I back anti-lobby because fluoride must be a choice
Date: 30 December 2009
Grasmere Drive
Elland
Once again we have an unfair attack on a Your say contributor.
I support the lobby that is against adding fluoride to our water – not for any medical or dental reasons but for the simple reason of personal choice.
If the powers that be want to make it compulsory for mass fluoride medication then why isn't it added to food, fizzy drinks, alcohol, bottled water, or in a tea-bag so that people can choose to buy these?
The simple answer is that fluoride cannot be added to these items because it is a poison and banned as a food additive in virtually every country.
If there is a proven reason why it should be compulsory issued then why isn't it issued via a doctor or a dentist as part of a compulsory programme which is witnessed by a medical or dentistry professional?
The very people who want, or care about, fluorine to protect teeth are probably the people who least need it and the people who do need it are not interested in tooth care, otherwise they would buy toothpaste instead of beer, cigs or pop.
After all a cheap tube of toothpaste is only around 20p – this is their choice.
Jon Ingle
Frankacne,Lancashire 30/12/2009 11:10:51
Sad to say that fluoride is already availble in a wide variety of foods and drinks. including fizzy drinks and bottled water. If you shop at LIDL in Scotland you can even buy fluoridated salt. Why you may ask? well, because the Scottish chief mental, oops, I mean Dental Officer was so outraged that the Scottish parliament had wisely thown out water fluoridation that he now wishes to introduce the poisonous muck to Scotland via the back door (see how democratic the pro fluoride people are ?) Leaning on LIDL, he managed to "persuade" them of its miraculous powers to damage teeth and young kids and LIDL knowing no better agreed to sell ChanteSel fluoridated salt. Now salt provides two health dangers for the price of one. Even fluoride is availble as a BOGOF. Friends of the Earth are already discussing this with LILY and are lobbying the Scottish assembly who no doubt will not appreciate being tricked and ignored. Fluoride, natural or otherwise is still availble for those who wish it by drinking Guinness, made from the wonderful waters of the River Liffy in Dublin, recetly poisoned by having had Dublins tap water fluoridated by a Government which apparently lives in the dark when it comes water pollution. Tea of course also contains "natural" fluoride so if you like tea, but not fluoride, drink it weak with milk to negate some of its effects.
31 Dec 2009
Daily Echo - Campaigners say adding chemical is 'illegal'
HAMPSHIRE: Campaigners say adding chemical is 'illegal'
Medicine claim in fluoride fight
• By Jon Reeve__________
jon. reeve @ dailyecho. co. uk
CAMPAIGNERS have lodged a new bid to have fluoride banned from Hampshire's tap water because it is not licensed as a medicine.
Calls have been made for the body responsible for regulating health products to be censured for allegedly breaking the law by not testing the chemicals involved for safety.
Hampshire MEP Caroline Lucas and New Forest East MP Julian Lewis have both written to the parliamentary and health service ombudsman demanding an investigation.
If they succeed, it could mean fluoridation has to be halted across the country while the chemicals involved are thoroughly tested.
The move comes after the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) rejected calls from campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) to
examine whether fluoride needs to be treated in the same way as other medicines.
It believes drinking water is covered by different legislation and is not within its remit.But the politicians have now urged the ombudsman to step in and order the body to ban fluoridation.
Medicinal
European law says any substance "presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease" must be viewed as a medicinal product.
In February, South Central Strategic Health Authority backed plans to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 people living in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Speaking ahead of the 2008 public consultation, the city's director of public health,
Andrew Mortimore said he was backing fluoride because it would cut tooth decay.
HAF chairman John Spottiswoode says because health bosses argued fluoridation is needed to improve dental health, they have admitted it is being used as a medicine.
Mr Spottiswoode says it is immoral and illegal to medicate anyone without consent.
He said: "We want the MHRA to obey EU and UK legislation, enforce testing to medicinal standards, plus licensing, of water fluoridation chemicals. Until that is done all fluoridation in the UK should cease."
An MHRA spokeswoman said the organisation was confident of its decision.
"The MHRA considers that neither the fluoride added to drinking water nor the resulting fluoridated water is a medicinal product," she said.
"Claims made for non-medicinal products fall outside the MHRA's jurisdiction."
Medicine claim in fluoride fight
• By Jon Reeve__________
jon. reeve @ dailyecho. co. uk
CAMPAIGNERS have lodged a new bid to have fluoride banned from Hampshire's tap water because it is not licensed as a medicine.
