List of signatories against fluoridation of Southampton's water
2:42pm Friday 26th February 2010
28 Feb 2010
27 Feb 2010
Daily Echo - No SHA board members available to receive fluoride protest letter
No SHA board members available to receive fluoride protest letter
We have been snubbed
By Jon Reeve
Jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
IT'S an arrogant snub. Anti-fluoridation campaigners have reacted angrily to health chiefs' refusal to personally receive a letter urging them to change then- minds over the controversial scheme for Southampton and surrounding areas.
They say the move is proof South Central Strategic Health Authority is unwilling to listen to the people.
More than 20 members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to the SHA's Newbury HQ yesterday to deliver open letter signed by 170 not even allowed in to deliver the letter.
After a debate with security guards, a single protester was eventually allowed inside.
But none of the 12 SHA board members, who a year ago yesterday voted in favour of adding fluoride to the water delivered to almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton, were there to accept the letter. Instead it was handed to a lowly receptionist.
HAF member Jennifer Godschall said: "The chief executive conveniently found that he had another urgent appointment so wasn't around to receive our letter, which is a disgrace.
"There are 12 members of the SHA (board). Someone should have been here to receive that letter."It was an arrogant snub. They have been arrogant throughout the whole process."
Anna Peckham, the campaigner allowed inside to deliver the letter, said the board members' absence shows that public opinion doesn't matter.
She said: "I think clearly the implications are that they're not listening to the people, they've made that quite clear." Nobody from the SHA was available for comment last night.
We have been snubbed
By Jon Reeve
Jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
IT'S an arrogant snub. Anti-fluoridation campaigners have reacted angrily to health chiefs' refusal to personally receive a letter urging them to change then- minds over the controversial scheme for Southampton and surrounding areas.
They say the move is proof South Central Strategic Health Authority is unwilling to listen to the people.
More than 20 members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to the SHA's Newbury HQ yesterday to deliver open letter signed by 170 not even allowed in to deliver the letter.
After a debate with security guards, a single protester was eventually allowed inside.
But none of the 12 SHA board members, who a year ago yesterday voted in favour of adding fluoride to the water delivered to almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton, were there to accept the letter. Instead it was handed to a lowly receptionist.
HAF member Jennifer Godschall said: "The chief executive conveniently found that he had another urgent appointment so wasn't around to receive our letter, which is a disgrace.
"There are 12 members of the SHA (board). Someone should have been here to receive that letter."It was an arrogant snub. They have been arrogant throughout the whole process."
Anna Peckham, the campaigner allowed inside to deliver the letter, said the board members' absence shows that public opinion doesn't matter.
She said: "I think clearly the implications are that they're not listening to the people, they've made that quite clear." Nobody from the SHA was available for comment last night.
26 Feb 2010
Daily Echo
Protesters call for change of mind over fluoridation of water
12:53pm Friday 26th February 2010
By Jon Reeve
LISTEN to the people and change your mind.
Professors, politicians, dentists and even oyster fishermen are among those today demanding health chiefs reverse their decision to add fluoride to the water supplies of almost 200,000 Hampshire residents.
A year to the day after NHS bosses voted for fluoridation for parts of Southampton and the surrounding area, campaigners were due to descend on their offices to protest.
Today’s anniversary comes as the Daily Echo can reveal that delays caused by a legal challenge mean the earliest fluoride could be added to water supplies is likely to be spring 2012.
A high court spokesman confirmed yesterday the earliest the judicial review could be heard by a senior judge is “July or August”.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), which has set aside £400,000 for the legal fight, said last February it hoped to have everything in place to deliver fluoridated water by the end of 2010, but with its talks with Southern Water on how to implement the scheme suspended since last June, it looks set to miss that target by more than a year.
A spokesman yesterday said it would be inappropriate to discuss when fluoride could become a reality, because it would involve “speculating” on the timing and outcome of the judicial review.
12:53pm Friday 26th February 2010
By Jon Reeve
LISTEN to the people and change your mind.
Professors, politicians, dentists and even oyster fishermen are among those today demanding health chiefs reverse their decision to add fluoride to the water supplies of almost 200,000 Hampshire residents.
A year to the day after NHS bosses voted for fluoridation for parts of Southampton and the surrounding area, campaigners were due to descend on their offices to protest.
Today’s anniversary comes as the Daily Echo can reveal that delays caused by a legal challenge mean the earliest fluoride could be added to water supplies is likely to be spring 2012.
A high court spokesman confirmed yesterday the earliest the judicial review could be heard by a senior judge is “July or August”.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), which has set aside £400,000 for the legal fight, said last February it hoped to have everything in place to deliver fluoridated water by the end of 2010, but with its talks with Southern Water on how to implement the scheme suspended since last June, it looks set to miss that target by more than a year.
