...............Cr Glenda Mather was the first to raise her hand with a series of questions on fluoridation, in particular a document Ms Bligh signed in October 2008 giving a personal guarantee to provide financial compensation to anyone suffering ill health as a result of the controversial policy.
“Do you accept you signed that pledge?” said Cr Mather, who stressed she was attending the meeting in a private capacity.
The Premier agreed that she had and said the scientific evidence was strong that fluoride improved teeth quality, especially in children.
If anyone had an established proven case that they had been harmed they should put it to a lawyer and make a claim, the Premier said.
31 May 2010
Daily Echo - Don't allow SHA to dictate
WHERE is the democracy in this country?
The overwhelming majority are against the proposed fluoridation of our water and yet SHA dictators still are hell-bent on going ahead with it.
This is totally out of order and must not be allowed.
MIKE AND TRISH, address supplied.
The overwhelming majority are against the proposed fluoridation of our water and yet SHA dictators still are hell-bent on going ahead with it.
This is totally out of order and must not be allowed.
MIKE AND TRISH, address supplied.
28 May 2010
Daily Echo
Fluoridation scaremonger
By John Beal MBE
Vice Chairman British Fluoridation Society
DESPITE the scaremongering from your In My View correspondent Joy Warren, the best available scientific evidence worldwide tells us that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay effectively and safely.
The York report found that, on average, children in fluoridated areas have 2.25 fewer teeth decayed, missing and filled than those in non-fluoridated areas. This represents about a 40 per cent reduction in the amount of tooth decay experienced per child.
The same report found that, on average, in fluoridated areas there are about 15 per cent more children with no tooth decay at all than there are in non-fluoridated areas. It has been calculated that if five year old children in non-fluoridated Manchester were to enjoy the same level of dental health as those in fluoridated Birmingham and The Black Country, around 40,000 teeth a year could be saved from decay and 6,000 more children would be completely free from decay.
I acknowledged in my previous response that in fluoridated areas there is generally a slight increase in the number of children with noticeable dental fluorosis. The Medical Research Council and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council have both estimated that in developed countries such as the UK and Ireland, about 3-4 per cent of children in fluoridated areas are likely to be affected, compared with 1 per cent in non-fluoridated
The 12 per cent figure cited by Mrs Warren from the York report is based on calculations in that include studies from countries in Africa and Asia with hot climates and much higher concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride in the local water supply than the fluoride level for UK fluoridation schemes.
I note that Mrs Warren has now brought the Icelandic volcano eruption into the equation. Here, she is at odds with the European Food Safety Authority, which states that the potential risk from fluoride in volcanic ash to drinking water and food in the European Union is 'negligible'.
Interestingly, she appears to rely on data from the early 1940s to prove that fluoride is harmful, virtually all substances are potentially harmful at the wrong concentration, including oxygen and nitrogen, which are the main constituents of the air we breathe and on which our lives depend.
Both the British Medical Association and the American Medical Association have expressed their support for water fluoridation, and as recently as 2008 the American Public Health Association reiterated its strong endorsement and recommendation for the fluoridation of all community water systems as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of tooth decay.
This needs an answer from somebody qualified to counter his claims email Daily Echo "In My View" david.brine@dailyecho.co.uk
By John Beal MBE
Vice Chairman British Fluoridation Society
DESPITE the scaremongering from your In My View correspondent Joy Warren, the best available scientific evidence worldwide tells us that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay effectively and safely.
The York report found that, on average, children in fluoridated areas have 2.25 fewer teeth decayed, missing and filled than those in non-fluoridated areas. This represents about a 40 per cent reduction in the amount of tooth decay experienced per child.
The same report found that, on average, in fluoridated areas there are about 15 per cent more children with no tooth decay at all than there are in non-fluoridated areas. It has been calculated that if five year old children in non-fluoridated Manchester were to enjoy the same level of dental health as those in fluoridated Birmingham and The Black Country, around 40,000 teeth a year could be saved from decay and 6,000 more children would be completely free from decay.
I acknowledged in my previous response that in fluoridated areas there is generally a slight increase in the number of children with noticeable dental fluorosis. The Medical Research Council and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council have both estimated that in developed countries such as the UK and Ireland, about 3-4 per cent of children in fluoridated areas are likely to be affected, compared with 1 per cent in non-fluoridated
The 12 per cent figure cited by Mrs Warren from the York report is based on calculations in that include studies from countries in Africa and Asia with hot climates and much higher concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride in the local water supply than the fluoride level for UK fluoridation schemes.
I note that Mrs Warren has now brought the Icelandic volcano eruption into the equation. Here, she is at odds with the European Food Safety Authority, which states that the potential risk from fluoride in volcanic ash to drinking water and food in the European Union is 'negligible'.
Interestingly, she appears to rely on data from the early 1940s to prove that fluoride is harmful, virtually all substances are potentially harmful at the wrong concentration, including oxygen and nitrogen, which are the main constituents of the air we breathe and on which our lives depend.
Both the British Medical Association and the American Medical Association have expressed their support for water fluoridation, and as recently as 2008 the American Public Health Association reiterated its strong endorsement and recommendation for the fluoridation of all community water systems as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of tooth decay.
This needs an answer from somebody qualified to counter his claims email Daily Echo "In My View" david.brine@dailyecho.co.uk
26 May 2010
25 May 2010
24 May 2010
Daily Echo letters
Experimenting with the truth in fluoride debate
I'M indifferent to whether we add fluoride to our water, and I have no axe to grind - but I am strongly against the misuse and selective quoting of scientific research by those debating the idea.
We get enough lies from our politicians so do we really need to fill the Daily Echo's letters pages with them?
In John Hayward's article (In my view, May 14), no mention is made of the Knox Report published by the Department of Health in 1985, or the 2002 report from the Medical Research Council. These studied all the previous scientific research that had been made of water fluoridation, and pointed out the gross flaws in those claiming a link with cancer - usually misuse of statistics. Dr Dean Burk, quoted in the last paragraph of the article, came in for some heavy criticism from the Knox report. The conclusions of his studies depended on an "unacceptable selection of data which
most favoured his hypothesis and on his failure to make comparisons with other areas". Yes, that really sums it up for me as well, John. Scientific papers are not always correct - it is through the review of their methods and conclusions that the "community comes to accept them. Studies can be repeated by different people and the results compared. It is clear that through this process over the past few decades, the vast majority of health experts have concluded that fluoride is not only safe, but a cost-effective way of preventing tooth decay in those sections of the population with poor dental health.
I also find the claims about fluoride being a "toxin" misleading -at the levels used in water fluoridation (one part per million), there are no adverse effects other than perhaps mild fluorosis. Indeed, this level is found naturally in other parts of the country. The irony is that both sides of the debate claim their opponents are selectively quoting. Personally, I simply do not believe the NHS would propose an action which would cause people to fall ill. I'm particularly dismayed when environmentalists jump on the anti-fluoride bandwagon with bad science. The case for taking action on climate change relies on the scientific method - you can't have it both ways.
