they will do is let the Torys win, and the Torys will not take any notice of the Green Party, they treat them as a joke.

jwillie6, Lafayette, LA, USA says-
Citizens have wised up to this poison dumped in our water systems. That is why fluoridation loses in 80 per cent of the elections held.
There is no other example of forced medication, where people must take a drug against their will every day of their lives. Even if it were of value to children's teeth, 50 per cent of all you take accumu-jated in the bones,the thyroid, the brain and the joints. Research shows the result for childen is a fivefold increase in bone cancer, lowered IQ, and enamel damage. In the elderly other cancers, thyroid destruction and boken hips due to brittle bones.
Brite Spark, Stubbington, says...
I would much rather have a nuclear submarine in Southampton's Waters than fluoride, the former is much the safer option.

Daily Echo - Ignore us at your peril!

Ignore us at your peril!
WITH the fiuoridation issue refusing to go away and other parts of the country reconsidering plans to fluoridate water supplies in the light of the judicial review, isn't it about time health chiefs had a major rethink about this overwhelmingly unpopular scheme?
How much more NHS money will be wasted in the ensuing court case that could instead be put to good use in funding more targeted ways of tackling tooth decay?
Unfortunately, the whole issue has become a battle involving health authorities, politicians, dentists, water companies, city councillors and various other "authorities" all of whom appear to be unconcerned that there is simply no local support for the scheme as shown by the 72 per cent of respondents who took the trouble to inform the SHA that they do not want fluoridated water and the 15,300 people who signed a Downing Street petition.
Clearly, many local people have thought deeply about this issue and have realised that adding this chemical | to the water is not something they want j for themselves or their city. The exercise of choice is an important aspect of taking care of our own health and well-being and of making people feel that they are part of an inclusive society that listens to its members through its local and national democratic systems.
Do we want a society where people feel it is pointless to be part of this system? Do we really want people to think that it is not worth responding to a consultation or not worth voting because whatever happens, the powers that be do not consider the ordinary person to be worth listening to? Do we want a society that will not challenge unethical policies because the authorities will force these through regardless?
The campaign to stop water fiuoridation has attracted old and young, political and non-political, mothers of young children, people with :
health problems, students, academics, environmentalists, health professionals and people from outside the area who feel that a dangerous precedent will be set if this goes ahead. It represents a cross-section of society and provides a collective voice for those who do not want this scheme imposed on them individually or as a region.
The campaign has not been undermined by the patronising attitude of the SHA who seem to think that ordinary citizens do not have a valid viewpoint and has labelled those who object to their water being medicated as "conspiracy theorists" or not informed or intelligent enough to do their own research.
Dissenters have been ignored, insulted and patronised with one city councillor calling those who object to fiuoridation "rather strange" at the city council vote last November.
My own MP, Alan Whitehead, has not responded to any of my letters with an individual reply just a photocopied standard letter that others too have received. What a way to treat a constituent and former supporter.
The judge dealing with the judicial review has said that the consultation process raises important issues of law but whatever the judge decides, the fight to keep the region's water fluoride free will continue.
Opposition won't go away and there will be new challenges to Southampton City Council and the SHA. Unelected health authorities, water companies, pro fluoride councillors and politicians ignore us at your peril.

(photo of Ann Richards)

Daily Echo - 'We should let voters decide'

SOUTHAMPTON: Anti-fluoride campaigner in challenge
'We should let voters decide'
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
HE has led the fight to stop fluoride being added to Hampshire's water.
Now John Spottiswoode is to challenge Government minister John Denham for his place in Parliament.
Mr Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, wants to turn the vote into the referendum on fluoridation that has so far been denied to the 200,000 people in and around the city affected by it.
He has been selected as the Green Party candidate for the Southampton Itchen seat at the next general election, which must be held by June 3 next year.
He will also come up against Southampton City Council deputy leader Royston Smith, who will be standing as the Conservative candidate.
Mr , Spottiswoode said: "Clearly there are many other issues of importance in a general election and the Greens have substantial policies on all of these.
"However, the big issue in Southampton of putting a known toxin in
our water against our will goes to the heart of our democracy and what our politicians should do. What right does anyone have to force anyone else to drink what is widely considered to be a poison? Further, by what right does an unelected health quango have to decide to add fluoride to our drinking water
when a massive 72 per cent rejected the idea in the public consultation, despite the authorities running a very biased pro-fluoride campaign?"
Mr Spottiswoode, a married father-of-four who was a county councillor in Suffolk before moving to Southampton, said that the man he is challenging is one of those responsible for fluoridation being approved for Hampshire.