Calls have been made for the body responsible for regulating health products to be censured for allegedly breaking the law by not testing the chemicals involved for safety.
Hampshire MEP Caroline Lucas and New Forest East MP Julian Lewis have both written to the parliamentary and health service ombudsman demanding an investigation.
If they succeed, it could mean fluoridation has to be halted across the country while the chemicals involved are thoroughly tested.
The move comes after the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) rejected calls from campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) to
examine whether fluoride needs to be treated in the same way as other medicines.
It believes drinking water is covered by different legislation and is not within its remit.But the politicians have now urged the ombudsman to step in and order the body to ban fluoridation.
Medicinal
European law says any substance "presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease" must be viewed as a medicinal product.
In February, South Central Strategic Health Authority backed plans to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 people living in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Speaking ahead of the 2008 public consultation, the city's director of public health,
Andrew Mortimore said he was backing fluoride because it would cut tooth decay.
HAF chairman John Spottiswoode says because health bosses argued fluoridation is needed to improve dental health, they have admitted it is being used as a medicine.
Mr Spottiswoode says it is immoral and illegal to medicate anyone without consent.
He said: "We want the MHRA to obey EU and UK legislation, enforce testing to medicinal standards, plus licensing, of water fluoridation chemicals. Until that is done all fluoridation in the UK should cease."
An MHRA spokeswoman said the organisation was confident of its decision.
"The MHRA considers that neither the fluoride added to drinking water nor the resulting fluoridated water is a medicinal product," she said.
"Claims made for non-medicinal products fall outside the MHRA's jurisdiction."
29 Dec 2009
USA - ADA
The American Dental Association wants more of your money. The ADA paid for an advertisement in newspapers distributed to Congress asking Congress to reimburse dentists with even more money than they do now in order for dentists to agree to treat low-income people. The ADA continues to promote fluoridation as a panacea for tooth decay because it doesn't hurt dentists' bottom line because it doesn't workNYSCOF: The ADA shows a large group of people waiting to have teeth extracted at a "mission of mercy" set up in Viriginia which is over 90% fluoridated along with 70% of the country and virtually 100% of the food supply.
24 Dec 2009
Daily Echo - Effects of fluoride on our marine environment
Effects of fluoride on our marine environment
THE Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change attracted much attention with politicians falling over themselves to show off their green credentials.
What has this to do with the local fluoride controversy? Well, quite a lot actually There is a green angle to this debate that has been mostly overlooked by those keen to add this chemical to the region's water supply.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is a by-product of the phosphate fertiliser industry and as such, is not allowed to be disposed of in the sea or river waters. However, when designated for use as a medicinal product, it can be added to drinking water despite not being eligible for a medicinal licence. The SHA did not carry out an assessment of the environmental impact of fluoridation.
Why has there been no independent environmental assessment of the impact of fluoridation on our unique marine environment? Recently concern has been raised about the impact of fluoride on the local oyster population as there is evidence that fluoride accumulates in these shellfish and may impact negatively on the Solent Oyster Fishery. If fluoridation goes ahead, there are many who will simply refuse to drink tap water and opt for bottled water instead.
Whatever way you look at it - water fluoridation WILL have a detrimental effect on the environment. If our government, politicians and policy makers are genuinely concerned for the environment, the wider impact of decisions such as water fluoridation need to be properly evaluated.
Unfortunately, it seems this has not been the case and the long-term consequences for the environment of this policy remain unknown.
ANNA PECKHAM, (address supplied).
THE Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change attracted much attention with politicians falling over themselves to show off their green credentials.
What has this to do with the local fluoride controversy? Well, quite a lot actually There is a green angle to this debate that has been mostly overlooked by those keen to add this chemical to the region's water supply.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is a by-product of the phosphate fertiliser industry and as such, is not allowed to be disposed of in the sea or river waters. However, when designated for use as a medicinal product, it can be added to drinking water despite not being eligible for a medicinal licence. The SHA did not carry out an assessment of the environmental impact of fluoridation.
Why has there been no independent environmental assessment of the impact of fluoridation on our unique marine environment? Recently concern has been raised about the impact of fluoride on the local oyster population as there is evidence that fluoride accumulates in these shellfish and may impact negatively on the Solent Oyster Fishery. If fluoridation goes ahead, there are many who will simply refuse to drink tap water and opt for bottled water instead.