A spokesman yesterday said it would be inappropriate to discuss when fluoride could become a reality, because it would involve “speculating” on the timing and outcome of the judicial review.
25 Feb 2010
23 Feb 2010
17 Feb 2010
Daily Echo - So is this what you voted for?
Daily Echo
So is this what you voted for?
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
IS this what you thought you were voting for?
That is the question Hampshire campaigners are asking of every MP who passed the law giving local people the power to decide on controversial schemes to fluoridate water supplies.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) is writing to the 220 politicians, including Southampton representatives John Denham and Alan Whitehead, who voted for the Water Act in 2003, to see if they still agree with it.
The group hopes the responses will provide a springboard towards getting the laws scrapped.
Campaigners argue promises made when the proposed laws were debated in the House of Commons have been broken. Ministers said a "clear majority" of local people would have to be in favour for a scheme to fluoridate tap water to get the green light. But health chiefs last year unanimously passed plans to fluoridate supplies to almost 200,000 Hampshire homes despite widespread public opposition.
More than 10,000 people responded to South Central Strategic Health Authority's consultation on the scheme -affecting parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and . Rownhams - with 72 per cent of those from the affected area saying they were against it.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent said they opposed fluoridation, com-pared to 32 per cent in favour.
Since the scheme - the first to be introduced since the 2003 law came into force - was approved, a 15,000-name petition has been handed to the Prime Minister calling for him to step in and overturn the decision.
The SHA argues it did every thing the law and Government guidelines required of it during the consultation, and the decision was made in the best interests of the health of local people.
A judicial review has been lodged through the courts, and senior judges are this year expected to study whether the health authority should have had to listen to public opinion. HAF is now asking MPs who voted through the law if they would still support it, knowing that public opinion could be ignored.
The group believes Government assurances swayed the vote. During the Commons debate, health minister Melanie Johnson said: "There is a difficulty in weighing up the responses, but whatever the case, local opinion must be in favour of the proposal. A clear majority should be in favour of fluoridation."
Similar promises were made in 2005 when the rules on fluoride consultations went through Parliament.
HAF argues that putting the decision in the hands of the 12 un-elected SHA board members is "undemocratic and ethically wrong", and goes against those assurances.
Member Bill Edmunds said he hopes MPs' responses will help put more pressure on the Government to change the rules. "It will be interesting to see how many do return the form - if we get a good response it would help to get a fresh look at the legislation," he said.
So is this what you voted for?
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
IS this what you thought you were voting for?
That is the question Hampshire campaigners are asking of every MP who passed the law giving local people the power to decide on controversial schemes to fluoridate water supplies.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) is writing to the 220 politicians, including Southampton representatives John Denham and Alan Whitehead, who voted for the Water Act in 2003, to see if they still agree with it.
The group hopes the responses will provide a springboard towards getting the laws scrapped.
Campaigners argue promises made when the proposed laws were debated in the House of Commons have been broken. Ministers said a "clear majority" of local people would have to be in favour for a scheme to fluoridate tap water to get the green light. But health chiefs last year unanimously passed plans to fluoridate supplies to almost 200,000 Hampshire homes despite widespread public opposition.
More than 10,000 people responded to South Central Strategic Health Authority's consultation on the scheme -affecting parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and . Rownhams - with 72 per cent of those from the affected area saying they were against it.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent said they opposed fluoridation, com-pared to 32 per cent in favour.
Since the scheme - the first to be introduced since the 2003 law came into force - was approved, a 15,000-name petition has been handed to the Prime Minister calling for him to step in and overturn the decision.
The SHA argues it did every thing the law and Government guidelines required of it during the consultation, and the decision was made in the best interests of the health of local people.
A judicial review has been lodged through the courts, and senior judges are this year expected to study whether the health authority should have had to listen to public opinion. HAF is now asking MPs who voted through the law if they would still support it, knowing that public opinion could be ignored.
The group believes Government assurances swayed the vote. During the Commons debate, health minister Melanie Johnson said: "There is a difficulty in weighing up the responses, but whatever the case, local opinion must be in favour of the proposal. A clear majority should be in favour of fluoridation."
Similar promises were made in 2005 when the rules on fluoride consultations went through Parliament.
HAF argues that putting the decision in the hands of the 12 un-elected SHA board members is "undemocratic and ethically wrong", and goes against those assurances.
Member Bill Edmunds said he hopes MPs' responses will help put more pressure on the Government to change the rules. "It will be interesting to see how many do return the form - if we get a good response it would help to get a fresh look at the legislation," he said.