TIM RETOUT, Address supplied.
The evidence that fluoridation affects the brain adversely is overwhelming. The advocates of its introduction, such as Dr John Beal (Letters, May 11) must be imbibing it as all seem completely incapable of grasping one simple fact Whatever the merits, or demerits of its introduction, the people of this area - by a majority of 72 per cent - do not want it. Would they please, just for once, stop their blathering, and blandishments, and listen to what we are saying?
D R SMITH, Southampton.
The Irish Dental Association recently revealed that by the age of fifteen, 75% of Irish children have experienced tooth decay. Research indicates that it is children from more deprived backgrounds who have a higher risk of decay.
Sounds familiar? I'm sure if the local Strategic Health Authority (SHA) were responsible for Southern Ireland they would soon call for a consultation on fluoridation - except that Ireland is fluoridated already. They have been for many decades.
In 2006 the Oral Health Services Research Centre in Cork reported a 700% rise in dental fluorosis among 15-year-olds since 1984 and according to the Irish Osteoporosis Society Ireland has a prevalence of osteoporosis causing increasing numbers of hip fractures. There is a predicted doubling in the annual number of hip fractures in less than 20 years.
In the light of this evidence the SHA should reconsider their decision to fluoridate our water.
Bill Edmunds
Cadnam
I'M indifferent to whether we add fluoride to our water, and I have no axe to grind - but I am strongly against the misuse and selective quoting of scientific research by those debating the idea.
We get enough lies from our politicians so do we really need to fill the Daily Echo's letters pages with them?
In John Hayward's article (In my view, May 14), no mention is made of the Knox Report published by the Department of Health in 1985, or the 2002 report from the Medical Research Council. These studied all the previous scientific research that had been made of water fluoridation, and pointed out the gross flaws in those claiming a link with cancer - usually misuse of statistics. Dr Dean Burk, quoted in the last paragraph of the article, came in for some heavy criticism from the Knox report. The conclusions of his studies depended on an "unacceptable selection of data which
most favoured his hypothesis and on his failure to make comparisons with other areas". Yes, that really sums it up for me as well, John. Scientific papers are not always correct - it is through the review of their methods and conclusions that the "community comes to accept them. Studies can be repeated by different people and the results compared. It is clear that through this process over the past few decades, the vast majority of health experts have concluded that fluoride is not only safe, but a cost-effective way of preventing tooth decay in those sections of the population with poor dental health.
I also find the claims about fluoride being a "toxin" misleading -at the levels used in water fluoridation (one part per million), there are no adverse effects other than perhaps mild fluorosis. Indeed, this level is found naturally in other parts of the country. The irony is that both sides of the debate claim their opponents are selectively quoting. Personally, I simply do not believe the NHS would propose an action which would cause people to fall ill. I'm particularly dismayed when environmentalists jump on the anti-fluoride bandwagon with bad science. The case for taking action on climate change relies on the scientific method - you can't have it both ways.
TIM RETOUT, Address supplied.
The evidence that fluoridation affects the brain adversely is overwhelming. The advocates of its introduction, such as Dr John Beal (Letters, May 11) must be imbibing it as all seem completely incapable of grasping one simple fact Whatever the merits, or demerits of its introduction, the people of this area - by a majority of 72 per cent - do not want it. Would they please, just for once, stop their blathering, and blandishments, and listen to what we are saying?
D R SMITH, Southampton.
The Irish Dental Association recently revealed that by the age of fifteen, 75% of Irish children have experienced tooth decay. Research indicates that it is children from more deprived backgrounds who have a higher risk of decay.
Sounds familiar? I'm sure if the local Strategic Health Authority (SHA) were responsible for Southern Ireland they would soon call for a consultation on fluoridation - except that Ireland is fluoridated already. They have been for many decades.
In 2006 the Oral Health Services Research Centre in Cork reported a 700% rise in dental fluorosis among 15-year-olds since 1984 and according to the Irish Osteoporosis Society Ireland has a prevalence of osteoporosis causing increasing numbers of hip fractures. There is a predicted doubling in the annual number of hip fractures in less than 20 years.
In the light of this evidence the SHA should reconsider their decision to fluoridate our water.
Bill Edmunds
Cadnam
21 May 2010
Following Nick Clegg's speech today in the House of Commons (19th May),
Following Nick Clegg's speech today in the House of Commons (19th May), there is light on the horizon! The first thing that has to be done is for all anti-fluoridationists to write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking his team to consider the repealing of Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 along with two other dependent pieces of legislation. The reason for this request will be apparent to all anti-fluoridationists but in order to make it easy for those less clued up on the legislative aspects, a suggested letter is attached as a link.
The political scene has now changed, hopefully for the better. Although the new Secretary of State, Andrew Lansley (Conservative), has uncertain views about fluoridation, one of his Ministers of Health is a Lib Dem and the Lib Dems are more likely to consider water fluoridation as being a breach of our civil liberties.
Moreover, in these financially straightened times, how could any government countenance the use of public money to buttress further fluoridation schemes and to maintain current ones? Water fluoridation is not an essential service, no-one will die if fluoridation ceases or if the dosing plants break down. Fluoridation does not prevent tooth decay even though it seems to do so in fluoridated children aged 1 to 6 years old. The 'seeming' nature of decay prevention is dealt with elsewhere on this site. As a non-vital service, the waste of tax-payers' money on fluoridation schemes is nothing short of scandalous.
JW 19/10/10
nickclegg
The political scene has now changed, hopefully for the better. Although the new Secretary of State, Andrew Lansley (Conservative), has uncertain views about fluoridation, one of his Ministers of Health is a Lib Dem and the Lib Dems are more likely to consider water fluoridation as being a breach of our civil liberties.
Moreover, in these financially straightened times, how could any government countenance the use of public money to buttress further fluoridation schemes and to maintain current ones? Water fluoridation is not an essential service, no-one will die if fluoridation ceases or if the dosing plants break down. Fluoridation does not prevent tooth decay even though it seems to do so in fluoridated children aged 1 to 6 years old. The 'seeming' nature of decay prevention is dealt with elsewhere on this site. As a non-vital service, the waste of tax-payers' money on fluoridation schemes is nothing short of scandalous.
JW 19/10/10
nickclegg
20 May 2010
Daily Echo - Health Chief demands a rethink on fluoride
By Rachel Masker
rachel.masker@daifyecho.co.uk
A HAMPSHIRE health watchdog is demanding a rethink of the controversial decision to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton and other parts of the county.
Now the boss of a top county health committee has written to those behind the scheme calling for it to be scrapped.
Councillor Anna McNair Scott, chairman of the health overview and scrutiny committee, said it was "inappropriate in the extreme" for South Central Strategic Health Authority to proceed.
The Tory county councillor said strong public opposition remained to the scheme to fluoridate the drinking water supplied to almost 200,000 homes.