Mr Denham, the Government's Communities Secretary, has consistently said that he agrees with fluoridation as a principle. However, earlier this year he changed his stance to say that although he personally believes it is the right thing to do, the scheme should be put on hold until it can be shown that the public agrees with adding fluoride to tap the public agrees with water.
Cllr Smith is opposed to fluoride being added to Hampshire tap water and has also backed the Daily Echo's calls for a referendum on the issue.

Daily Echo - Fluoride ruling: let's hope democracy wins

Fluoride ruling: let's hope democracy wins
WHAT welcome news that the decision to add fluoride to our drinking water is to go to the high court for a ruling.
Let's hope that democracy and common decency win the day and the wishes of the people who should be affected are respected. If health chiefs really want to improve the oral health of the city's young people they should be lobbying for fewer processed foods - which are full of harmful chemicals including refined sugars which cause dental problems (among other health issues).
Perhaps a ban on restaurants selling processed foods produced in large factories, which are often a hidden source of sugar, salt, fat and chemicals in food that people think is wholesome natural, real, or home cooked - such as lasagne or chilli con carne.
MATT PROBERT, Southampton.

USA - Kaiser Family Foundation "Oral Histories: Report From a Dental Fair

Click to see film of dental fair in the USA "'It’s 2009 and dental disease
is everywhere and we can go anywhere in this state and set up a project like this and [people] will line up for five or six hours and we’ll do the same thing. That’s not the answer.' Terry Dickinson,Dental fair organizer"

Virginia is 95% fluoridated:NYSCOF

Chief dental officer hails Healthy Smiles scheme

Chief dental officer hails Healthy Smiles scheme
11th Sep 2009
A scheme to improve the oral health of toddlers in an area of high rates of tooth decay has been welcomed by chief dental officer for England Barry Cockcroft.
NHS Hounslow, in Middlesex, launched the Healthy Smiles scheme with the aim of improving the oral health of children aged three years and over.
In Hounslow, 47% of children under five have experienced tooth decay compared with 40% across London and 38% nationally.
With Healthy Smiles, parents can take their children to a dental nurse to have fluoride varnish applied at the same time as a shopping trip.
The dental nurse will also give help, advice and book them straight into a follow-up appointment with a local dentist.
On attending the follow-up visit, children will also be given their own ‘Brush for Life' kit that includes a free toothbrush and advice on oral health.

Barry Cockcroft said: ‘As I travel the country I see many examples of PCTs and dental teams working together to develop innovative schemes to improve oral health.
‘This scheme combines the evidence-based application of fluoride varnish with the extremely important issue of communicating the availability and value of dental services. All the people involved in developing and running this scheme should be proud of their achievements.'

NHS Hounslow's senior commissioning manager and project lead, Kelly Nizzer said: ‘This gives children confidence to see a dentist, having enjoyed a totally non-invasive experience. Healthy Smiles helps children in genuine high need, not just on the day, but giving them the confidence to go on seeing a dentist and looking after their oral health in the future.'

This scheme builds on the experience of earlier innovative pilots on dental access that NHS Hounslow has lead over the last year.

I wonder how safe the topical application is when we read children can become sick as per previous report. Children are almost certain to swallow the fluoride.

Assurances were given

Assurances were given
MR DENHAM'S response on fluoridation (Letters, September 5) will have provoked many a wry smile. He says: "I do not believe there's enough evidence of widespread public support to go ahead". In fact, he knows that both now and repeatedly during the past fifteen years local residents have expressed their opposition in the strongest terms.
He also knows that the Department of Health, with the minister's authority, gave the public the assurance last year: "It is the Government's policy that no new
fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it can be shown that the local population is in favour". These are the precise words, so I draw attention to the conditional "unless", the specific reference to the local population, and the emphasis "in favour".
Mr Denham can therefore point out to the SHA that the people are not in favour and advise them that more than enough money has been wasted on promoting their pet project - money which could have been put to much better use.
G PAYNE, Southampton.