16 Feb 2010
Fear of Fluoride• February 14th, 2010
Fear of Fluoride• February 14th, 2010
Gary Kemp continues with an exposure of Fluoride. Should there be a fear of Fluoride? We find out.
Gary Kemp continues with an exposure of Fluoride. Should there be a fear of Fluoride? We find out.
14 Feb 2010
13 Feb 2010
USA - Children's Dental Health
Children's Dental Health
The Pew Children's Dental Campaign is working to ensure that more children receive dental care and benefit from policies proven to prevent tooth decay.
We are mounting a national campaign to raise awareness of the problem, recruit influential leaders to call for change, and showcase states that have made progress and can serve as models for pragmatic, cost-effective reform. Our advocacy efforts are targeted at states where policy changes can dramatically improve children’s lives.
The problems affecting children’s dental health are severe. Dental care is the single greatest unmet need for health services among children. Tooth decay is the most common childhood disease, affecting nearly 60 percent of children. For some it’s getting worse—between 1994 and 2004 it increased by 15 percent among kids aged two to five. Eighty percent of dental disease in children is concentrated in 25 percent of kids and children from poor families face disproportionately high barriers to getting care. The consequences can be devastating to those from low-income and minority households.
Some problems may be intractable. This one is not. Working in concert with lawmakers and other government officials, dental providers, national, state and local organizations, researchers, advocates and the private sector, the Pew Center on the States can help millions of kids maintain healthy teeth —making it possible for young children to thrive in school and become healthy, productive adults.
After 65 years of water fluoridtion in the US:NYSCOF
The Pew Children's Dental Campaign is working to ensure that more children receive dental care and benefit from policies proven to prevent tooth decay.
We are mounting a national campaign to raise awareness of the problem, recruit influential leaders to call for change, and showcase states that have made progress and can serve as models for pragmatic, cost-effective reform. Our advocacy efforts are targeted at states where policy changes can dramatically improve children’s lives.
The problems affecting children’s dental health are severe. Dental care is the single greatest unmet need for health services among children. Tooth decay is the most common childhood disease, affecting nearly 60 percent of children. For some it’s getting worse—between 1994 and 2004 it increased by 15 percent among kids aged two to five. Eighty percent of dental disease in children is concentrated in 25 percent of kids and children from poor families face disproportionately high barriers to getting care. The consequences can be devastating to those from low-income and minority households.
Some problems may be intractable. This one is not. Working in concert with lawmakers and other government officials, dental providers, national, state and local organizations, researchers, advocates and the private sector, the Pew Center on the States can help millions of kids maintain healthy teeth —making it possible for young children to thrive in school and become healthy, productive adults.
After 65 years of water fluoridtion in the US:NYSCOF
12 Feb 2010
Daily Echo - It's time to squash these quangos. . .
It's time to squash these quangos. . .
By David Harrison
Leader of New Forest District Liberal Democrats.
IT is interesting to note that the Prime Minister has suddenly addressed the need to restore confidence in our democracy by suggesting that voters get the opportunity to change the voting system, to an alternative vote system, rather than a "first past the post" one.
Cynics might think that the conversion to a more democratic way of thinking has come about a bit late, given that we are only weeks away from a General Election, the Labour party look certain to lose and it's a blundering attempt to gain the support of the Liberal Democrats should we have a result that gives no party an overall majority.
Certainly, the Labour Party has wasted a very long time and a very large majority which would have enabled them to install a fully elected House of Lords. We still have a situation where Government legislation can be thrown out or stalled by people who have never had to face any kind of election and enjoy all the privileges of the House of Lords, by way of birth, not merit.
Fluoride
I don't think that local people were particularly impressed when Mr Brown visited Southampton with his Cabinet and when asked about the wisdom of adding fluoride to our tap water, told reporters: "It is for local people to decide".
Well, actually it isn't! Nearly three quarters of the people who responded to a consultation said they didn't want it and our unelected, unaccountable, Strategic Health Authority are trying to impose it because they know what is good for us.
If the Government is really serious about restoring democracy, they would have addressed the real problem that •. so much public spending is controlled not by MPs or councillors but by non-departmental public bodies, otherwise known as quangos.
At the last official count of public bodies, there were 790 of them, employing 92,500 staff and spending £43bn of your money. Whatever the result of the election, I'm hoping that high on the list of the next Government will be restoring the powers of the quangos to elected people. It is your money. You should have a right to remove the people who don't deliver good services at a price you are willing to pay.
The power of MPs and councillors has diminished almost in direct proportion to the power now held by quangos. This is a really important issue and not one that is being faced up to.
