Dear Mr Clegg,
In the cause of economy in the DoH, on ethical grounds and inadequate scientific justification, I feel very strongly that the Coalition government should not allow the Southampton fluoridation project to be "Ring Fenced". It should be abandoned.
Far too much money has been wasted already by a high handed SHA in promoting the fluoridation project in Southampton. Indeed a High Court case is still pending in relation to the conduct of the so called "consultation process" conducted by the SHA.
It is not a widely popular project and certainly the whole philosophy of fluoridation of the public water supply has been seriously questioned by the general public, a number of genuine scientists of high standing, academic dentists as well as those in General Dental Practice.
I understand that the Southampton fluoridation project is being promoted by the DoH as a test case for the widespread introduction of similar enterprises in the North West of the country. I do hope that you will be able to bury the whole sorry fluoridation project in England and not just in Southampton.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
RichardJohns.
Emeritus Professor of Restorative Dentistry,
University of Sheffield.
28 Jun 2010
27 Jun 2010
FAN Bulletin 2018: Mercola-Connett Interview; and the US EPA
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://fluoridealert.org/
FAN Bulletin 2018: Mercola-Connett Interview; and the US EPA
June 26, 2010
• Fluoride Action Network
• Kathleen M. Thiessen PhD
http://fluoridealert.org/
FAN Bulletin 2018: Mercola-Connett Interview; and the US EPA
June 26, 2010
• Fluoride Action Network
• Kathleen M. Thiessen PhD
26 Jun 2010
Daily Echo Letter - Water quality not improved
Water quality not improved
J POPE (Daily Echo, June 18) draws attention to the fact that the proposed fluoridation of our water, which the Government admits does not improve its quality, is tampering with a supply, which for many years has been of a high standard. It is instructive to note the replies from bodies one would expect to be concerned about the scheme.
Southern Water displays indifference to the worries of the public, who have no alternative supply, despite repeatedly stating, "Our overriding intention is to provide our customers with.... Water of the highest quality". Please notice the word 'overriding'.
From the so-called Consumer Council for Water one gets not so much as an acknowledgement. Ofwat says it only deals with economic regulation, although haying to pay full price for an inferior product, is an economic factor of considerable importance. The Food Standards Agency can only investigate the purity of bottled water, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate is happy to leave matters with the Department of Health. The Health Protection Agency is unconcerned as long as the chemicals meet 'legal' requirements; and the Department of Health, when questioned about fluoride in baby feeds, categorically denies that a risk exists.
We are also surely entitled to think it unsatisfactory that the decision to fluoridate was wholly in the hands of an organisation generally in favour of it, and the 'vote' taken by a panel including several members who actively campaigned for it and who were never going to vote any other way.
G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton.
J POPE (Daily Echo, June 18) draws attention to the fact that the proposed fluoridation of our water, which the Government admits does not improve its quality, is tampering with a supply, which for many years has been of a high standard. It is instructive to note the replies from bodies one would expect to be concerned about the scheme.
Southern Water displays indifference to the worries of the public, who have no alternative supply, despite repeatedly stating, "Our overriding intention is to provide our customers with.... Water of the highest quality". Please notice the word 'overriding'.
From the so-called Consumer Council for Water one gets not so much as an acknowledgement. Ofwat says it only deals with economic regulation, although haying to pay full price for an inferior product, is an economic factor of considerable importance. The Food Standards Agency can only investigate the purity of bottled water, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate is happy to leave matters with the Department of Health. The Health Protection Agency is unconcerned as long as the chemicals meet 'legal' requirements; and the Department of Health, when questioned about fluoride in baby feeds, categorically denies that a risk exists.
We are also surely entitled to think it unsatisfactory that the decision to fluoridate was wholly in the hands of an organisation generally in favour of it, and the 'vote' taken by a panel including several members who actively campaigned for it and who were never going to vote any other way.
G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton.