Lymington Times

CAMPAIGNERS have won the right to challenge in court an NHS plan that would add fluoride
to the drinking Wilier of 8,000 Totton residents.
A Judicial review launched by :'Southampton resident Geraldine Mllner has been given the go ahead to scrutinise the legality of the decision which will affect overall 190,000 people in and around the city if it goes ahead as planned next year.
Southampton Primary Care Trust's scheme was approved in February by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) despite protests, a 15,000-name petition, and a Mori poll showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
It was billed as key to reducing above average child tooth decay in Southampton, and supporters said there was no evidence behind claims it was harmful, beyond occasional mottling of teeth.
Mrs Milner's lawyers argue fluoridation should not have been approved because it was at odds with pronouncements from members of the government that such schemes should only be allowed if most of the local population were in favour.
Sean Humber, from solicitors Leigh Day and Co, told the 'A&T" that although the laws created in 2003 and 2005 were "silent" about public opinion, ministers' comments had shown the way.
He said: "Government minister after government minister stood up when the Act was being passed in parliament and said it should only go ahead if the local population was in favour — but that was not in the actual legislation."
The case could see the Department for Health being called on to explain its rules, and the SHA having to pay costs if Mr Justice Hitting finds against it. Mr Humber said: "I think we have a good case and they are in a bit of a hole."
The new laws gave the NHS powers to order water companies to add fluoride. The SHA claimed it could go ahead, even if the public opinion was against it, as it had followed due process and was convinced of the health benefits.
Mrs Milner also said opponents' arguments were not properly considered but the judge hearing the case decided that only the legality of the decision would be investigated.
The SHA said in a statement: "South Central Strategic Health Authority is pleased with the ruling and the judge's view that 'in all other respects the decision-making process was unimpeachable'.
"The SHA remains confident that the decision that has been made by the SHA board was carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation laid down by parliament and is in the best interests of the health of local people."
Mrs Milner's lawyers have challenged the judge's ruling against the second half of her case, which is scheduled to be heard on October 23rd. Depending on the result, the judicial review could be heard as early as next year with a decision in the spring.
Totton councillor David Harrison said: "Hopefully, the court case will expose matters, forcing government to concede that they cannot interfere with our water supply without our consent."
The issue was discussed last week by a meeting of New Forest district councillors where Coun. Maureen Holding said: "Our input and the
wishes of the majority were totally ignored — the outcome is unfair and they need to be taken to task over it."
Retired dentist Coun. Tony Swaine told the employment, health and well being review panel: "This is being imposed upon people because of a small minority who appeared not to be able to look after their teeth properly."
Coun. Miranda Whitehead said alternatives to fluoride should be considered: "We are talking about medicating the many to protect the few who are unable to protect themselves.
"Having worked in casualty I've been truly shocked by the state of children's teeth and it really does represent a socio-economic divide." A joint complaint to the ombudsman by New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Coun. Harrison alleging the consultation was one-sided and ignored residents' opposition will be put on hold until after the court challenge.
The impact of the judicial review has already been felt by the NHS in the north-west where the SHA there has delayed investigating fluoridation until the case concludes.

Ministers show how to keep swine flu at arm's length.

Duck! A pupil looks away as Andy Burnham and Sir liam Donaldson demonstrate the latest technique to counter swine flu. The pair posed to demonstrate what people should do if they want to sneeze and don't have a handkerchief.

Yuk, they also believe fluoridation is effective and completely safe and it is not forced medication. Also it only affects the teeth so they say.

UK - Judge pours cold water on fluoridation plans

Judge pours cold water on fluoridation plans
09th Sep 2009
A high court judge has given the go-ahead for a court challenge to fluoridation plans of Southampton's water supplies.The move is a major breakthrough for campaigners fighting a scheme which has stirred controversy in its aim to improve the state of local children's teeth.

The fluoridation scheme has been criticised as ‘mass medication' by those against it, including Hampshire Against Fluoridation pressure group.The application for a judicial review was initiated by city resident Geraldine Milner, who is being represented by local solicitors, Leigh Day & Co.Ms Milner is opposed to the proposals, approved by health authorities in February, because of uncertainties regarding long-term health risks associated with fluoridation, as well as concerns about possible adverse environmental effects.

The legal challenge argues that the SHA failed to have regard for the government's policy that mass fluoridation of drinking water should only go ahead in any particular area if a majority of the local people are in favour.By granting permission for the judicial review of the health authority's plans, Mr Justice Mitting stated that one of the grounds for Ms Milner's application raises a ‘significant public law question'.A second ground stated in the Southampton resident's application is that the health authority did not properly examine the ‘cogency' (or force) of the arguments for and against fluoridation. The judge refused permission for this ground to be considered in the judicial review, saying that it was ‘not reasonably arguable'.

Leigh Day & Co solicitors have appealed against the judge's refusal of this ground and this appeal is to be heard at an oral hearing on 23 October.If the appeal is successful, both grounds will go forward to the hearing of the judicial review in the High Court likely to be in early 2010.If it is unsuccessful, the judicial review will still proceed but only on the first ground.If the court upholds the complaint it could ultimately lead to the scheme, affecting almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton, being scrapped.