By David Harrison
Leader of New Forest District Liberal Democrats.
IT is interesting to note that the Prime Minister has suddenly addressed the need to restore confidence in our democracy by suggesting that voters get the opportunity to change the voting system, to an alternative vote system, rather than a "first past the post" one.
Cynics might think that the conversion to a more democratic way of thinking has come about a bit late, given that we are only weeks away from a General Election, the Labour party look certain to lose and it's a blundering attempt to gain the support of the Liberal Democrats should we have a result that gives no party an overall majority.
Certainly, the Labour Party has wasted a very long time and a very large majority which would have enabled them to install a fully elected House of Lords. We still have a situation where Government legislation can be thrown out or stalled by people who have never had to face any kind of election and enjoy all the privileges of the House of Lords, by way of birth, not merit.
Fluoride
I don't think that local people were particularly impressed when Mr Brown visited Southampton with his Cabinet and when asked about the wisdom of adding fluoride to our tap water, told reporters: "It is for local people to decide".
Well, actually it isn't! Nearly three quarters of the people who responded to a consultation said they didn't want it and our unelected, unaccountable, Strategic Health Authority are trying to impose it because they know what is good for us.
If the Government is really serious about restoring democracy, they would have addressed the real problem that •. so much public spending is controlled not by MPs or councillors but by non-departmental public bodies, otherwise known as quangos.
At the last official count of public bodies, there were 790 of them, employing 92,500 staff and spending £43bn of your money. Whatever the result of the election, I'm hoping that high on the list of the next Government will be restoring the powers of the quangos to elected people. It is your money. You should have a right to remove the people who don't deliver good services at a price you are willing to pay.
The power of MPs and councillors has diminished almost in direct proportion to the power now held by quangos. This is a really important issue and not one that is being faced up to.
9 Feb 2010
Daily Echo - No going back if fluoride is put in water
No going back if fluoride is put in water
Jennifer Godschall
HAMPSHIRE'S heroic battle against fluoridation is a warning to all political parties.
Its message is simple - when politicians discard democracy for dictatorship, the people wili discard the politicians.
The Green Party is calling on voters to ditch pro-fluoride MPs and councillors. We need good dentists, not bad legislation. We cannot deselect the unelected SHA, but we can deselect their political masters - and we should do so.
This Government thought a sham consultation would fool the electorate. When this failed, they resorted to blatant bullying, forcing people into accepting an arguably fascist policy.
The
fluoridation laws are an abuse of democracy, human rights and medical ethics.
The cynical strategy to deny the
electorate their constitutional rights on this issue must be overturned before it's too late.
In America doctors have already mooted the idea of adding statins to drinking water. In Japan some think that lithium through the taps might help prevent depression and suicides.
When we cross that line and start using the water supply as a conduit for medication, there's no going back.
The terror laws have been shockingly abused - the principle of fluoridation is open to similar abuse. If dental issues can be treated via our drinking water, why not obesity? Why not add vitamins, or statins, or any other drugs in "safe" low doses?
How far are the pro-fluoride brigade prepared to go? Are we all to suffer because politicians cannot resist lobbyists, whose pockets are as deep as their morals are shallow?
Remember - the political mindset that allowed this legislation in the first place, is unlikely to be moved by ethical arguments in the future.
Jennifer Godschall
HAMPSHIRE'S heroic battle against fluoridation is a warning to all political parties.
Its message is simple - when politicians discard democracy for dictatorship, the people wili discard the politicians.
The Green Party is calling on voters to ditch pro-fluoride MPs and councillors. We need good dentists, not bad legislation. We cannot deselect the unelected SHA, but we can deselect their political masters - and we should do so.
This Government thought a sham consultation would fool the electorate. When this failed, they resorted to blatant bullying, forcing people into accepting an arguably fascist policy.
The
fluoridation laws are an abuse of democracy, human rights and medical ethics.
The cynical strategy to deny the
electorate their constitutional rights on this issue must be overturned before it's too late.
In America doctors have already mooted the idea of adding statins to drinking water. In Japan some think that lithium through the taps might help prevent depression and suicides.
When we cross that line and start using the water supply as a conduit for medication, there's no going back.
The terror laws have been shockingly abused - the principle of fluoridation is open to similar abuse. If dental issues can be treated via our drinking water, why not obesity? Why not add vitamins, or statins, or any other drugs in "safe" low doses?
How far are the pro-fluoride brigade prepared to go? Are we all to suffer because politicians cannot resist lobbyists, whose pockets are as deep as their morals are shallow?
Remember - the political mindset that allowed this legislation in the first place, is unlikely to be moved by ethical arguments in the future.