25 Jun 2010
Dr. Mercola and Dr. Paul Connett Discuss Fluoride (part 1 of 5)
This is the first video - just came available.
Lymington Times - MP demands government fulfil its fluoride promise
MP demands government fulfil its fluoride promise
THE government has been urged by New Forest Conservative MP Julian Lewis to fulfil its promise to block fluoridation if a majority of the public oppose it.
As reported in the 'A&T', despite a pre-election statement that residents' approval was "vital", a senior Tory told Dr Lewis in the House of Commons this month that the coalition had "no plans" to toughen consultation rules for how the chemical can be introduced.
The proposals from Southampton City Primary care Trust are to combat child tooth decay and will affect 190,000 people, including 8,000 in Totton. They were approved by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) last year.
Dr Lewis said: "Although I was
disappointed with the response of Sir George Young, the Leader of the House of Commons, it is Andrew Lansley who has responsibility for this matter and I will continue to press hard to ensure that fluoridation is not imposed on a community which rejects it.
"The pledge given by a health spokesman in opposition must be honoured now that the Conservatives are in government."
Fluoride opponents fear dangerous side effects, resent "forced medication" and want a referendum. During consultation 72% of 10,000 respondents were against — although a Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38% opposed against 32% in support.
Fluoridation is also being fought
by councils for Totton and Eling, New Forest and Hampshire, and a judicial re\iew secured by objectors is due next year for which the SHA has put aside £400,000.
Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley sent a letter to Dr Lewis after Sir George's comments in the Commons, but did not make any promises.
He wrote: "Although, as you know, I have expressed concerns about this consultation, I think it would be best to allow the judicial review to take place, and then to decide how to proceed in the light of the court's judgement.
"The proposed fluoridation will not be allowed to proceed in any case, until after the judicial review has been heard."
THE government has been urged by New Forest Conservative MP Julian Lewis to fulfil its promise to block fluoridation if a majority of the public oppose it.
As reported in the 'A&T', despite a pre-election statement that residents' approval was "vital", a senior Tory told Dr Lewis in the House of Commons this month that the coalition had "no plans" to toughen consultation rules for how the chemical can be introduced.
The proposals from Southampton City Primary care Trust are to combat child tooth decay and will affect 190,000 people, including 8,000 in Totton. They were approved by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) last year.
Dr Lewis said: "Although I was
disappointed with the response of Sir George Young, the Leader of the House of Commons, it is Andrew Lansley who has responsibility for this matter and I will continue to press hard to ensure that fluoridation is not imposed on a community which rejects it.
"The pledge given by a health spokesman in opposition must be honoured now that the Conservatives are in government."
Fluoride opponents fear dangerous side effects, resent "forced medication" and want a referendum. During consultation 72% of 10,000 respondents were against — although a Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38% opposed against 32% in support.
Fluoridation is also being fought
by councils for Totton and Eling, New Forest and Hampshire, and a judicial re\iew secured by objectors is due next year for which the SHA has put aside £400,000.
Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley sent a letter to Dr Lewis after Sir George's comments in the Commons, but did not make any promises.
He wrote: "Although, as you know, I have expressed concerns about this consultation, I think it would be best to allow the judicial review to take place, and then to decide how to proceed in the light of the court's judgement.
"The proposed fluoridation will not be allowed to proceed in any case, until after the judicial review has been heard."
23 Jun 2010
Daily Echo - Keep up the good work with anti-fluoride campaign
Keep up the good work with anti-fluoride campaign
I HAVE just moved from Devon where there is great anti-fluoride campaign. I am truly keen that we do NOT put it in our water. I never use toothpaste with it in. I know through much reading the harm on the body, but any dentist I have spoken to will disagree. They are so conditioned, but look on the Web and you will find dentists who are conscious and know it is very harmful. I say stop eating sugar and packaged foods, no smoking and clean teeth regularly, clean up the body inside and our teeth will be fine.