John Spottiswoode, chairman of pressure group Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: ‘It is a fundamental human rights' question of who has the right to force other people to drink something that they object to drinking and, indeed, consider to be a toxin.'

A statement from the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) said: ‘The South Central SHA is pleased with the ruling and the Judge's view, that 'in all other respects the decision-making process was unimpeachable.‘The SHA remains confident that the decision that has been made by the SHA Board was carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation laid down by parliament and is in the best interests of the health of local people.'The appeal has already stalled plans to begin a similar process in the north west of England.

Last month, the North West SHA said it was waiting for the outcome ‘before committing significant resources on this matter'.More than 10,000 people submitted their opinions during the consultation, with 72% of those from people living in the affected area saying they were against fluoridation.In a separate phone survey of 2,000 residents, 38% of people questioned opposed the scheme, compared to 32% in favour. Author Julie Bissett

Fluoride decision delayed in East Lancs

Fluoride decision delayed in East Lancs
1:10pm Wednesday 9th September 2009
ANY PLANS to put fluoride into East Lancashire’s water will be delayed until after the general election, health bosses have confirmed.
NHS North West said a legal challenge to the controversial process in Southampton put other areas in an “uncertain” position so should be postponed.
A new report by United Utilities found the cost across the North West would be about £200million, which equates to around £30 per person, followed by annual costs of almost £6million.

If he can't change the law, who can?

If he can't change the law, who can?
I REALLY do hope that John Denham MP can do something about the position he finds himself in on the fluoride issue.
It is his Government that has allowed the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to make the decision on whether or not to add fluoride to our tap water. It is clear that they have decided to proceed without public consent. This is hardly consistent with Prime Minister Gordon Brown visiting Southampton and offering the assurance that this is an issue local people will decide.
I'm pleased that John Denham will be shortly meeting with the SHA.
However, he should not be simply pleading with them as a constituency MP
He is a government minister. If he can't change the law or dictate to the SHA - who can? This is an issue that is of far wider significance that this area alone. We all wait to see what happens. The clock is ticking Mr Denham,
CLLR DAVID HARRISON, Leader, New Forest District Liberal Democrats.

Portsmouth - Plan to 'varnish' kids' teeth to fight decay

Published Date: 09 September 2009
Children's teeth are to be varnished with fluoride in the battle against tooth decay in Portsmouth.
Health officials will launch a pilot project at up to three city schools in a bid to improve oral health among young people.
The scheme will involve painting pupils' teeth with small quantities of the varnish between two and four times a year.
Parents will be asked to give their consent, and will still be urged to ensure their children eat healthily, brush their teeth and visit the dentist regularly.
The schools which will take part have not yet been chosen. If the project is successful it could be rolled out citywide.
The move comes after figures revealed Portsmouth has one of the worst dental health records in the South East among children.
Children in the city have an average of 1.8 decayed or rotten teeth by the age of five.
Pupils at two thirds of city schools have more missing or rotten teeth than the national average by the time they start reception class.
Children in the catchment area of Somers Park Primary School in Somers Road, Southsea, have the worst dental health record with pupils having an average of 4.2 missing, decayed, filled or treated teeth when they start school.
Louise Bevan, public health development manager for NHS Portsmouth, said: 'There is a lot of evidence to show fluoride varnish is effective and as good as toothbrushing and other topical uses of fluoride such as mouthwash.
'But the advantage of fluoride varnish is that once it is on it is fixed. It is very easy to apply, completely painless and could be effective in supporting those most at risk.
'We know it can be effective but we need to know whether it's practical to deliver and acceptable to Portsmouth people.'
Health officials may eventually revisit controversial plans to fluoridate Portsmouth water supply.
However, they are awaiting the outcome of a judicial review into a decision by regional health officials to add fluoride to water in Southampton.
Ann Richards, from Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: 'I applaud the efforts they are making to improve oral health. It's preferable to considering fluoridating the water supply and there is evidence that if fluoride is applied directly to the tooth it can do some good – if people want it.'
Have your say in our web poll.
TOOTHCAREPortsmouth last year produced a guide for parents of children aged six and under to help protect against tooth decay.
It states that children aged under three years should use toothpaste containing at least 1,000 parts-per-million of fluoride in line with Department of Health guidance.
Those aged between three and six years should use a pea-sized amount of toothpaste containing between 1,350 and 1,500 parts per million of fluoride.
Parents are urged to ensure their children brush their teeth last thing at night and on one other occasion daily under adult supervision.
They should spit out their toothpaste after brushing but not rinse their mouths.