She said the latest figures on children's dental health in Southampton showed the need for fluoridation as a way to reduce tooth decay had been "overstated" when it was requested by city health chiefs.
As revealed by the Daily Echo last October, research showed the proportion of five-year-olds in the city suffering tooth decay had fallen dramatically, and is now virtual the same as averages.
The figures also showed a decline in the number of teeth affected by disease, giving Southampton better results than Birmingham - where fluoride has been added to the water since the 1960s. The councillor said the results
backed up reservations published in the York Review - the most comprehensive study of fluoridation, published a decade ago - about the benefits of the practice.
Mrs McNair Scott also believes the £400,000 cost of fighting a judicial review of the decision to proceed with fluoridation is a significant expenditure when "primary care trusts are already struggling to maintain frontline services.
A high court judge is to examine claims lodged by Southampton resident Gerealdine Milner that health chiefs ignored public opinion. The case could be heard at the Royal Courts of of Justice before the end of the year.
In her letter to the authorities Mrs McNair Scott said: My purpose in writing to you is to formally request that the strategic health authority board reconsiders its decision to proceed with these plans taking account of the new evidence that has emerged and its stewardship responsibilities in relation to the use of public funding.
"To proceed with this proposal against the wishes of the population affected would seem to be inappropriate in the extreme at a time when real pressures ai-e beginning to emerge in public sector finances."
In a letter of reply, Andrea Young, chief executive of South Central Strategic Authority, said it would be inappropriate to comment on public support for fluoridation as the case was now subject to judicial review. But she said the authority was pleased children in the region generally have better dental health than many other parts of the country.
The health boss added: "However the regional data does hide significant pockets of poor dental health in some of the big towns and cities in our region."
She also warned against using the latest dental figures for comparisons with previous statistics because of a change in the way the survey was carried out.
Ms Young continued: "The strategic health authority takes its responsibility for the use of public funds extremely seriously.
"Having followed the relevant legislation and Department of Health guidance, it reached the conclusion that health arguments in favour of fluoridating the water supply in Southampton and south west Hampshire outweigh the arguments against fluoridation. It remains of that view."
10,000 opinions
More than 10,000 people submitted their opinions during a public consultation with 72 per cent of those living in the targeted area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Tottpn, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against fluoridation.
Totton South and Marchwood county councillor David Harrison said: "The strategic health authority is now spending large sums of taxpayers' money trying to defend the indefensible which is about imposing something that the public doesn't want.
"They have ignored the results of their own consultation which again involved the investment of large sums of taxpayers' money."
Letter from Anna McNair Scott, chairman of the health overview and scrutiny committee, at Hampshire County Council, to Andrea Young, chief executive of South Central Strategic Authority
Dear Andrea
It is now over a year since the SHA Board took the decision to approve the request of Southampton City PCT to add fluoride to the drinking water in parts of Southampton and South West Hampshire.
You will be aware of the strong opposition to this proposal that Hampshire County Council expressed: I would wish to reaffirm that our objections, on the grounds of both evidence base and ethics, given the strength of local opposition, remain. There have been a number of developments since the decision taken by the Board that have prevented the implementation of the proposal, and in our view further weakened the grounds on which the SHA felt it was acceptable to proceed. Firstly, a judicial review case is pending and the initial support expressed by a minority of elected representatives, including MPs and Local Authorities, has evaporated in the face of the continued opposition that has been expressed by the population affected.
Because of the support of the Southampton City Council, the SHA Board felt able to disregard the assurances of Ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister, that fluoride should not be added to drinking water unless this was supported by the public. This support no longer exists. Secondly, the recently published figures of children's dental health in Southampton are evidence that the case of need put forward by the Southampton City PCT and dental health professionals was overstated.
The reservations, clearly expressed in the York supply in addressing health inequalities are reinforced by this evidence. Thirdly, I have previously questioned the infrastructure and maintenance costs of the proposals and have not received clear answers. The consultation process has incurred significant expenditure and, regardless of the outcome, the judicial review will add a further £400,000 to this total.
The uncertainty about the added value the scheme will bring for the target population coupled with the added costs of physical implementation would suggest that it would be wrong for the board not to revisit its original decision. My purpose in writing to you is to formally request that the SHA Board reconsiders its decision to proceed with these plans taking account of the new evidence that has emerged and its stewardship responsibilities in relation to the use of public funding. To proceed with this proposal against the wishes of the population affected would seem to be inappropriate in the extreme at a time when real pressures are beginning to emerge in public sector finances. PCTs are already struggling to maintain front line services and this is likely to escalate. I look forward to receiving confirmation of the action you are taking in response to this letter by 17 May 2010.
Anna McNair
SHA response from chief executive Andrea Young
Dear Cllr McNair Scott
Plans to add fluoride drinking water in Southampton and South West Hampshire
Thank you for your letter dated 12 April 2010, formally requesting the South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) Board to reconsider its decision to proceed with plans to fluoridate water in Southampton and parts of South West Hampshire.
I note your comment on the view of Hampshire County Council. As you mention in your letter, the SKA'S decision to instruct Southern Water to fluoridate the local water supply is now subject to judicial review proceedings. In light of this, it would be inappropriate to discuss your comments regarding support for the proposal at the current time.
With regard to the issue of data on the dental health of children in Southampton, the SHA is pleased that children in the NHS South Central region have, on average, better dental health than many other places in England. However, the regional data does hide significant pockets of poor dental health in some of the big towns and cities in our region. With regards to the dental figures published recently, you will note some important caveats contained in the full report. One of the main points to note is that for the first time, positive consent for examinations was required for this survey. In previous years, parents were advised the examinations were taking place, and, unless a parent objected, the examination went ahead.
The report authors stated: "This is the first survey of this type where parents of children were required to give consent and therefore bias resulting from non-response cannot be ruled out. As a result, direct comparisons with previous surveys should not be made. Non-respondents were more likely to be from deprived areas, where there is a tendency for children to have higher levels of dental decay. Data was weighted to take this into account, but it may be that non-respondents had different levels of dental decay over and above that which may be explained by deprivation alone."
It is therefore not prudent to base decisions solely on this information, especially when there had been no corresponding fall in tooth extractions under general anaesthetic for children under five years old during the same time period.
The SHA takes its responsibility for the use of public funds extremely seriously. Having followed the relevant legislation and Department of Health guidance, it reached a conclusion that the health arguments in favour of fluoridating the water supply in Southampton and South West Hampshire outweigh the arguments against fluoridation. It remains of that view.
Andrea Young Chief executive
rachel.masker@daifyecho.co.uk
A HAMPSHIRE health watchdog is demanding a rethink of the controversial decision to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton and other parts of the county.
Now the boss of a top county health committee has written to those behind the scheme calling for it to be scrapped.
Councillor Anna McNair Scott, chairman of the health overview and scrutiny committee, said it was "inappropriate in the extreme" for South Central Strategic Health Authority to proceed.
The Tory county councillor said strong public opposition remained to the scheme to fluoridate the drinking water supplied to almost 200,000 homes.