Keep up the good work please. I am talking to people all the time, most are "asleep" sadly
LORNA GLYN-JONES, address supplied
I HAVE just moved from Devon where there is great anti-fluoride campaign. I am truly keen that we do NOT put it in our water. I never use toothpaste with it in. I know through much reading the harm on the body, but any dentist I have spoken to will disagree. They are so conditioned, but look on the Web and you will find dentists who are conscious and know it is very harmful. I say stop eating sugar and packaged foods, no smoking and clean teeth regularly, clean up the body inside and our teeth will be fine.
Keep up the good work please. I am talking to people all the time, most are "asleep" sadly
LORNA GLYN-JONES, address supplied
21 Jun 2010
Daily Echo
Adding fluoride is money down the drain
I AGREE with Dr Sarah Goode (Echo letters) that it's misleading of dental official John Seal to compare fluoride toxicity with that of water etc.
Yes, drinking massive amounts of water quickly can kill, and oxygen overdoses blinded babies in the 1950s when they were given too much in incubators. But that is very different to a substance being intrinsically poisonous in itself, as fluoride is.
I also agree with John Spottiswoode's letter 'Stop this waste of money', in which he writes of the cost of fluoridation.
Less than one per cent of tap water is used for drinking, as most of it is used by industry, for car washing, cleaning, toilet flushing and having baths. So 99 per cent of the fluoride added is literally money down the drain!
Hardly a logical way to administer it!
A WILLS, address supplied.
I AGREE with Dr Sarah Goode (Echo letters) that it's misleading of dental official John Seal to compare fluoride toxicity with that of water etc.
Yes, drinking massive amounts of water quickly can kill, and oxygen overdoses blinded babies in the 1950s when they were given too much in incubators. But that is very different to a substance being intrinsically poisonous in itself, as fluoride is.
I also agree with John Spottiswoode's letter 'Stop this waste of money', in which he writes of the cost of fluoridation.
Less than one per cent of tap water is used for drinking, as most of it is used by industry, for car washing, cleaning, toilet flushing and having baths. So 99 per cent of the fluoride added is literally money down the drain!
Hardly a logical way to administer it!
A WILLS, address supplied.
19 Jun 2010
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks
The most notable from a read of the abstract are:
Systemic exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with an increased risk of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold. Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards adverse health effects following systemic fluoride consumption, e.g., carcinogenicity, developmental neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity, but using a weight of evidence approach these observations cannot be substantiated.
I.e. there is evidence of harm but not sufficient to be substantiated. I.e. on the precautionary approach this has to be sorted out before fluoridating anywhere. It could be said that extra fluoride at any dose adds to the risk of dental/bone fluorosis plus other adverse health affects not yet fully proven.
And also:
The tolerable upper intake level (UL), as established by EFSA, was only exceeded in the worst case scenario for adults and children > 15 years old at a daily consumption of 2800 ml drinking water and the level of fluoride > 3 mg/L, and for children (6-15 years) when consuming more than 1.5 L. For younger children (1-6 yrs) the UL was exceeded when consuming more than 1 L water at 0.8 mg fluoride/L assuming the worst case scenario. For infants up to 6 month receiving infant formula, the safe level as established by UK (DoH) was only exceeded if the water fluoride level was higher than 0.8 mg/L.
I.e. at 1ppm (equivalent to 1 mg/l) babies and children under 6 could well exceed the tolerable upper intake level, even taking the DH’s own definition of a safe level. Also the margin of safety is low for adults.
Also :
Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water is less convincing.
I.e. the evidence is weak for benefits from systemic application via drinking water.
J.S
Systemic exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with an increased risk of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold. Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards adverse health effects following systemic fluoride consumption, e.g., carcinogenicity, developmental neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity, but using a weight of evidence approach these observations cannot be substantiated.
I.e. there is evidence of harm but not sufficient to be substantiated. I.e. on the precautionary approach this has to be sorted out before fluoridating anywhere. It could be said that extra fluoride at any dose adds to the risk of dental/bone fluorosis plus other adverse health affects not yet fully proven.