Daily Echo comments on line

HEALTH chiefs insist they will defend their decision to approve plans to fluoridate tap water delivered to Hampshire homes.
A judge has granted permission for a judicial review into South Central Strategic Health Authority's move to give the controversial scheme the green light, because of claims public opinion was ignored.
But the SHA says it is confident it followed the law and met or exceeded all the legal requirements placed on it, and its decision was right.
Mr Justice Witting said the application for a judicial review, lodged by Southampton woman Geraldine Milner, raises a "stark public law question" over whether the SHA should have taken public opinion more into account.
Here are a few of your comments taken from the Daily Echo website:

Andy, Locks Heath, says...
If every parent was made legally responsible a) for the state of their children's teeth and b) for attending free dentist visits twice per year, we could all agree that fluoridation is not required. Simple problem, simple solution.

Swalk, Southampton, says...
The NHS's waste of money in fighting this is bordering on the criminal - but if you have to wait to get your crucial operation, at least you know where the cash is going now.

Bumblysaint, New Forest, says...
Like I said yesterday, these little tin gods take no notice of anyone. They inflict their ideas on the public even when 72 per cent of people in one poll say no.
Over to you Southy, we need someone to make them listen.
Just a final thought, what about our Human Rights, or don't they count for anything in this case?

Vonnie, Southampton, says...
But the South Central Strategic Health Authority says it is confident it followed the law and met or exceeded all the legal requirements placed on it,......Unquote
That is more or less what various MPs were/are saying in defence of themselves and their actions regarding the "expenses" issue. It doesn't make decisions honest and above board, though, does it?
Personally I can't see the need for all those regional strategic health authorities. One would be good enough, with one person from each 11 areas.

Heath chiefs fight on over fluoride

Heath chiefs fight on over fluoride
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
HEALTH chiefs insist they will defend their decision to approve plans to fluoridate tap water delivered to Hampshire homes.
A judge has granted permission for a judicial review into South Central Strategic Health Authority's move to give the controversial scheme the green light, because of claims public opinion was ignored.
But the SHA says it is confident it followed the law and met or exceeded all the legal requirements placed on it, and its decision was right.
Mr Justice Mitting said the application for a judicial review, lodged by Southampton woman Geraldine Milner, raises a "stark public law question" over whether the SHA should have taken public opinion more into account.
More than 10,000 people responded during the public consultation into the fluoridation plans, which affect two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Of those living in the affected area who gave their views, 72 per cent said they did not want the chemical added to their water.
The SHA also held a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, in which 32 per cent backed the plans, compared to 38 per cent who opposed them.
The authority will now have to explain why it did not listen to those views when its board unanimously approved fluoridation for Hampshire.
The judge said statements made by ministers when the regulations were before Parliament were "unequivocal" in saying fluoride would only be added to the water where the local population supported it.
He accepted the SHA's defence it followed the law, which says it only had to "pay regard" to public opinion, but wants the lawfulness of that approach to be scrutinised in court.
But Mr Justice Mitting rejected claims there were any other faults with the SHA's decision making.
An SHA spokesman said the authority will now defend its position on public opinion.
"Mr Justice Mitting found that there
was an arguable case in relation to whether South Central Strategic Health Authority was entitled to rely on the regulations, or whether it should have had regard' to verbal statements made in Parliament," he said.
"South Central Strategic Health Authority is pleased with the ruling and the Judge's view that 'in all other respects the decision-making process was unimpeachable'.
"The SHA remains confident that the decision that has been made by the SHA board was carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation laid down by Parliament, and is in the best interests of the health of local people."
Campaigners criticise rising cost of battle
IF health chiefs use all the money they have set aside to fight the judicial review into the decision to fluoridate Hampshire's water, it would take their total spending on the issue to £650,000.
That figure - which includes a £400,000 war chest to defend the legal challenge - -is enough to pay for more than 30 dental nurses each earning £20,000 for a year.
And it doesn't even include the staff costs associated with staging last year's 14-week public consultation, or the cash which has been ploughed in by the NHS in Southampton. Anti-fluoride campaigners say the health authorities would be better off spending the money on frontline services to target the poor dental health in children that fluoridation is being brought in to improve.
"The amount that's been spent is an outrageous waste of public money, and they should stop the whole process straight away," said John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation.
"All the way along it has been a waste of money, and it's just getting worse."
He went on to say: "The NHS should be spending money on things that are worthwhile, and not on" something so controversial that will have no benefit."