She said the latest figures on children's dental health in Southampton showed the need for fluoridation as a way to reduce tooth decay had been "overstated" when it was requested by city health chiefs.
As revealed by the Daily Echo last October, research showed the proportion of five-year-olds in the city suffering tooth decay had fallen dramatically, and is now virtual the same as averages.
The figures also showed a decline in the number of teeth affected by disease, giving Southampton better results than Birmingham - where fluoride has been added to the water since the 1960s. The councillor said the results
backed up reservations published in the York Review - the most comprehensive study of fluoridation, published a decade ago - about the benefits of the practice.
Mrs McNair Scott also believes the £400,000 cost of fighting a judicial review of the decision to proceed with fluoridation is a significant expenditure when "primary care trusts are already struggling to maintain frontline services.
A high court judge is to examine claims lodged by Southampton resident Gerealdine Milner that health chiefs ignored public opinion. The case could be heard at the Royal Courts of of Justice before the end of the year.
In her letter to the authorities Mrs McNair Scott said: My purpose in writing to you is to formally request that the strategic health authority board reconsiders its decision to proceed with these plans taking account of the new evidence that has emerged and its stewardship responsibilities in relation to the use of public funding.
"To proceed with this proposal against the wishes of the population affected would seem to be inappropriate in the extreme at a time when real pressures ai-e beginning to emerge in public sector finances."
In a letter of reply, Andrea Young, chief executive of South Central Strategic Authority, said it would be inappropriate to comment on public support for fluoridation as the case was now subject to judicial review. But she said the authority was pleased children in the region generally have better dental health than many other parts of the country.
The health boss added: "However the regional data does hide significant pockets of poor dental health in some of the big towns and cities in our region."
She also warned against using the latest dental figures for comparisons with previous statistics because of a change in the way the survey was carried out.
Ms Young continued: "The strategic health authority takes its responsibility for the use of public funds extremely seriously.
"Having followed the relevant legislation and Department of Health guidance, it reached the conclusion that health arguments in favour of fluoridating the water supply in Southampton and south west Hampshire outweigh the arguments against fluoridation. It remains of that view."
10,000 opinions
More than 10,000 people submitted their opinions during a public consultation with 72 per cent of those living in the targeted area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Tottpn, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against fluoridation.
Totton South and Marchwood county councillor David Harrison said: "The strategic health authority is now spending large sums of taxpayers' money trying to defend the indefensible which is about imposing something that the public doesn't want.
"They have ignored the results of their own consultation which again involved the investment of large sums of taxpayers' money."
Letter from Anna McNair Scott, chairman of the health overview and scrutiny committee, at Hampshire County Council, to Andrea Young, chief executive of South Central Strategic Authority
Dear Andrea
It is now over a year since the SHA Board took the decision to approve the request of Southampton City PCT to add fluoride to the drinking water in parts of Southampton and South West Hampshire.
You will be aware of the strong opposition to this proposal that Hampshire County Council expressed: I would wish to reaffirm that our objections, on the grounds of both evidence base and ethics, given the strength of local opposition, remain. There have been a number of developments since the decision taken by the Board that have prevented the implementation of the proposal, and in our view further weakened the grounds on which the SHA felt it was acceptable to proceed. Firstly, a judicial review case is pending and the initial support expressed by a minority of elected representatives, including MPs and Local Authorities, has evaporated in the face of the continued opposition that has been expressed by the population affected.
Because of the support of the Southampton City Council, the SHA Board felt able to disregard the assurances of Ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister, that fluoride should not be added to drinking water unless this was supported by the public. This support no longer exists. Secondly, the recently published figures of children's dental health in Southampton are evidence that the case of need put forward by the Southampton City PCT and dental health professionals was overstated.
The reservations, clearly expressed in the York supply in addressing health inequalities are reinforced by this evidence. Thirdly, I have previously questioned the infrastructure and maintenance costs of the proposals and have not received clear answers. The consultation process has incurred significant expenditure and, regardless of the outcome, the judicial review will add a further £400,000 to this total.
The uncertainty about the added value the scheme will bring for the target population coupled with the added costs of physical implementation would suggest that it would be wrong for the board not to revisit its original decision. My purpose in writing to you is to formally request that the SHA Board reconsiders its decision to proceed with these plans taking account of the new evidence that has emerged and its stewardship responsibilities in relation to the use of public funding. To proceed with this proposal against the wishes of the population affected would seem to be inappropriate in the extreme at a time when real pressures are beginning to emerge in public sector finances. PCTs are already struggling to maintain front line services and this is likely to escalate. I look forward to receiving confirmation of the action you are taking in response to this letter by 17 May 2010.
Anna McNair
SHA response from chief executive Andrea Young
Dear Cllr McNair Scott
Plans to add fluoride drinking water in Southampton and South West Hampshire
Thank you for your letter dated 12 April 2010, formally requesting the South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) Board to reconsider its decision to proceed with plans to fluoridate water in Southampton and parts of South West Hampshire.
I note your comment on the view of Hampshire County Council. As you mention in your letter, the SKA'S decision to instruct Southern Water to fluoridate the local water supply is now subject to judicial review proceedings. In light of this, it would be inappropriate to discuss your comments regarding support for the proposal at the current time.
With regard to the issue of data on the dental health of children in Southampton, the SHA is pleased that children in the NHS South Central region have, on average, better dental health than many other places in England. However, the regional data does hide significant pockets of poor dental health in some of the big towns and cities in our region. With regards to the dental figures published recently, you will note some important caveats contained in the full report. One of the main points to note is that for the first time, positive consent for examinations was required for this survey. In previous years, parents were advised the examinations were taking place, and, unless a parent objected, the examination went ahead.
The report authors stated: "This is the first survey of this type where parents of children were required to give consent and therefore bias resulting from non-response cannot be ruled out. As a result, direct comparisons with previous surveys should not be made. Non-respondents were more likely to be from deprived areas, where there is a tendency for children to have higher levels of dental decay. Data was weighted to take this into account, but it may be that non-respondents had different levels of dental decay over and above that which may be explained by deprivation alone."
It is therefore not prudent to base decisions solely on this information, especially when there had been no corresponding fall in tooth extractions under general anaesthetic for children under five years old during the same time period.
The SHA takes its responsibility for the use of public funds extremely seriously. Having followed the relevant legislation and Department of Health guidance, it reached a conclusion that the health arguments in favour of fluoridating the water supply in Southampton and South West Hampshire outweigh the arguments against fluoridation. It remains of that view.
Andrea Young Chief executive
18 May 2010
Daily Echo letter
Teeth are improving without use of fluoride
PROF Walmsley's recent letter is misleading. He says that fluoridation is supported by Southampton University academics.
My husband, a biologist, disagrees strongly - as do many others.
Here lies the problem -Many top academics and dentists disagree on this issue and so little good research has been done- particularly on the amount of fluoride we ingest from the environment.