Whatever way you look at it - water fluoridation WILL have a detrimental effect on the environment. If our government, politicians and policy makers are genuinely concerned for the environment, the wider impact of decisions such as water fluoridation need to be properly evaluated.
Unfortunately, it seems this has not been the case and the long-term consequences for the environment of this policy remain unknown.
ANNA PECKHAM, (address supplied).
21 Dec 2009
Daily Echo - In my view
Impact that has not been assessed
By Anna Peckham
THE Copenhagen summit on climate change is attracting much attention with politicians falling over themselves to show off their green credentials. What has this to do with the local fluoride controversy? Well, quite a lot actually. There is a green angle to this debate that has been mostly overlooked by those keen to add this chemical to the region's drinking water.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertiliser industry and as such, is not allowed to be disposed of in the sea or river waters. However, when designated for use as a medicinal product, it can be added to drinking water, despite not being eligible for a medicinal licence. Shockingly, the SNA did not carry out an assessment of the environmental impact of fluoridation. This is despite the Southampton area's unique environmental position with the Solent and surrounding waters described as some of the most scientifically interesting waters in the country. The Marine and Coastal Access Act which has just come into force is concerned with the well-being of the sea bed and protection of the natural environment". So why has there been no independent environmental assessment of the impact of fluoridation on this unique marine environment?
Recently concern has been raised about the impact of fluoride on the local oyster population as there is evidence that fluoride accumulates in these shellfish and may impact negatively on the Solent Oyster Fishery.
If fluoridation goes ahead, there are many who will simply refuse to drink tap water and opt for bottled water instead. This is bad news for the environment, resulting in more plastic waste and an increase in the carbon load involved in the manufacture and transport of bottled water. The only other option is to remove fluoride from tap water by installing an expensive reverse osmosis filter but these systems use a substantial amount more water and energy to operate. Whichever way you look at it water fluoridation WILL have a detrimental effect on the environment.
If politicians and policy makers are genuinely concerned for the environment, the wider impact of decisions such as water fluoridation need to be properly evaluated. Unfortunately, it seems this has not been the case and the long term consequences for the environment of this policy remain unknown.
By Anna Peckham
THE Copenhagen summit on climate change is attracting much attention with politicians falling over themselves to show off their green credentials. What has this to do with the local fluoride controversy? Well, quite a lot actually. There is a green angle to this debate that has been mostly overlooked by those keen to add this chemical to the region's drinking water.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertiliser industry and as such, is not allowed to be disposed of in the sea or river waters. However, when designated for use as a medicinal product, it can be added to drinking water, despite not being eligible for a medicinal licence. Shockingly, the SNA did not carry out an assessment of the environmental impact of fluoridation. This is despite the Southampton area's unique environmental position with the Solent and surrounding waters described as some of the most scientifically interesting waters in the country. The Marine and Coastal Access Act which has just come into force is concerned with the well-being of the sea bed and protection of the natural environment". So why has there been no independent environmental assessment of the impact of fluoridation on this unique marine environment?
Recently concern has been raised about the impact of fluoride on the local oyster population as there is evidence that fluoride accumulates in these shellfish and may impact negatively on the Solent Oyster Fishery.
If fluoridation goes ahead, there are many who will simply refuse to drink tap water and opt for bottled water instead. This is bad news for the environment, resulting in more plastic waste and an increase in the carbon load involved in the manufacture and transport of bottled water. The only other option is to remove fluoride from tap water by installing an expensive reverse osmosis filter but these systems use a substantial amount more water and energy to operate. Whichever way you look at it water fluoridation WILL have a detrimental effect on the environment.
If politicians and policy makers are genuinely concerned for the environment, the wider impact of decisions such as water fluoridation need to be properly evaluated. Unfortunately, it seems this has not been the case and the long term consequences for the environment of this policy remain unknown.
18 Dec 2009
17 Dec 2009
In Parliament Earl Baldwin of Bewdley (Crossbench)
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley (Crossbench)
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the statistics for dental health among 5-year-olds published in October this year showing a further decline in carious teeth in the area of the Southampton City Primary Care Trust from 1.99 dmft in 2003-04 to 1.76 dmft in 2005-06 and most recently to 1.13 dmft in 2007-08, in the light of the decision in February this year by South Central Strategic Health Authority to fluoridate water supplies in Southampton and some neighbouring areas.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 16 December 2009, c239W)Email me when Baroness Thornton speaksMost recent apperancesNumerologyFull profile ...