Daily Echo recent headlines

Judges to rule on fluoride decision

Judges to rule on fluoride decision
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho,co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - daifyecho.co.uk
THE controversial decision to add fluoride to Hampshire's tap water WILL be examined by a high court judge, the Daily Echo can reveal.
An application for a judicial review into the plans to fluoridate almost 200,000 homes has been approved because of claims that health chiefs ignored public opinion.
If the legal challenge succeeds, it could ultimately mean the contentious scheme has to be scrapped.
Plans to move towards fluoridation in other parts of the country have already been put' on hold while health bosses wait to see the outcome of the judicial review.
The case could now be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, before the end of the year.
And Health Secretary Andy Burnham, who was forced to quit as vice-president of the pro-fluoride British Fluoridation Society after being promoted in a Cabinet reshuffle, could be called as an "interested party". Anti-fluoride campaigners have heralded the decision as a vital step in safeguarding individuals' rights.
The court bid has been lodged by a Southampton woman Geraldine Milner who is angry because she believes South Central Strategic Health Authority went against the views of residents when it approved the plans earlier this year.
More than 10,000 people submitted their opinions during a public consultation, with 72 per cent of those from people living .in the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Tottpn, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against fluoridation.
In a separate phone survey of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent of people questioned opposed the scheme, compared to 32 per cent in favour of it.
Ms Milner's lawyers argue that the SHA's board ignored those views when it unanimously approved fluoridation, which had been requested by Southampton health chiefs as a way to improve the dental health of the city's youngsters.
Since the decision was made, campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation has handed over a petition of more than 15,000 names calling for the government to step in and stop the plans.
The group's chairman, John Spottiswoode, said the judicial review is not just key for those fighting fluoride in Southampton, but is essential for the future of the right of the individual to choose how they are medicated.
"It's extremely important, because it addresses a major issue
of law for the whole country that has to be resolved," he said.
"It's something we must win, because if we lose we lose this fundamental right to control what goes into our bodies."
Sean Humber, a partner at Leigh Day and Co Solicitors, who are representing Ms Milner, said the challenge is a serious one. Cuttings from the Daily Echo, quoting Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the issue when he said the decision must rest with local people, will be used as part of the evidence.
Mr Humber said: "The judge has said it raises, in stark form, a significant public law question," he said.
"We're pleased by the judge's comments - he has basically said there are questions to answer, and it will be interesting to know what they will say. It proves this is not a frivolous or vexatious claim, as has been suggested."
The second part of Ms Milner's application, which argued the SHA had not paid full attention to the arguments against fluoridation, was rejected. The judge said the rest of the process was "unimpeachable", but Leigh Day have lodged an appeal against that decision, that will be held in October.
• The Daily Echo has backed calls for the 200,000 Hampshire residents affected by the fluoridation plans to be given a referendum on the subject.
Campaigners, including several of the county's MPs, have argued that the public must be given a straight choice on the issue.
The move comes because many feel that the majority voice was ignored when South Central Strategic Health Authority gave fluoridation the green light, and a referendum is the simplest way to ensure the public will is upheld.
• Daily Echo Comment - see page 12

South Central Strategic Health Authority
SOUTH Central Strategic Health Authority has always insisted it did everything it was legally required to during the public consultation into the fluoridation of Hampshire water supplies.
The body says it met or exceeded all of its statutory requirements by sending out leaflets to most affected areas, holding drop-in information sessions, and three Question Time-style debate sessions where experts from both sides gave arguments for and against.
The SHA was unavailable to comment on the judicial review application being approved, but it has previously said it has set aside £400,000 to fight the legal challenge to its decision.
It is not known if the SHA will appeal against the judge's move to accept the application, but it argues that the legislation it followed required it to canvass public opinion and have regard to it, but ultimately to look at the scientific evidence and what people's views were based on.

Courts to rule on fluoride decision

ONE of Britain's top judges has given the go-ahead for plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies to be challenged in court.
The move is a major breakthrough for campaigners fighting the controversial scheme, which is designed to improve dental health in children but has been criticised as immoral mass medication.
The Royal Courts of Justice will now examine claims health chiefs ignored public opinion when they gave the plans the green light, breaking promises made by government ministers that fluoridation could only happen with residents' backing.
If the court upholds the complaint it could ultimately lead to the scheme, affecting almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton, being scrapped.