And also:
The tolerable upper intake level (UL), as established by EFSA, was only exceeded in the worst case scenario for adults and children > 15 years old at a daily consumption of 2800 ml drinking water and the level of fluoride > 3 mg/L, and for children (6-15 years) when consuming more than 1.5 L. For younger children (1-6 yrs) the UL was exceeded when consuming more than 1 L water at 0.8 mg fluoride/L assuming the worst case scenario. For infants up to 6 month receiving infant formula, the safe level as established by UK (DoH) was only exceeded if the water fluoride level was higher than 0.8 mg/L.
I.e. at 1ppm (equivalent to 1 mg/l) babies and children under 6 could well exceed the tolerable upper intake level, even taking the DH’s own definition of a safe level. Also the margin of safety is low for adults.
Also :
Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water is less convincing.
I.e. the evidence is weak for benefits from systemic application via drinking water.
J.S
18 Jun 2010
Dail Echo - Agreement threat
Agreement threat
THROUGHOUT my life living in Southampton, I have used, and still use a water supply of the purest quality, historically supplied by various suppliers; the latest being Southern Water.
I consider that after 66 years of life, a time honoured agreement has become established between myself and the water companies, to supply a quality of water that fulfils my expectations, and as a result forms what is nowadays referred to as a Service Level Agreement (SLA), where I happily pay for a quality of supply that conforms to the status quo.
Should my water supplier consider me altering this time honoured standard, as a direct result of pressure from a third party, to add chemicals to my water supply so as to remedy any perceivable dietary or other health concerns within minority groups -without the water supplier seeking my permission to do so - then I would regard this as absurd, and consider the Time Honoured Service Level Agreement broken -by my supplier.
We only have one delivery network, and one supplier. Southern Water, must be made aware that any chemical changes to the water supplied to 200,000 of us, their local customers, will lead to refusals to accept changes within the established agreement. J W E POPE, Woodmill, Southampton.
THROUGHOUT my life living in Southampton, I have used, and still use a water supply of the purest quality, historically supplied by various suppliers; the latest being Southern Water.
I consider that after 66 years of life, a time honoured agreement has become established between myself and the water companies, to supply a quality of water that fulfils my expectations, and as a result forms what is nowadays referred to as a Service Level Agreement (SLA), where I happily pay for a quality of supply that conforms to the status quo.
Should my water supplier consider me altering this time honoured standard, as a direct result of pressure from a third party, to add chemicals to my water supply so as to remedy any perceivable dietary or other health concerns within minority groups -without the water supplier seeking my permission to do so - then I would regard this as absurd, and consider the Time Honoured Service Level Agreement broken -by my supplier.
We only have one delivery network, and one supplier. Southern Water, must be made aware that any chemical changes to the water supplied to 200,000 of us, their local customers, will lead to refusals to accept changes within the established agreement. J W E POPE, Woodmill, Southampton.
Lymington Times - Tories accused of fluoridation U turn
Tories accused of fluoridation U turn
THE government has been accused of breaking its promise to make it impossible to add fluoride to New Forest water supplies without a majority of residents in favour.
Some 8,000 people in Totton could be affected by NHS plans for Southampton and before the election, the Conservatives said public consent was "vital" before fluoride was added to the water.
But a senior Tory has now revealed the coalition has "no plans" to alter the law governing the way the chemical is introduced.
John Spottiswood, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoride, said it was "very disappointing", adding: "We're not happy with it especially as both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives said this should no
The news comes as the leader of Hampshire County Council, Coun. Ken Thornber, sent a letter to Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley urging him to step in and cancel the plans.
He wrote: "In this instance the views of our population and locally elected representatives have been comprehensively ignored, incurring significant avoidable expenditure and public anger."
Fluoridation will affect 190,000 people and includes Totton because of the layout of the pipes. It was proposed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust to combat child tooth decay and approved by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) last year.