Our basic food stuffs contain much higher levels of fluoride than they did 20 years ago - absorbed by pollution and the increased use of fertilizers. If there is any doubt - do not tamper with our water.
The American Dental Association warns parents not to give infants fluoridated water - so who is going to pay for the bottled water necessary in hospitals and the home or is this "professional" opinion going to be ignored?
The appalling dental diseases suffered by children shown on the recent Panorama programme were all due to excessive sugar intake - in one instance almost constant lollipop sucking.
Does Prof Walmsley seriously suggest that fluoride in the water would have prevented this - the programme certainly did not call for fluoridation but for parental education as the solution.
How many ordinary people manage to fight the might and wealth of big corporations especially as scientific research which could back up claims is so lacking?
The state of children's teeth is steadily improving without fluoride - let's not waste money and risk our health for this out-dated, controversial pollution of our water.
MRS M WILLIAMS, Lordswood, Southampton.
PROF Walmsley's recent letter is misleading. He says that fluoridation is supported by Southampton University academics.
My husband, a biologist, disagrees strongly - as do many others.
Here lies the problem -Many top academics and dentists disagree on this issue and so little good research has been done- particularly on the amount of fluoride we ingest from the environment.
Our basic food stuffs contain much higher levels of fluoride than they did 20 years ago - absorbed by pollution and the increased use of fertilizers. If there is any doubt - do not tamper with our water.
The American Dental Association warns parents not to give infants fluoridated water - so who is going to pay for the bottled water necessary in hospitals and the home or is this "professional" opinion going to be ignored?
The appalling dental diseases suffered by children shown on the recent Panorama programme were all due to excessive sugar intake - in one instance almost constant lollipop sucking.
Does Prof Walmsley seriously suggest that fluoride in the water would have prevented this - the programme certainly did not call for fluoridation but for parental education as the solution.
How many ordinary people manage to fight the might and wealth of big corporations especially as scientific research which could back up claims is so lacking?
The state of children's teeth is steadily improving without fluoride - let's not waste money and risk our health for this out-dated, controversial pollution of our water.
MRS M WILLIAMS, Lordswood, Southampton.
15 May 2010
Ireland - 75% of kids have tooth decay by 15
75% of kids have tooth decay by 15
[Posted: Fri 14/05/2010 by Deborah Condon]
Three in four Irish children have experienced tooth decay by the time they reach the age of 15, dentists have warned.
They are calling on the Minister for Health, Mary Harney, to introduce public health warning labels for fizzy drinks in an attempt to combat this problem.
They say that the warning could be similar to the health warning which is currently carried on tobacco products. This would increase public awareness of the negative impact these products have on oral and general health.
According to Dr Billy Davis, the incoming president of the Irish Dental Association, Ireland currently has one of the highest per capita soft drink consumption rates in the western world, at over 100 litres per capita per annum. This is equivalent to the consumption of at least one 330ml can per day.
This consumption has risen every year since the 1980s.
"The health warning system has really worked well for tobacco and alcohol products and it is time for similar warnings to be placed on food and drink products so that consumers can make a fully informed choice. We really need to move urgently on this issue," Dr Davis insisted.
The call for pubic heath warnings was made in a motion at the IDA annual conference, which is taking place in Galway this weekend. Dentists are also calling on Minister Harney to introduce legislation which would ensure that the sugar content of food and drinks is highlighted.
The IDA pointed out that by the age of 15, 75% of Irish children have experienced tooth decay. This makes it the most chronic condition young people experience in this country. Research indicates that it is children from more deprived backgrounds who have a higher risk of decay.
"Unfortunately it is the people who are most vulnerable to tooth decay who are being deprived dental health check-ups and treatments by the HSE's demolition of the medical card scheme. Clearly funding is in short supply so a pro-active and cost efficient way of encouraging better dental health - such as a warning and labelling system - makes perfect sense and the government should introduce it without delay," Dr Davis explained.
The IDA conference is also set to discuss several motions condemning the cutbacks to the PRSI and medical card dental schemes.
Ireland is the only country that mandates fluoridation country-wide: NYSCOF
[Posted: Fri 14/05/2010 by Deborah Condon]
Three in four Irish children have experienced tooth decay by the time they reach the age of 15, dentists have warned.
They are calling on the Minister for Health, Mary Harney, to introduce public health warning labels for fizzy drinks in an attempt to combat this problem.
They say that the warning could be similar to the health warning which is currently carried on tobacco products. This would increase public awareness of the negative impact these products have on oral and general health.
According to Dr Billy Davis, the incoming president of the Irish Dental Association, Ireland currently has one of the highest per capita soft drink consumption rates in the western world, at over 100 litres per capita per annum. This is equivalent to the consumption of at least one 330ml can per day.
This consumption has risen every year since the 1980s.
"The health warning system has really worked well for tobacco and alcohol products and it is time for similar warnings to be placed on food and drink products so that consumers can make a fully informed choice. We really need to move urgently on this issue," Dr Davis insisted.
The call for pubic heath warnings was made in a motion at the IDA annual conference, which is taking place in Galway this weekend. Dentists are also calling on Minister Harney to introduce legislation which would ensure that the sugar content of food and drinks is highlighted.
The IDA pointed out that by the age of 15, 75% of Irish children have experienced tooth decay. This makes it the most chronic condition young people experience in this country. Research indicates that it is children from more deprived backgrounds who have a higher risk of decay.
"Unfortunately it is the people who are most vulnerable to tooth decay who are being deprived dental health check-ups and treatments by the HSE's demolition of the medical card scheme. Clearly funding is in short supply so a pro-active and cost efficient way of encouraging better dental health - such as a warning and labelling system - makes perfect sense and the government should introduce it without delay," Dr Davis explained.
The IDA conference is also set to discuss several motions condemning the cutbacks to the PRSI and medical card dental schemes.
Ireland is the only country that mandates fluoridation country-wide: NYSCOF
Daily Echo - Fluoride: truth hasn't altered since 1943
In my view by Joy Warren
BSc Environmental Science co-ordinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation
Fluoride: truth hasn't altered since 1943
I AM replying to 'Fluoridation: best for kids' (In my View, May 11) by John F Beal, vice chairman of the British Fluoridation Society.
References accompanying my letter were removed by editorial staff due to lack of column space.
All my claims were well researched and not exaggerated. For example, the level of dental fluorosis in Birmingham was measured in 1995 by Professor Peter Rock and AM Sabieha of I Birmingham University Dental School and published in a British Dent Journal article in 1997.
They concluded that 112 children (34 per cent) in a group of 325 children aged eight to nine in five Birmingham Primary Schools in 1995 had dental fluorosis which they considered was caused by the children swallowing fluoridated toothpaste.
But the children also drank fluoridated water, ate fluoridated food, and absorbed fluoride when visiting the swimming pool and bathing in hot fluoridated water.