Canada - People should demand a say on adding fluoride to water

People should demand a say on adding fluoride to water
Written by Ralph Neumann
Friday, 04 September 2009
Travelling through Prince George a few weeks ago, someone informed me of the fluoridation debate that was happening there. This piqued my interest, as I resided in the Prince George area for about 22 years and became involved in the fluoridation debate in 1998, addressing city council the following February to voice my concerns.
My appeal fell on deaf ears. Their mind had already been made up.
The NDP government complied with the wishes of the council and put forward legislation that allowed the city to bypass what should be the God-given right of every citizen - to vote on this matter - thus allowing the city to continue to fluoridate the drinking water without the mandate of the people of Prince George. I call this scandalous and tyrannical and am amazed that so few of the citizens of P.G. are alarmed at this effrontery.
Science worthy of its name does not support fluoridation, no matter how often it is claimed in print. It cannot. Talk to any knowledgeable toxicologist and you will hear how toxic the chemical kindly called fluoride is.
Talk to anyone handling the acid at P.G.’s water wells/pumping stations and they will inform you of the stringent guidelines in place on handling the acid. It is so corrosive it will etch glass and corrode metals and even make mush out of concrete. It is extremely corrosive to eyes, skin and all mucous membranes such as lung passages.
One very compelling reason I left P.G. along with my family in 2002 was the state of the drinking water. I suffered greatly from a very aggressive dermatitis of the hands which only disappeared when I switched to spring water. I also conducted tests which I sent down to two separate labs in the Vancouver area at my expense, which confirmed that fluoride reacts aggressively to aluminum pots. Whereas there were minute amounts of aluminum in the pot when boiling in an aluminum pot for five minutes, there was a significantly greater amount when boiling with fluoridated water. What might the acid be leaching from pipes in the whole network of pipes comprising the P.G. water works, or from the pots and pans used in cooking, even at one part per million of fluoride?
Wake up, citizens of Prince George. Don’t let the mayor and council decide such an important issue. Demand to have a say by calling for a referendum, your legal right.
Ralph Neumann
Mission

KEEP Fluoride put of OUR tap water says David Harrison

KEEP Fluoride put of OUR tap water says David Harrison
The fight to keep to keep fluoride out of tap water is as much about democracy as it is the health risks. Leading campaigners, like Liberal Democrat Councillor David Harrison, have been working with politicians of all parties to try and stop the plans.
A formal complaint has been lodged with the Health Ombudsman. The decision by the unelected Strategic Health Authority is also to be challenged through the law courts. In addition, Cllr. Harrison has conducted a media campaign aimed at getting the plans shelved whilst there is no majority public support.
Cllr. Harrison says "We are assured that the plans present no health risk, yet the company that will be adding this chemical to our drinking water will be Southern Water, the same outfit that polluted my local river and have just been fined £30,000."

Meeting of the Hampshire Primary Care Trust Board

The following meetings will be held in public on Thursday 10th September 2009 at the King Charles Suite at Winchester Guildhall, Broadway, High Street, Winchester SO23 9GH:

4.00pm – a meeting of the Hampshire Primary Care Trust Board
6.00pm – the Annual General Meeting of Hampshire Primary Care Trust. At this meeting you’ll get to hear about our achievements during 2008/09 and the difference we have made to healthcare, including; dentistry and infection control. You will also get the chance to ask members of the Board any questions you may have..

There will be a short break between these meetings, including refreshments.

The agenda for these meetings are attached and the papers (including our 2008/09 Annual Report) are now accessible from our website at: http://www.hampshire.nhs.uk/about-us/nhs-hampshire-board/310-board-papers

If you would like further information about any of these meetings, then please contact me at our Eastleigh Office on 02380 627460.

Advance notice for the future meetings in 2009:
Thursday 24th September – NHS Hampshire Board at The Ark Centre, Basingstoke
Thursday 26th November – NHS Hampshire at Ferneham Hall, Fareham

Southampton is the guinea pig, neighbours beware!