Baroness Thornton (Baronesses in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)
Oral health is improving but unacceptable inequalities remain. Direct comparisons should not be made between the results of this survey and previous surveys. This was the first survey of children's dental health where parents of children were required to give positive consent to the examination of their children. Experience shows that non-respondents to requests for consent are more likely to be from deprived areas, where there is a tendency for children to have higher levels of dental decay. I understand that the number of general anaesthetic required for tooth extractions in Southampton remains unacceptably high with recent figures from 2006 to 2009 showing that approximately 500 children every year need to have decayed teeth removed. We continue to support South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate a large part of Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire.
Comment from Lee
"Experience shows that non-respondents to requests for consent are more likely to be from deprived areas"
As Baroness Thornton has such an interest in the way in which data are collected, perhaps she could explain why the DMFT figures for (non-fluoridated) Southampton are now better than those for (fluoridated) central Birmingham - is she saying that central Birmingham is less "deprived" than Southampton?
Comment from John
The reply omits to mention that tooth extraction is nearly always to do with things like ‘bottle caries’ caused by putting sweet things onto baby pacifiers and resulting in really bad decay. This is absolutely zero to do with water fluoridation. How far will they go in the misinformation stakes?
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the statistics for dental health among 5-year-olds published in October this year showing a further decline in carious teeth in the area of the Southampton City Primary Care Trust from 1.99 dmft in 2003-04 to 1.76 dmft in 2005-06 and most recently to 1.13 dmft in 2007-08, in the light of the decision in February this year by South Central Strategic Health Authority to fluoridate water supplies in Southampton and some neighbouring areas.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 16 December 2009, c239W)Email me when Baroness Thornton speaksMost recent apperancesNumerologyFull profile ...
Baroness Thornton (Baronesses in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)
Oral health is improving but unacceptable inequalities remain. Direct comparisons should not be made between the results of this survey and previous surveys. This was the first survey of children's dental health where parents of children were required to give positive consent to the examination of their children. Experience shows that non-respondents to requests for consent are more likely to be from deprived areas, where there is a tendency for children to have higher levels of dental decay. I understand that the number of general anaesthetic required for tooth extractions in Southampton remains unacceptably high with recent figures from 2006 to 2009 showing that approximately 500 children every year need to have decayed teeth removed. We continue to support South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate a large part of Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire.
Comment from Lee
"Experience shows that non-respondents to requests for consent are more likely to be from deprived areas"
As Baroness Thornton has such an interest in the way in which data are collected, perhaps she could explain why the DMFT figures for (non-fluoridated) Southampton are now better than those for (fluoridated) central Birmingham - is she saying that central Birmingham is less "deprived" than Southampton?
Comment from John
The reply omits to mention that tooth extraction is nearly always to do with things like ‘bottle caries’ caused by putting sweet things onto baby pacifiers and resulting in really bad decay. This is absolutely zero to do with water fluoridation. How far will they go in the misinformation stakes?
16 Dec 2009
Australia - Filters in demand to stop fluoride
Dowdens Pumping sales manager David Dowden with the reverse osmosis system that can assist in the filtration of fluoride from tap water.Filters in demand to stop fluoride
Melissa Grant 16th December 2009
YOU attach it underneath the tap and when you sip your glass of water you can rest assured that the contents are virtually fluoride-free.
However, the contraption – a reverse osmosis filter system – doesn’t come cheap at $650.
But it is a price some Mackay residents are willing to pay as they prepare for ‘F-day’, which will officially arrive tomorrow.
Sales of the nifty filtration system at Dowdens Pumping in Mackay have picked up over the past month as people prepare for the introduction of fluoride to our water supply.
And sales manager David Dowden said it wasn’t a bad option for those who weren’t big on the F-word.
“It takes soluble items out of the water,” he said.
“It will do up to 95 per cent (of fluoride) and there are other cartridges that will do it at 75 per cent.”
The filtration system can produce up to 190 litres of drinking water a day.
Mr Dowden said six of the systems had been sold in the last month but he expected more to fly out the door when fluoride was introduced tomorrow.
“Definitely, the demand has increased,” he said.
“The adding of fluoride to the water has created a lot of interest.”
North Mackay resident Bob Hollis said he invested in a reverse osmosis filtration system because he was concerned about how much fluoride he could end up consuming.