Therefore, the prevalence and degree of dental fluorosis in their permanent teeth would not have been so great had they not been fluoridated. Furthermore, the Government's York Review (2000) concluded that 12 per cent of fluoridated children had dental j fluorosis of aesthetic concern. This equates to one in eight children in the West Midlands with disfiguring dental fluorosis.
No research on the prevalence of dental fluorosis in British children has taken place since 1995.
The Rock and Sabieha report is not in the public domain so it's not surprising that John Beal feels confident enough to deny existence of proof.
I could continue in this vein but would strain the patience of both the Daily Echo's editor and readers. I will conclude with a quote from the Journal of the American Medical Association, September 18,1943.: "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify cell metabolism, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine."
The fluoride ion (anion) is an element which has not changed its chemical composition since 1943. The human body has not changed its composition since 1943. The truth recognised in 1943 still holds true today.
But is this continuing a dialogue with the deaf? Is John Beal likely, anytime soon, to change his mind about the injurious nature of fluoride?
Well, if the second Icelandic volcano blows a fuse and spews greater volumes of toxic, fluoride-laden ash over the UK, he may have a Damascus-road conversion.
BSc Environmental Science co-ordinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation
Fluoride: truth hasn't altered since 1943
I AM replying to 'Fluoridation: best for kids' (In my View, May 11) by John F Beal, vice chairman of the British Fluoridation Society.
References accompanying my letter were removed by editorial staff due to lack of column space.
All my claims were well researched and not exaggerated. For example, the level of dental fluorosis in Birmingham was measured in 1995 by Professor Peter Rock and AM Sabieha of I Birmingham University Dental School and published in a British Dent Journal article in 1997.
They concluded that 112 children (34 per cent) in a group of 325 children aged eight to nine in five Birmingham Primary Schools in 1995 had dental fluorosis which they considered was caused by the children swallowing fluoridated toothpaste.
But the children also drank fluoridated water, ate fluoridated food, and absorbed fluoride when visiting the swimming pool and bathing in hot fluoridated water.
Therefore, the prevalence and degree of dental fluorosis in their permanent teeth would not have been so great had they not been fluoridated. Furthermore, the Government's York Review (2000) concluded that 12 per cent of fluoridated children had dental j fluorosis of aesthetic concern. This equates to one in eight children in the West Midlands with disfiguring dental fluorosis.
No research on the prevalence of dental fluorosis in British children has taken place since 1995.
The Rock and Sabieha report is not in the public domain so it's not surprising that John Beal feels confident enough to deny existence of proof.
I could continue in this vein but would strain the patience of both the Daily Echo's editor and readers. I will conclude with a quote from the Journal of the American Medical Association, September 18,1943.: "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify cell metabolism, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine."
The fluoride ion (anion) is an element which has not changed its chemical composition since 1943. The human body has not changed its composition since 1943. The truth recognised in 1943 still holds true today.
But is this continuing a dialogue with the deaf? Is John Beal likely, anytime soon, to change his mind about the injurious nature of fluoride?
Well, if the second Icelandic volcano blows a fuse and spews greater volumes of toxic, fluoride-laden ash over the UK, he may have a Damascus-road conversion.
14 May 2010
Daily Echo letter - Fluoride facts that everyone must face
Fluoride facts that everyone must face
FLUORINE is an extremely reactive electronegative element that is never found alone in nature. Thus there are many kinds of fluoride compounds, such as calcium fluoride, found in water.
However, those fluorides added to water supplies are toxic non-biodegradable waste by-products from aluminium smelting process and phosphate fertiliser production.
It is recommended by Professor Damien Walmsley (Letters, May 5) and certain Government ministers that these fluorides should be added at one part per million to our water supply. A ratio found through world scientific and medical research to produce cancer in cells (Dr Takeki Tsutsui, Japan, 1984, and The American Medical Association, 1993).
It is interesting to note that the ; original fluoridation as a remedy for tooth decay was funded by the aluminium industry. Andrew Mellon, chairman of the Aluminium < Corporation of America, was Secretary of the Treasury at the time.
We are led to believe the wonders of fluoride added to the water supplies in American cities.
However, research shows:
1) A trial studying 50,000 inhabitants
across 68 US cities in 1986-7 showed that fluoride increased tooth decay.
2) After 20 years of water fluoridation in Seattle, authorities reported an unprecedented dental crisis in the city.
3)22,000 children were studied in Tucson, Arizona. Fluoride was found to increase tooth decay
4) 21,000 Japanese children were studied in 1972. Fluoridation was found to increase tooth decay.
5) In 1992 fluoride feed machinery on one of two community wells failed in the township of Hooper Bay, Alaska, resulting in the death of one man and the poisoning of 296 other citizens.
In countries worldwide, water fluoridation is banned including all of the European countries.
World research has found that fluoridated drinking water has resulted also in an increase of diseases. Among them disturbances in bones such as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteoporosis.
Whilst working in Kenya on a UN aid programme I witnessed these and other diseases in certain tribes -people poisoned by fluorides that had leeched from sub strata rock into the water supply. The tribes people were not only recognisable by their sickly features but also from their fluorinated teeth that were just small brown points. Despite the large amounts of money and great efforts of the aid agencies filtration of the fluoride proved impossible.
Not a wonderful pictured. One quote really summed it up.
Dr Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute said:
"Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths, and causes it faster than any other chemical."
John Howard Southampton
FLUORINE is an extremely reactive electronegative element that is never found alone in nature. Thus there are many kinds of fluoride compounds, such as calcium fluoride, found in water.
However, those fluorides added to water supplies are toxic non-biodegradable waste by-products from aluminium smelting process and phosphate fertiliser production.
It is recommended by Professor Damien Walmsley (Letters, May 5) and certain Government ministers that these fluorides should be added at one part per million to our water supply. A ratio found through world scientific and medical research to produce cancer in cells (Dr Takeki Tsutsui, Japan, 1984, and The American Medical Association, 1993).
It is interesting to note that the ; original fluoridation as a remedy for tooth decay was funded by the aluminium industry. Andrew Mellon, chairman of the Aluminium < Corporation of America, was Secretary of the Treasury at the time.
We are led to believe the wonders of fluoride added to the water supplies in American cities.
However, research shows:
1) A trial studying 50,000 inhabitants
across 68 US cities in 1986-7 showed that fluoride increased tooth decay.
2) After 20 years of water fluoridation in Seattle, authorities reported an unprecedented dental crisis in the city.
3)22,000 children were studied in Tucson, Arizona. Fluoride was found to increase tooth decay
4) 21,000 Japanese children were studied in 1972. Fluoridation was found to increase tooth decay.
5) In 1992 fluoride feed machinery on one of two community wells failed in the township of Hooper Bay, Alaska, resulting in the death of one man and the poisoning of 296 other citizens.
In countries worldwide, water fluoridation is banned including all of the European countries.
World research has found that fluoridated drinking water has resulted also in an increase of diseases. Among them disturbances in bones such as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteoporosis.