Southampton is the guinea pig, neighbours beware!
3:55pm Friday 4th September 2009
ANDOVER Advertiser readers may know that here in Southampton we are currently living under the threat of fluoridation of our water supply, against our will.
A recent consultation produced a response of 72 per cent against fluoridating, yet the unelected Strategic Health Authority voted to force Southern Water to fluoridate our water supply.
This is due to go ahead in 2010. The group Hampshire Against Fluoridation is campaigning to get this decision reversed.
I want Andover people to know what’s going on here because Fluoridation is being put back on the agenda for discussion by NHS trusts and councils all over England.
Southampton is virtually a test case, the first one under the new law; our people have effectively become guinea-pigs. Neighbouring populations could be next unless this dangerous nonsense is stopped now.
Here is the background to all this.
In October 2007, a paper in the British Medical Journal by three eminent doctors exposed a scandal about the way the government was so vigorously pushing water fluoridation on to the population of England.
That paper told how the Department of Health had misrepresented the results of the University of York’s research findings, called the ‘York Review’, so as to give an over-optimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation, and had 'cherry picked' the parts of that review that they wanted us to know about, including results of studies of poor quality, but left out what they didn't want us to know.
They had manipulated the language in which the data was reported to make it look as if fluoridation was a great deal safer than it probably was.
These were pretty serious accusations; about a ‘sexed up’ dossier in fact.
The authors of the York Review could not recommend that water fluoridation was safe, and they had called on the government to undertake proper controlled trials before spreading fluoridation further.
Did the government heed this advice? No such luck. They did the opposite, went on relentlessly promoting fluoridation to local NHS trusts, and announced that they would look further into safety doubts after more fluoridation.
That would therefore involve the use of large populations as guinea-pigs without their consent.
The authors of the BMJ paper also added that the Department of Health's objectivity was “questionable".
Until the time of the publication of the report, the government ( we taxpayers!) had funded the British Fluoridation Society, which had been set up expressly to push for fluoride to be added to water supplies in as many areas as possible.
We may ask ourselves which is worse: MPs’ moats and duck islands courtesy of the taxpayer, or the production by government of scurrilous propaganda that subverts democratic processes and forces us to drink potentially poisoned water that hasn’t been properly checked for safety?
You can keep up with what’s going on by visiting: the Hampshire Against Fluoridation website on www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.org Sue Robson, Dundonald Close, Southampton.

Source: The British Medical Journal Oct 5th 2007, in The Guardian Oct 5th 2007

High levels of fluoride in dog food

High levels of fluoride in dog food; poses questions for FDA
September 5, 12:36 AMCincinnati Pets ExaminerKatie McLain
Photo by Katie McLainA study conducted in June of this year revealed eight national brands of dog food contained fluoride in amounts between 1.6 and 2.5 times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum legal dose in drinking water and may put dogs’ health in jeopardy.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in the Earth’s crust, rocks and soil as well as in bone meal and animal byproducts, which is the likely source of the contamination in this study. All eight brands contained one or more of chicken by-product meal, poultry by-product meal, chicken meal, beef and/or bone meal. A smaller amount of fluoride came from fluoridated tap water used to prepare the food at pet food plants.
Once ingested, fluoride accumulates in the bones. Topical application of fluoride is an effective way to prevent tooth decay, but excessive fluoride intake is thought to contribute to mottled teeth (dental fluorosis), weakened bones, reproductive and developmental system damage, neurotoxicity, hormonal disruption and bone cancer.......

JOHN DENHAM MP - Fluoridation position

Fluoridation position
MY position on fluoridation has been consistent: Although I agree with it in principle, I do not believe there's enough evidence of widespread public support to go ahead with a programme of fluoridation here in Southampton.
In light of this, I have been in contact with the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) advising them that I think it would be better if they were to suspend the implementation of their decision for the time being and will be meeting with them soon to discuss the matter further.
As a constituency MP it is difficult to see what more I can do. Obviously I cannot, as a minister, simply fix the issue because it would be convenient.
It is the SHA's decision which is why I am directing my efforts at them.
JOHN DENHAM MP.

September Newsletter

HAF September Newsletter

Australia - Flouride scare

Flouride scare @ Yahoo! Video

Daily Echo - Act before it's too late, Mr Denham

Act before it's too late, Mr Denham
IT is now one month since I wrote an open letter to John Denham MP, published in the Echo, asking exactly what he proposes to do with regard to the fluoride in tap water issue.'
I appreciate that it is the holiday season but we are now one month nearer a situation where fluoride will be added to the tap water in thousands of local homes, unless the Government steps in to stop it happening.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this is something for local people to decide. Local people have very clearly decided that they do not want it to happen. We cannot put up with a situation where an unelected quango acts against the wishes of local residents, councillors, MP's and even the Prime Minister! Please Mr Denham, act now, whilst you are still in power. Put these plans on hold. It's an issue more important than your credibility and that of the Labour Government, it's whether we can claim we still live in a democracy.
CLLR DAVID HARRISON, leader, New Forest