“How do we know what dosage is going in? How are we going to check?” he asked. “The idea of putting a class seven poison in our water and calling it a health initiative is just crazy.”
The World Health Organisation is one of numerous international health institutions to endorse the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water to improve dental health.
The Nebo Road water treatment plant is required to add between 0.6 and 0.9 parts of fluoride per million parts of water – the equivalent of one drop in a tub of bathwater.
The introduction of fluoride is part of a $24 million upgrade to the plant that will increase water capacity from 55 mega litres to 75 mega litres.
Comment Posted by LMcMillan from Hampton North, Victoria
16 December 2009 2:57 p.m.
$650 well spent in my opinion. This will reduce your and your family's risk of developing thyroid disorders such as Hashimoto's disease, bone fractures, arthritis, cancer, infertility problems, dental fluorosis and weight related problems. I was diagnosed with Hashimoto's disease 2 years ago and having avoided fluoridated water and products containing fluoride, my thyroid hormone levels are still normal and I 'm not taking any medication to achieve this. I am also no longer overweight because my metabolism is back to normal. No wonder our athletes can't compete against the Europeans. See www.fluoridefree.net for my story.
15 Dec 2009
11 Dec 2009
Echo - Shake-up running of NHS service
Shake-up running of NHS service
By David Harrison
Councillor and leader of the New Forest Liberal Democrats
I AM an employee of the National Health Service and a member of the health overview and scrutiny committee of Hampshire County Council. In both roles, I am concerned with the manner in which health services are delivered to local people.
The performance record of different parts of the NHS is a bit mixed, to say the least.
Currently, the South Central Strategic Health Authority has got itself in a real bind, spending large sums of our money on a public consultation on adding fluoride to tap water and now set to spend more money on a legal battle, trying to justify doing the complete opposite of what people want.
The South Central Ambulance Service is coming under intensive criticism following disappointing results in trying to meet targets and some very well-publicised occasions when people haven't been transported swiftly to hospital as they should have been.
Costly
The maternity unit at Ashurst in the New Forest has opened but only after it cost vastly more than originally planned. In another part of Hampshire a maternity ward has been closed due to staff shortages. There hasn't been a minor injury unit in Hythe for some years now, due to alleged problems recruiting staff.
No doubt people will remember the problems associated with attempts to close local community hospitals, like The Fenwick, at Lyndhurst. Even now, facilities for people suffering a crisis in their mental health are under threat with attempts by Hampshire Partnership Foundation Trust to reduce costs.
I have nothing but admiration for almost everyone who works for the NHS. For the most part, they are not highly paid and very few qualify for bonus payments or second-home allowances. However, I think a radical shake-up of the way the NHS is run is needed. I favour making locally elected health boards responsible for running things. The Government could save millions of pounds by abolishing the various quangos that have quite clearly failed to deliver what people want.
It might mean making some councillors full-time members but that is a fair trade off and if you don't think they are doing a very good job, at least you can get rid of them at election time.
By David Harrison
Councillor and leader of the New Forest Liberal Democrats
I AM an employee of the National Health Service and a member of the health overview and scrutiny committee of Hampshire County Council. In both roles, I am concerned with the manner in which health services are delivered to local people.
The performance record of different parts of the NHS is a bit mixed, to say the least.
Currently, the South Central Strategic Health Authority has got itself in a real bind, spending large sums of our money on a public consultation on adding fluoride to tap water and now set to spend more money on a legal battle, trying to justify doing the complete opposite of what people want.
The South Central Ambulance Service is coming under intensive criticism following disappointing results in trying to meet targets and some very well-publicised occasions when people haven't been transported swiftly to hospital as they should have been.
Costly
The maternity unit at Ashurst in the New Forest has opened but only after it cost vastly more than originally planned. In another part of Hampshire a maternity ward has been closed due to staff shortages. There hasn't been a minor injury unit in Hythe for some years now, due to alleged problems recruiting staff.
No doubt people will remember the problems associated with attempts to close local community hospitals, like The Fenwick, at Lyndhurst. Even now, facilities for people suffering a crisis in their mental health are under threat with attempts by Hampshire Partnership Foundation Trust to reduce costs.
I have nothing but admiration for almost everyone who works for the NHS. For the most part, they are not highly paid and very few qualify for bonus payments or second-home allowances. However, I think a radical shake-up of the way the NHS is run is needed. I favour making locally elected health boards responsible for running things. The Government could save millions of pounds by abolishing the various quangos that have quite clearly failed to deliver what people want.