Whilst working in Kenya on a UN aid programme I witnessed these and other diseases in certain tribes -people poisoned by fluorides that had leeched from sub strata rock into the water supply. The tribes people were not only recognisable by their sickly features but also from their fluorinated teeth that were just small brown points. Despite the large amounts of money and great efforts of the aid agencies filtration of the fluoride proved impossible.
Not a wonderful pictured. One quote really summed it up.
Dr Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute said:
"Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths, and causes it faster than any other chemical."
John Howard Southampton
11 May 2010
Daily Echo letters
SOAPBOX: Fluoride in the water supply
Such one-sided misinformation
JOHN Spottiswoode is right to raise concern about the British Dental Association's manifesto promoting water fluoridation issued to all parliamentary candidates (Letters, April 28).
The reply from Professor Walmsley of the BDA fails to mention that the York Review found water fluoridation had little impact on social inequalities, leads to an increase in fluorosis and that there is not enough good quality evidence with which to inform policy
His claim that "fluoridation helps to promote oral health equality for everyone, including adults" is not supported by the best evidence.
Indeed, recently Southampton PCT have been instructed by the Advertising Standards Authority not to repeat these claims as the evidence relating to fluoride and adult dental health is not robust and is not supported by the leading scientific experts called on by the ASA. The Republic of Ireland, to which Professor Walmsley alludes, has reduced the level of fluoride in water due to concern about fluorosis.
There are many academics who do not support water fluoridation and are concerned at the lack of good quality evidence with which to back up claims such as those in the BDA's literature.
The other issue brought up by John Spottiswoode is the ethics involved in putting a substance into drinking water for medicinal purposes (despite hexafluo-rosilicic acid having no medicinal licence) and given to the whole community who have little choice in the matter.
It is right that politicians speak up against this one-sided misinformation.
ANNA PECKHAM, Highfield, Southampton.
Lives in La La land methinks
WE know "Fluoridation has professionals' support" (Daily Echo, May 5).
They never give up in trying to force us to drink and bathe in fluoride. Professor Walmsley uses the , same old rhetoric as the Strategic Health Authority, no mention of fluorosis - no mention of the difference between the calcium fluoride and the polluted waste product they "top up" with. No mention of what the York Review really found - fluoridation is not proven safe nor effective.
I would like to remind the professor of his previous statement in October 2007 "The British Dental Association was one of a number of organisations that campaigned for the change to the 2003 Water Bill that has given communities the right to decide for themselves whether they wish their water supplies to be fluoridated."
We've heard all the arguments from professors from both sides and we've decided as a majority to say no but the BDA does not take no for an answer.
No doubt the professor lives in La La
land with Peter Ward, chief executive of the BDA, and Barry Cockcroft, chief dental officer. BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam.
The people say
'no'
I HOPE Prof Damien Walmsley is paid well for his efforts of disinformation on fluoridation.
There is so much evidence against everything he says in his letter it is quite overwhelming. And he really should know that many many people are waking up to the fact that the World Health Organisation are rapidly gaining a reputation for being anything but a 'reputable organisation' along with many others along the same lines who are funded by governments or others with a vested interest in the 'guidance' they put out, no doubt including the British Dental Association.
We all know that research can be done to prove or disprove whatever one wishes according to their own agenda. We the people say NO and that should be enough. We don't need to hear anything more on this subject. Forget it, we don't want it, it's over! At least it should be!
TRUDI BARTLETT,
Shirley
Southampton
Such one-sided misinformation
JOHN Spottiswoode is right to raise concern about the British Dental Association's manifesto promoting water fluoridation issued to all parliamentary candidates (Letters, April 28).
The reply from Professor Walmsley of the BDA fails to mention that the York Review found water fluoridation had little impact on social inequalities, leads to an increase in fluorosis and that there is not enough good quality evidence with which to inform policy
His claim that "fluoridation helps to promote oral health equality for everyone, including adults" is not supported by the best evidence.
Indeed, recently Southampton PCT have been instructed by the Advertising Standards Authority not to repeat these claims as the evidence relating to fluoride and adult dental health is not robust and is not supported by the leading scientific experts called on by the ASA. The Republic of Ireland, to which Professor Walmsley alludes, has reduced the level of fluoride in water due to concern about fluorosis.
There are many academics who do not support water fluoridation and are concerned at the lack of good quality evidence with which to back up claims such as those in the BDA's literature.
The other issue brought up by John Spottiswoode is the ethics involved in putting a substance into drinking water for medicinal purposes (despite hexafluo-rosilicic acid having no medicinal licence) and given to the whole community who have little choice in the matter.
It is right that politicians speak up against this one-sided misinformation.
ANNA PECKHAM, Highfield, Southampton.
Lives in La La land methinks
WE know "Fluoridation has professionals' support" (Daily Echo, May 5).
They never give up in trying to force us to drink and bathe in fluoride. Professor Walmsley uses the , same old rhetoric as the Strategic Health Authority, no mention of fluorosis - no mention of the difference between the calcium fluoride and the polluted waste product they "top up" with. No mention of what the York Review really found - fluoridation is not proven safe nor effective.
I would like to remind the professor of his previous statement in October 2007 "The British Dental Association was one of a number of organisations that campaigned for the change to the 2003 Water Bill that has given communities the right to decide for themselves whether they wish their water supplies to be fluoridated."
We've heard all the arguments from professors from both sides and we've decided as a majority to say no but the BDA does not take no for an answer.
No doubt the professor lives in La La
land with Peter Ward, chief executive of the BDA, and Barry Cockcroft, chief dental officer. BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam.
The people say
'no'
I HOPE Prof Damien Walmsley is paid well for his efforts of disinformation on fluoridation.
There is so much evidence against everything he says in his letter it is quite overwhelming. And he really should know that many many people are waking up to the fact that the World Health Organisation are rapidly gaining a reputation for being anything but a 'reputable organisation' along with many others along the same lines who are funded by governments or others with a vested interest in the 'guidance' they put out, no doubt including the British Dental Association.
We all know that research can be done to prove or disprove whatever one wishes according to their own agenda. We the people say NO and that should be enough. We don't need to hear anything more on this subject. Forget it, we don't want it, it's over! At least it should be!
TRUDI BARTLETT,
Shirley
Southampton
10 May 2010
The Anti-Fluoridation Association of Victoria Australia
Bull Conference 1951
Above is the FULL set of minutes from the now notorious Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors from June 1951, a meeting sponspored by the US Public Health Service, which was held in the Federal Security Building, Washington DC.
This meeting developed the Strategy and Tactics for the "Promotion and Application of Water Fluoridation", with Dr. F. A. Bull being the Conference's best known participant.
Those seeking access to these minutes were told they were destroyed - we now have to pleasant task of informing you that they were not - and they can now be found on our website.
This original version has an introduction and notes (on yellow background) provided by
the late Dr. Robert J. H. Mick.
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~fluoride/Articles/Bull-Conference-1951.pdf
Please circulate link to your lists. Regards, Catharine.