8 Feb 2010
Daily Echo - Spottiswoode's manifesto...
Spottiswoode's manifesto...
KATE Bllenger (Daily Echo, January 25) asks the question; surely having an MP who acts in line with constituents' wishes is a good thing? John Spottiswoode's No F in Southampton campaign aims at getting local councillors and indeed MPs elected who are fighting to stop water fluoridation.
All Green Party candidates support the No F campaign so primarily John Spottiswoode calls for voters to support Green Party candidates, but also for other antifluoridation candidates where there is no Green.
More importantly in answer to the question Kate asks - anyone who supports fluoridation is saying that it is OK to forcibly medicate the whole population through their drinking water.
This is against the democratic will of the 72 per cent who did not want fluoride in the so-called 'Public Consultation' and against the human rights of all those who object.
Supporting fluoridation also breaks medical ethics. People must never force medication on anyone and medication must be based on the individual's needs. Therefore anyone who supports fluoridation is taking a deeply authoritarian and immoral stand and should not be re-elected at any level of government.
Additionally, John Spottiswoode is standing against John Denham on a whole range of issues.
He is against Labour's privatisation of public services, deplores the idea that students should start their working careers with a substantial debt for their academic efforts and of course he has written much outstanding work concerning today's most important challenges such as global warming, and has done so for at least the last fifteen years.
The Green Party and John have wide ranging policies that are sensible and just, not just Green!
JOE COX (Election Agent for John Spottiswoode).
KATE Bllenger (Daily Echo, January 25) asks the question; surely having an MP who acts in line with constituents' wishes is a good thing? John Spottiswoode's No F in Southampton campaign aims at getting local councillors and indeed MPs elected who are fighting to stop water fluoridation.
All Green Party candidates support the No F campaign so primarily John Spottiswoode calls for voters to support Green Party candidates, but also for other antifluoridation candidates where there is no Green.
More importantly in answer to the question Kate asks - anyone who supports fluoridation is saying that it is OK to forcibly medicate the whole population through their drinking water.
This is against the democratic will of the 72 per cent who did not want fluoride in the so-called 'Public Consultation' and against the human rights of all those who object.
Supporting fluoridation also breaks medical ethics. People must never force medication on anyone and medication must be based on the individual's needs. Therefore anyone who supports fluoridation is taking a deeply authoritarian and immoral stand and should not be re-elected at any level of government.
Additionally, John Spottiswoode is standing against John Denham on a whole range of issues.
He is against Labour's privatisation of public services, deplores the idea that students should start their working careers with a substantial debt for their academic efforts and of course he has written much outstanding work concerning today's most important challenges such as global warming, and has done so for at least the last fifteen years.
The Green Party and John have wide ranging policies that are sensible and just, not just Green!
JOE COX (Election Agent for John Spottiswoode).
7 Feb 2010
Dail Echo - Cameron on Fluoride in Southampton
8.05am Saturday 6th February 2010
Conservative Party Leader David Cameron gives his views on the fluoride debate in Southampton at a talk in Romsey
Cameron on Fluoride in Southampton
Conservative Party Leader David Cameron gives his views on the fluoride debate in Southampton at a talk in Romsey
Cameron on Fluoride in Southampton
6 Feb 2010
Daily Echo - Cameron.- 'I'm against plans to add fluoride
Cameron.- 'I'm against plans to add fluoride
By Julian Robinson
julian.robinson@dailyecho.co.uk
THE man who is favourite to be Britain's next Prime Minister last night told the Daily Echo he was against plans to add fluoride to tap water.
But David Cameron stopped short of joining the Daily Echo in calling for a referendum. He echoed rival Gordon Brown's stance that the decision on whether to give it the go-ahead should be made locally
The controversial scheme, aimed at improving dental health, is currently the subject of a judicial review after fluoridation was given the green light across 200,000 homes in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton and Netley
Critics say the chemical should not be added to water supplies accusing the scheme of being "compulsory medication".
When asked about his views on whether the matter should be decided by the ballot box, the Tory leader said: "I have always taken the view that this is something that should be decided locally and I don't believe in compulsory fluoridation of water.
"In the last vote we had, I think I voted against that idea. But if there is a local process in place and a local decision can be made, I think that seems a fair way of doing it."
His comments came during a two-stop tour of Hampshire in which he visited a training centre in Chandler's Ford and later fielded questions at Mountbatten School in Romsey as part of his "Cameron Direct" programme.
He faced a grilling by an audience of more than 150 on subjects ranging from the expenses scandal to Fathers4Justice.
During the question and answer session, he appeared to back the Government's academy schools - even though Southampton's two academies have proved controversial with parents, teachers and students since they were set up in 2008.