It might mean making some councillors full-time members but that is a fair trade off and if you don't think they are doing a very good job, at least you can get rid of them at election time.
10 Dec 2009
Echo - letters
Playing statistics game
THE current Hampshire magazine provides some interesting dentistry statistics in relation to the fluoridation argument. Apparently 67 per cent of Hampshire residents had been unhappy with NHS dental provision, dropping to 55 per cent a year later. From 2008 to 2011a £15m investment will be made in dental services, providing so far an extra 80,000 new dental places for Hampshire with a further 17 dental practices still to open. So has the state of Hampshire's teeth been due to lack of fluoride or lack of dentists, and should fluoridation be introduced, against the wishes of public and all councils except one (which shares a councillor with the PCT, trying to introduce fluoridation)? Will it then be claimed that any improvement is due to fluoridation rather than improved dental provision? The statistics game has been a well used one in the official fluoride campaign. Watch out for this one!
MISSMJ REICHLIN, Upper Enham, Andover.
Drinking water will be fit only for washing
TIME is creeping on for residents in parts of Southampton and Totton. When so-called drinking water in the taps contains added fluoride, it will be fit only for washing clothes or giving the car a good rub down.
Of course, there will be supplies of drinking water - at a cost - promoted by many commercial companies. Will residents be willing to pay for what up to now has been regarded as one of the necessities of life? Of course you
could take a Sunday drive to nearby towns and stock up with pure drinking water.
Tablets containing fluoride could be offered free of charge through local chemists and doctors' surgeries to those who are prepared to take the risk. Members of the Strategic Health Authority do not make themselves available to meet the general public, and their 'consultation' was minimal.
ALDERMAN EDITH RANDALL, Totton.
THE current Hampshire magazine provides some interesting dentistry statistics in relation to the fluoridation argument. Apparently 67 per cent of Hampshire residents had been unhappy with NHS dental provision, dropping to 55 per cent a year later. From 2008 to 2011a £15m investment will be made in dental services, providing so far an extra 80,000 new dental places for Hampshire with a further 17 dental practices still to open. So has the state of Hampshire's teeth been due to lack of fluoride or lack of dentists, and should fluoridation be introduced, against the wishes of public and all councils except one (which shares a councillor with the PCT, trying to introduce fluoridation)? Will it then be claimed that any improvement is due to fluoridation rather than improved dental provision? The statistics game has been a well used one in the official fluoride campaign. Watch out for this one!
MISSMJ REICHLIN, Upper Enham, Andover.
Drinking water will be fit only for washing
TIME is creeping on for residents in parts of Southampton and Totton. When so-called drinking water in the taps contains added fluoride, it will be fit only for washing clothes or giving the car a good rub down.
Of course, there will be supplies of drinking water - at a cost - promoted by many commercial companies. Will residents be willing to pay for what up to now has been regarded as one of the necessities of life? Of course you
could take a Sunday drive to nearby towns and stock up with pure drinking water.
Tablets containing fluoride could be offered free of charge through local chemists and doctors' surgeries to those who are prepared to take the risk. Members of the Strategic Health Authority do not make themselves available to meet the general public, and their 'consultation' was minimal.
ALDERMAN EDITH RANDALL, Totton.
9 Dec 2009
Daily Echo
Taxes will pay for fluorideM DARNELL (Letters, December 5) asks about the fluorosilicic acid used in the controversial treatment of water. The answer is, yes the supplier does get paid by us the taxpayer. The fluorosilicic acid used In the UK and Ireland is believed to be imported from phosphate fertiliser operations in Europe who themselves do not practise fluoridation.
Fluorine gas was historically vented out of phosphate fertiliser chimneys causing harm to people and animals. Nowadays it is trapped in water, forming an acid solution contaminated with two per cent of heavy metals that are toxic at a billionth part. This the chief medical officer considers is fit enough for us to drink when diluted to one part per million.
The British Fluoride Society which received over a £1,000,000 from the taxpayer to promote fluoridation calls this a "co-product".
Secretary of State for Health Alan Johnson announced in 2008 that the Department of Health would, over the next three years, make £42 million available to Strategic Health Authorities In England and Wales for new fluoridation schemes. This is now on hold due to the opposition from Southampton.