But it is opposed by local councils and New Forest East MP Julian Lewis, and is being fought in the high court with a judicial review due next year. Opponents fear dangerous side effects, resent "forced medication" and want a referendum.
They submitted a 15,000-name petition against the plan and during consultation 72% of 10,000 respondents were against — although a Mori telephone poll for the SHA showed only 38% opposed against 32% in support.
Totton councillor David Harrison said: "I believe most local people will feel very let down by this announcement. During the general election campaign, much political capital was made by condemning the Labour party for allowing the strategic health authority to impose this on our community.
"Now, when in power, with the opportunity to stop it happening, it's a different story. Small wonder politicians are held in deep mistrust. People will be justified in thinking they have been cheated."
The new government's position was extracted by Dr Lewis in the House of Commons when he questioned the Leader of the House, Sir George Young — the MP for North West Hampshire.
Sir George noted "the strong local feelings and the unhappiness among some people" but said the government was not planning to do anything "in the short term to change the legislative framework in which the decisions are made".
But last year the Tories' then shadow health minister Mike Penning told Dr Lewis: "Communities should have to give their approval for any proposal before it is permitted to go ahead, and that fluoridation should not be enforced against the will of the population."
When the 'A&T1 asked the Department of Health for clarification, a spokeswoman pointed to a Commons statement by health minister Simon Burns who said people's views should be "taken into account", but he could not comment before the judicial review.
The SHA has put aside £400,000 to fight the court case which has been brought by Southampton resident Geraldine Milner.
Her lawyers argue fluoridation should not have been approved because it was at odds with pronouncements from members of the last government that such schemes should only be allowed if most of the local population were in favour.
The claim that the SHA did not properly consider the opponents' case was thrown out but an appeal against that decision will be heard in November. Fluoridation plans have been put on hold until the legal arguments are resolved.
However, by the time the judicial review goes ahead, the SHA may no longer exist as the new government looks set to axe expensive quangos and replace them with an NHS commissioning board.
THE government has been accused of breaking its promise to make it impossible to add fluoride to New Forest water supplies without a majority of residents in favour.
Some 8,000 people in Totton could be affected by NHS plans for Southampton and before the election, the Conservatives said public consent was "vital" before fluoride was added to the water.
But a senior Tory has now revealed the coalition has "no plans" to alter the law governing the way the chemical is introduced.
John Spottiswood, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoride, said it was "very disappointing", adding: "We're not happy with it especially as both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives said this should no
The news comes as the leader of Hampshire County Council, Coun. Ken Thornber, sent a letter to Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley urging him to step in and cancel the plans.
He wrote: "In this instance the views of our population and locally elected representatives have been comprehensively ignored, incurring significant avoidable expenditure and public anger."
Fluoridation will affect 190,000 people and includes Totton because of the layout of the pipes. It was proposed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust to combat child tooth decay and approved by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) last year.
But it is opposed by local councils and New Forest East MP Julian Lewis, and is being fought in the high court with a judicial review due next year. Opponents fear dangerous side effects, resent "forced medication" and want a referendum.
They submitted a 15,000-name petition against the plan and during consultation 72% of 10,000 respondents were against — although a Mori telephone poll for the SHA showed only 38% opposed against 32% in support.
Totton councillor David Harrison said: "I believe most local people will feel very let down by this announcement. During the general election campaign, much political capital was made by condemning the Labour party for allowing the strategic health authority to impose this on our community.
"Now, when in power, with the opportunity to stop it happening, it's a different story. Small wonder politicians are held in deep mistrust. People will be justified in thinking they have been cheated."
The new government's position was extracted by Dr Lewis in the House of Commons when he questioned the Leader of the House, Sir George Young — the MP for North West Hampshire.
Sir George noted "the strong local feelings and the unhappiness among some people" but said the government was not planning to do anything "in the short term to change the legislative framework in which the decisions are made".
But last year the Tories' then shadow health minister Mike Penning told Dr Lewis: "Communities should have to give their approval for any proposal before it is permitted to go ahead, and that fluoridation should not be enforced against the will of the population."