Elsewhere he called for an end to the "top down" demand for housing, which he said was putting pressure on areas such as Romsey and called for more localised planning decisions.
He also pledged to stage a "free vote" in the House of Commons on fox hunting and said he would vote to end the ban.
He said: "I think it was a bad bit of law and brought the criminal justice system into disrepute."
Earlier in the day he had called in to the New Career Skills Ltd headquarters in Chandler's Ford to see how those out of employment were developing the ability to work in new trades.
The head of the electrical department at the organisation Cliff Baker said: "I would like to think he learned a lot - especially when he spoke to some of the people who had finished their training.
' "We had some very frank discussions about where we were going and what was needed. There were no promises, but he listened.
By Julian Robinson
julian.robinson@dailyecho.co.uk
THE man who is favourite to be Britain's next Prime Minister last night told the Daily Echo he was against plans to add fluoride to tap water.
But David Cameron stopped short of joining the Daily Echo in calling for a referendum. He echoed rival Gordon Brown's stance that the decision on whether to give it the go-ahead should be made locally
The controversial scheme, aimed at improving dental health, is currently the subject of a judicial review after fluoridation was given the green light across 200,000 homes in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton and Netley
Critics say the chemical should not be added to water supplies accusing the scheme of being "compulsory medication".
When asked about his views on whether the matter should be decided by the ballot box, the Tory leader said: "I have always taken the view that this is something that should be decided locally and I don't believe in compulsory fluoridation of water.
"In the last vote we had, I think I voted against that idea. But if there is a local process in place and a local decision can be made, I think that seems a fair way of doing it."
His comments came during a two-stop tour of Hampshire in which he visited a training centre in Chandler's Ford and later fielded questions at Mountbatten School in Romsey as part of his "Cameron Direct" programme.
He faced a grilling by an audience of more than 150 on subjects ranging from the expenses scandal to Fathers4Justice.
During the question and answer session, he appeared to back the Government's academy schools - even though Southampton's two academies have proved controversial with parents, teachers and students since they were set up in 2008.
Elsewhere he called for an end to the "top down" demand for housing, which he said was putting pressure on areas such as Romsey and called for more localised planning decisions.
He also pledged to stage a "free vote" in the House of Commons on fox hunting and said he would vote to end the ban.
He said: "I think it was a bad bit of law and brought the criminal justice system into disrepute."
Earlier in the day he had called in to the New Career Skills Ltd headquarters in Chandler's Ford to see how those out of employment were developing the ability to work in new trades.
The head of the electrical department at the organisation Cliff Baker said: "I would like to think he learned a lot - especially when he spoke to some of the people who had finished their training.
' "We had some very frank discussions about where we were going and what was needed. There were no promises, but he listened.
5 Feb 2010
Daily Echo - Fluoride's coming at us from all directions
Fluoride's coming at us from all directions
THE Government's proposed addition of folic acid to all bread has been abandoned because there would be no way to check the total daily intake.
So what about the fluorides, now coming at us from all directions, from womb to tomb?
The Government's recommended Medical Research Report on fluori-dation says 'Fluoride crosses the placenta and is incorporated into the developing conceptus... could plausibly be teratogenic' (ie. can cause malformation).
That would be only a part of the chemical load children are now inheriting through the 300 quarts of blood pumped through them every day in their last month in the womb. A recent US Environmental Working Group study found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from babies born in 2004. The industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides included eight perfluoro- chemicals, used as stain and oil repellents, in fast food packaging, clothes, textiles, carpets, etc, including the Teflon and Scotchguard
chemical, PFOA, recently categorised as a likely human carcinogen by the EPAs advisory board.
Samples taken from almost 4,000 adults between 1999 and 2006, reports the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found those with the highest 25 per cent of PFOA and PFOS were more than twice as likely to have thyroid disease than individuals with the lowest 50 per cent.
Professor Galloway of Exeter University, said 'Our results highlight a real need for further research into the health effect of low level exposure to environmental chemicals like PFOA that are ubiquitous in the environment and in peoples' homes'.
There are now 17 pages of fluoride pesticides on the PSD lists. Fluoride is now a corn fumigant.
And the Government wants to add it to our drinking and bath water. Just how ubiquitous can it get?
MJ REICHUN, Andover.
THE Government's proposed addition of folic acid to all bread has been abandoned because there would be no way to check the total daily intake.
So what about the fluorides, now coming at us from all directions, from womb to tomb?
The Government's recommended Medical Research Report on fluori-dation says 'Fluoride crosses the placenta and is incorporated into the developing conceptus... could plausibly be teratogenic' (ie. can cause malformation).