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam
8 Dec 2009
Austin Citizens Battle Water Fluoridation - Part 2 of 2 (Toxic Waste)
Introduction to Dillo DirtTM
"Dillo DirtTM" is a compost made by the City of Austin since 1989. If you know Austin, you will not be surprised to learn that it was the first program of it's kind in the state and one of the oldest in the nation. All yard trimmings collected curbside across the City as well as some of our treated sewage sludge are combined and composted to create Dillo DirtTM. The heat generated in composting (130 to 170 degrees fahrenheit) is sufficient to virtually eliminate human and plant pathogens. After active composting for over a month, our compost is "cured" for several months, then screened to produce finished Dillo DirtTM.
7 Dec 2009
Austin Citizens Battle Water Fluoridation - Part 1of 2 (Toxic Waste)
USA - but very informative for us as well
5 Dec 2009
Daily Echo letters
Aunty flew-a-ride!
MOST societies that I know of require subscriptions from its members. The British Fluoridation Society claims to have the "support" of many politicians so, do participating MPs include the subs on their expenses claims, or does "support" mean that they endorse the use of taxpayers money to fund the BFS? Of course, it's possible that the society might be subsidised by commercial concerns, in which case, the current recession might cause it to just go away.
Aunty flew-a-ride.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
I AM interested in the continuing 'debate' on fluoride. Debate maybe the wrong word as I have reached the conclusion that the 'powers that be' are totally entrenched in their undemocratic decision to proceed with fluoridation. 1 am no expert on this matter but have followed the pro/against arguments and feel that the pro faction have
totally failed to justify their stance.
However one aspect has always mystified me and concerns the fact that industrial waste is involved in the fluoridation of water. Could someone tell me where this is obtained from and whether the supplier pays the recipient for disposing of it?
M DARNELL, Southampton.
MOST societies that I know of require subscriptions from its members. The British Fluoridation Society claims to have the "support" of many politicians so, do participating MPs include the subs on their expenses claims, or does "support" mean that they endorse the use of taxpayers money to fund the BFS? Of course, it's possible that the society might be subsidised by commercial concerns, in which case, the current recession might cause it to just go away.
Aunty flew-a-ride.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
I AM interested in the continuing 'debate' on fluoride. Debate maybe the wrong word as I have reached the conclusion that the 'powers that be' are totally entrenched in their undemocratic decision to proceed with fluoridation. 1 am no expert on this matter but have followed the pro/against arguments and feel that the pro faction have
totally failed to justify their stance.
However one aspect has always mystified me and concerns the fact that industrial waste is involved in the fluoridation of water. Could someone tell me where this is obtained from and whether the supplier pays the recipient for disposing of it?
M DARNELL, Southampton.
3 Dec 2009
1 Dec 2009
Daily Echo letter
No way for health body to behave
THE South Central Strategic Health Authority is acting very much like the stroppy teenager that locks themself in the bathroom and refuses to talk, having failed to impose their will upon the rest of us.
They seriously misjudged the public mood, especially when the result of the public consultation on adding fluoride to tap water was not to their liking. They have declined to respond to many of the points made by contributors to your paper on the subject, even though these have appeared on an almost daily basis for months.
The most recent statistics on children's dental health in this area reveal that there is not the serious problem that was at first believed. Instead of re-examining the basis for the decision, they are now simply blaming the way the statistics were compiled and refusing to enter talks, pretending that they can't do so because of an outstanding judicial review.
This is no way for a professional public health body to behave. They are only acting this way because they can. Unlike, all the local authorities and MPs opposed to the proposals, they don't ever face a public vote.
CLLR DAVID HARRISON,
Leader, New Forest District Liberal Democrats
THE South Central Strategic Health Authority is acting very much like the stroppy teenager that locks themself in the bathroom and refuses to talk, having failed to impose their will upon the rest of us.
They seriously misjudged the public mood, especially when the result of the public consultation on adding fluoride to tap water was not to their liking. They have declined to respond to many of the points made by contributors to your paper on the subject, even though these have appeared on an almost daily basis for months.
The most recent statistics on children's dental health in this area reveal that there is not the serious problem that was at first believed. Instead of re-examining the basis for the decision, they are now simply blaming the way the statistics were compiled and refusing to enter talks, pretending that they can't do so because of an outstanding judicial review.
This is no way for a professional public health body to behave. They are only acting this way because they can. Unlike, all the local authorities and MPs opposed to the proposals, they don't ever face a public vote.
CLLR DAVID HARRISON,
Leader, New Forest District Liberal Democrats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