Above is the FULL set of minutes from the now notorious Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors from June 1951, a meeting sponspored by the US Public Health Service, which was held in the Federal Security Building, Washington DC.
This meeting developed the Strategy and Tactics for the "Promotion and Application of Water Fluoridation", with Dr. F. A. Bull being the Conference's best known participant.
Those seeking access to these minutes were told they were destroyed - we now have to pleasant task of informing you that they were not - and they can now be found on our website.
This original version has an introduction and notes (on yellow background) provided by
the late Dr. Robert J. H. Mick.
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~fluoride/Articles/Bull-Conference-1951.pdf
Please circulate link to your lists. Regards, Catharine.
7 May 2010
Caroline Nokes is MP for Romsey and Southampton North
............The bookies’ favourite, Mrs Nokes attracted votes by opposing fluoridation of local water supplies and imposed regional housebuilding targets.
A Test Valley borough councillor for the last 11 years, the new MP has lived in the Romsey area for most of her life.
A Test Valley borough councillor for the last 11 years, the new MP has lived in the Romsey area for most of her life.
New Forest East: Julian Lewis romps to victory
New Forest East: Julian Lewis romps to victory
4:00am Friday 7th May 2010
Tory Julian Lewis romped to victory in New Forest East and increased his majority by more than 3,600 votes.
He trounced Liberal Democrat rival Terry Scriven, whose bid to become the Forest's first Liberal MP since 1906 ended in failure.
Dr Lewis was first elected in 1997 and will now serve a fourth term as MP for the area, which includes Totton and the Waterside.
He said: "I am naturally delighted that we have had such a stunning victory in New Forest East tonight.
"If it turns out that the much hyped Liberal Democrat bounce turns out to be ifemeral the big losers will be the pollsters and the media that made so much of it.
"I wish to offer an olive branch to Liberals Democrats locally. Despite various events that have taken place over the past two years it has been possible to work with some Liberal Democrats on issues such as fluoridation and Save Our Community Hospitals and I hope to do so in the futures."...............
4:00am Friday 7th May 2010
Tory Julian Lewis romped to victory in New Forest East and increased his majority by more than 3,600 votes.
He trounced Liberal Democrat rival Terry Scriven, whose bid to become the Forest's first Liberal MP since 1906 ended in failure.
Dr Lewis was first elected in 1997 and will now serve a fourth term as MP for the area, which includes Totton and the Waterside.
He said: "I am naturally delighted that we have had such a stunning victory in New Forest East tonight.
"If it turns out that the much hyped Liberal Democrat bounce turns out to be ifemeral the big losers will be the pollsters and the media that made so much of it.
"I wish to offer an olive branch to Liberals Democrats locally. Despite various events that have taken place over the past two years it has been possible to work with some Liberal Democrats on issues such as fluoridation and Save Our Community Hospitals and I hope to do so in the futures."...............
5 May 2010
Daily Echo - Fluoridation has professionals' support
Fluoridation has professionals' support
IN reply to the open letter to the British Dental Association from Green parliamentary candidate John Spottiswoode (Letters, April 28), fluoride occurs naturally in water, although often not at the optimum level for dental health of one part per million. Fluoridation simply increases the concentration to this level.
Although Mr Spottiswoode does not support fluoridation, many reputable organisations do, including the World Health Organisation, the Medical Research Council and Southampton University academics, because it is effective and safe.
In Ireland 71 per cent of the population in the Republic live in a fluoridated area, compared with only one per cent of homes in Northern Ireland. Mullan (2005) compared the decay rates on both sides of the border and found that rates in Northern Ireland were 50 per cent higher than in the Republic.
Water fluoridation schemes have been in place in Britain for over 40 years -plenty of time to study adverse effects. Yet health investigations in the UK, the US and Australia have failed to find any robust peer-reviewed scientific evidence for cancer, bone disease, kidney disease or birth defects.
And in the most cosmetically conscious and litigious country in the world, the US, which is 70 per cent fluoridated, no case has succeeded in overturning water fluoridation.
As dental health is strongly related to social class, the ethical issue that consultants in dental public health grapple with daily is ensuring that good oral health is not just the preserve of the middle classes.
The economic cost of treating unacceptably high levels of dental decay was
brought home powerfully in a recent Panorama interview with the medical director of Alder Hey children's hospital. Preventable conditions, particularly tooth decay and obesity, Dr Ryan
said, divert precious resources away from treating more serious illnesses.
The BBC programme underlined the trauma experienced by children (and their parents) who have to undergo a general anaesthetic to have diseased teeth removed. Last year, over 500 children in Southampton, required this procedure, each having an average of five teeth removed, despite extensive efforts from local oral health promotion teams and good access to NHS dentists.
As dental disease is preventable, fluoridation helps to promote oral health equality for everyone, including adults (Griffin, 2007); that's why the BDA, and august bodies such as the WHO support it.
PROF DAM1EN WALMSLEY, scientific adviser, British Dental Association.
Same old rhetoric no mention of fluorosis.
IN reply to the open letter to the British Dental Association from Green parliamentary candidate John Spottiswoode (Letters, April 28), fluoride occurs naturally in water, although often not at the optimum level for dental health of one part per million. Fluoridation simply increases the concentration to this level.
Although Mr Spottiswoode does not support fluoridation, many reputable organisations do, including the World Health Organisation, the Medical Research Council and Southampton University academics, because it is effective and safe.
In Ireland 71 per cent of the population in the Republic live in a fluoridated area, compared with only one per cent of homes in Northern Ireland. Mullan (2005) compared the decay rates on both sides of the border and found that rates in Northern Ireland were 50 per cent higher than in the Republic.
Water fluoridation schemes have been in place in Britain for over 40 years -plenty of time to study adverse effects. Yet health investigations in the UK, the US and Australia have failed to find any robust peer-reviewed scientific evidence for cancer, bone disease, kidney disease or birth defects.
And in the most cosmetically conscious and litigious country in the world, the US, which is 70 per cent fluoridated, no case has succeeded in overturning water fluoridation.
As dental health is strongly related to social class, the ethical issue that consultants in dental public health grapple with daily is ensuring that good oral health is not just the preserve of the middle classes.
The economic cost of treating unacceptably high levels of dental decay was
brought home powerfully in a recent Panorama interview with the medical director of Alder Hey children's hospital. Preventable conditions, particularly tooth decay and obesity, Dr Ryan
said, divert precious resources away from treating more serious illnesses.
The BBC programme underlined the trauma experienced by children (and their parents) who have to undergo a general anaesthetic to have diseased teeth removed. Last year, over 500 children in Southampton, required this procedure, each having an average of five teeth removed, despite extensive efforts from local oral health promotion teams and good access to NHS dentists.
As dental disease is preventable, fluoridation helps to promote oral health equality for everyone, including adults (Griffin, 2007); that's why the BDA, and august bodies such as the WHO support it.
PROF DAM1EN WALMSLEY, scientific adviser, British Dental Association.
Same old rhetoric no mention of fluorosis.
4 May 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