That would be only a part of the chemical load children are now inheriting through the 300 quarts of blood pumped through them every day in their last month in the womb. A recent US Environmental Working Group study found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from babies born in 2004. The industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides included eight perfluoro- chemicals, used as stain and oil repellents, in fast food packaging, clothes, textiles, carpets, etc, including the Teflon and Scotchguard
chemical, PFOA, recently categorised as a likely human carcinogen by the EPAs advisory board.
Samples taken from almost 4,000 adults between 1999 and 2006, reports the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found those with the highest 25 per cent of PFOA and PFOS were more than twice as likely to have thyroid disease than individuals with the lowest 50 per cent.
Professor Galloway of Exeter University, said 'Our results highlight a real need for further research into the health effect of low level exposure to environmental chemicals like PFOA that are ubiquitous in the environment and in peoples' homes'.
There are now 17 pages of fluoride pesticides on the PSD lists. Fluoride is now a corn fumigant.
And the Government wants to add it to our drinking and bath water. Just how ubiquitous can it get?
MJ REICHUN, Andover.
2 Feb 2010
Echo letter
Fluoridation concern
KATE Bellenberg (Letters, January 25) asserts that John Denham's position is: because the public don't back it (fluoridation), it should not go ahead. That's not quite right. Mr Denham said he would try to get fluoridation put on hold until the people of Southampton could be persuaded, by means of another consultation, to support fluoridation. That means he would spend shed-loads more of taxpayers' money until we are browbeaten into submission.
I agree that there are many other important issues to consider before casting a vote, but the preservation of certain freedoms and basic democratic rights should trump all other issues. There are individual local politicians from all parties who have spoken out against forced medication and have shown commitment to these precious human rights. The only party that is wholly against fluoridation is the Green Party.
SUE ROBSON, Southampton.
KATE Bellenberg (Letters, January 25) asserts that John Denham's position is: because the public don't back it (fluoridation), it should not go ahead. That's not quite right. Mr Denham said he would try to get fluoridation put on hold until the people of Southampton could be persuaded, by means of another consultation, to support fluoridation. That means he would spend shed-loads more of taxpayers' money until we are browbeaten into submission.
I agree that there are many other important issues to consider before casting a vote, but the preservation of certain freedoms and basic democratic rights should trump all other issues. There are individual local politicians from all parties who have spoken out against forced medication and have shown commitment to these precious human rights. The only party that is wholly against fluoridation is the Green Party.
SUE ROBSON, Southampton.
1 Feb 2010
Daily Echo - Dr Lewis backed anti-fluoride campaign
Dr Lewis backs anti-fluoride campaign
ON January 21 "Southy, Redbridge" wrongly accused Dr Julian Lewis of objecting to fluoridation for the moment because of the General Election.
I would point out that my MP has actively fought fluoridation for at least 13 years to my knowledge.
In June 1998 he signed an Early Day Motion that the House acknowledge that there is scientific controversy surrounding artificial water fluoridation and that worldwide scientific evidence shows that artificial water fluoridation has adverse effects on health.
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam
ON January 21 "Southy, Redbridge" wrongly accused Dr Julian Lewis of objecting to fluoridation for the moment because of the General Election.
I would point out that my MP has actively fought fluoridation for at least 13 years to my knowledge.
In June 1998 he signed an Early Day Motion that the House acknowledge that there is scientific controversy surrounding artificial water fluoridation and that worldwide scientific evidence shows that artificial water fluoridation has adverse effects on health.
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam
USA - Low income children miss out on dental care
Low income children miss out on dental care
Submitted by voicesweb on December 11, 2009 - 7:44pm
by Sylvia Onusic
A mother recently walked through the doors of Centre Volunteers in Medicine, the local free healthcare clinic, with her five-year-old girl. The little girl’s four front baby teeth were broken off at the gum line. In each tooth was an abscess, a longstanding infection. Aside from the discomfort, such infections in baby teeth can affect the permanent teeth just below, becoming a much more complicated health issue in the future.
“The parents didn’t want to take the child out of school for treatment but we finally got her in last week,” Dr. Heather Raymond, director of CVIM’s dental services, told Voices. “It broke my heart.”
John Kelly, a local pediatric dentist since 1977, said that “parents routinely ignore children’s abscessed teeth because they don’t cause a lot of pain, but the infection is sitting there constantly flowing into the blood stream. These children become sick children.”
The Pennsylvania Oral Health Needs Assessment and other reports continue to emphasize the association between low income and dental health. Poor children in Pennsylvania have fewer visits to the dentist, more untreated cavities and dental diseases. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, “this strongly suggests that access to preventive and restorative dental care, as well as effective preventive oral health education, is lacking for these poor children and their families.”
Centre County is no exception. A study commissioned by the state department of health from 1998 to 2000, found higher rates of caries and untreated caries in the northern districts, north central districts and in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. State College is located in the north central district, and school districts sampled for this study were in Centre County and Clinton Counties.
More than 5,000 local children, an estimated one in four, are Medicaid recipients, yet only six dentists in the county accept payments from this government program for low-income residents, leaving many local children without dental care.
A 2008 list of Medicaid dentists provided by Jeffrey Foreman, executive director of the Centre County Assistance Office showed little improvement over 2004 with only one new dentist signing up in four years.
Dentists who accept Medicaid in Centre County include John R. Kelly, Robert L. Kilareski, G. Matthew Kremser, pediatric dentists in State College; Shama Kulkarni, John W. Le Clair, general dentistry in State College; and Jolene Galak-Vaughn, general dentistry in Philipsburg. Diane Ray, who has joined Dr. Kelly’s practice, is an orthodontist who has applied for Medicaid certification. Kelly told Voices that Pennsylvania is slow to certify new dentists—they don’t want to pay.
The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare reports that an estimated 40 percent of all licensed dentists in Pennsylvania are enrolled in the Medicaid Program, but only 54 percent of those actually participate in the program. Of those, only half provide 99 percent of all dental services rendered to eligible Medicaid participants.
Yet dentists know better than anyone the dangers to children of delayed or absent dental care.
Tooth decay affects 48 percent of Pennsylvania children by the age of eight, even those who drink fluoridated water, according to the Department of Public Welfare. By age 15, this increases to 50 percent. Thirty-three percent of low-income children have untreated tooth decay compared to only 10 percent of children in higher-income households...................
Submitted by voicesweb on December 11, 2009 - 7:44pm
by Sylvia Onusic
A mother recently walked through the doors of Centre Volunteers in Medicine, the local free healthcare clinic, with her five-year-old girl. The little girl’s four front baby teeth were broken off at the gum line. In each tooth was an abscess, a longstanding infection. Aside from the discomfort, such infections in baby teeth can affect the permanent teeth just below, becoming a much more complicated health issue in the future.
“The parents didn’t want to take the child out of school for treatment but we finally got her in last week,” Dr. Heather Raymond, director of CVIM’s dental services, told Voices. “It broke my heart.”
John Kelly, a local pediatric dentist since 1977, said that “parents routinely ignore children’s abscessed teeth because they don’t cause a lot of pain, but the infection is sitting there constantly flowing into the blood stream. These children become sick children.”
The Pennsylvania Oral Health Needs Assessment and other reports continue to emphasize the association between low income and dental health. Poor children in Pennsylvania have fewer visits to the dentist, more untreated cavities and dental diseases. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, “this strongly suggests that access to preventive and restorative dental care, as well as effective preventive oral health education, is lacking for these poor children and their families.”
Centre County is no exception. A study commissioned by the state department of health from 1998 to 2000, found higher rates of caries and untreated caries in the northern districts, north central districts and in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. State College is located in the north central district, and school districts sampled for this study were in Centre County and Clinton Counties.
More than 5,000 local children, an estimated one in four, are Medicaid recipients, yet only six dentists in the county accept payments from this government program for low-income residents, leaving many local children without dental care.
A 2008 list of Medicaid dentists provided by Jeffrey Foreman, executive director of the Centre County Assistance Office showed little improvement over 2004 with only one new dentist signing up in four years.
Dentists who accept Medicaid in Centre County include John R. Kelly, Robert L. Kilareski, G. Matthew Kremser, pediatric dentists in State College; Shama Kulkarni, John W. Le Clair, general dentistry in State College; and Jolene Galak-Vaughn, general dentistry in Philipsburg. Diane Ray, who has joined Dr. Kelly’s practice, is an orthodontist who has applied for Medicaid certification. Kelly told Voices that Pennsylvania is slow to certify new dentists—they don’t want to pay.
The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare reports that an estimated 40 percent of all licensed dentists in Pennsylvania are enrolled in the Medicaid Program, but only 54 percent of those actually participate in the program. Of those, only half provide 99 percent of all dental services rendered to eligible Medicaid participants.
Yet dentists know better than anyone the dangers to children of delayed or absent dental care.
Tooth decay affects 48 percent of Pennsylvania children by the age of eight, even those who drink fluoridated water, according to the Department of Public Welfare. By age 15, this increases to 50 percent. Thirty-three percent of low-income children have untreated tooth decay compared to only 10 percent of children in higher-income households...................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