When the 'A&T1 asked the Department of Health for clarification, a spokeswoman pointed to a Commons statement by health minister Simon Burns who said people's views should be "taken into account", but he could not comment before the judicial review.
The SHA has put aside £400,000 to fight the court case which has been brought by Southampton resident Geraldine Milner.
Her lawyers argue fluoridation should not have been approved because it was at odds with pronouncements from members of the last government that such schemes should only be allowed if most of the local population were in favour.
The claim that the SHA did not properly consider the opponents' case was thrown out but an appeal against that decision will be heard in November. Fluoridation plans have been put on hold until the legal arguments are resolved.
However, by the time the judicial review goes ahead, the SHA may no longer exist as the new government looks set to axe expensive quangos and replace them with an NHS commissioning board.
16 Jun 2010
Daily Echo - Slow poisoning for babies?
Slow poisoning for babies?
WE all know that fluoride is a poison - every dictionary states this fact. We also know that boiling water that contains fluoride increases the fluoride content - ie the poison is increased.
Babies who are not breast fed and young toddlers have bottled milk which is made of powdered baby food plus boiled water. These babies have four to five bottles each day, seven days a week, week after week, month after month - bottles all made with increased fluoride.
I am no expert but surely this must be a form of slow poisoning! How can any parent want to feed their beautiful baby with bottles knowing the fluoride content is increased. Forget their teeth in this instance - what does it do to their little brains?
I would like to know if any of these 'experts' who support fluoride have, truthfully, personally fed their own babies, from birth, daily with bottles made with added fluoride - and if then* children are alert and perfectly well mentally on reaching school age.
How can any expert calculate how much is dangerous to different families?
Water was put on this earth for all people as a necessity for life. It was not just given to a chosen few to dictate to others. Still, as those experts who insist fluoride will be added are so sure of their facts I assume this means they will accept responsibility for any future health problems in the community!
By writing this letter I have no intention of scaremongering - but what I have written I believe to be fact - and to voice my opinion as after fluoridisation is added would be too late.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
WE all know that fluoride is a poison - every dictionary states this fact. We also know that boiling water that contains fluoride increases the fluoride content - ie the poison is increased.
Babies who are not breast fed and young toddlers have bottled milk which is made of powdered baby food plus boiled water. These babies have four to five bottles each day, seven days a week, week after week, month after month - bottles all made with increased fluoride.
I am no expert but surely this must be a form of slow poisoning! How can any parent want to feed their beautiful baby with bottles knowing the fluoride content is increased. Forget their teeth in this instance - what does it do to their little brains?
I would like to know if any of these 'experts' who support fluoride have, truthfully, personally fed their own babies, from birth, daily with bottles made with added fluoride - and if then* children are alert and perfectly well mentally on reaching school age.
How can any expert calculate how much is dangerous to different families?
Water was put on this earth for all people as a necessity for life. It was not just given to a chosen few to dictate to others. Still, as those experts who insist fluoride will be added are so sure of their facts I assume this means they will accept responsibility for any future health problems in the community!
By writing this letter I have no intention of scaremongering - but what I have written I believe to be fact - and to voice my opinion as after fluoridisation is added would be too late.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
14 Jun 2010
Daily Echo - Research proved that fluoride damages teeth
Research proved that fluoride damages teeth
MESSRS Beal (Echo Letters May 11 and 28) and John Charlton (June 1) are doing their utmost to draw attention away from the Rock and Sabieha dental fluorosis study of five Birmingham Primary Schools in 1995 (published in 1997 in the British Dental Journal). Their tactics try to defuse this dental fluorosis study by adopting flanking tactics. Let me make it absolutely clear: fluoride
damages teeth. This was proven by the Rock and Sabieha study. Although the study dealt with swallowed fluoridated toothpaste and concluded that 34 per cent of the children sampled had dental fluorosis, this disfiguring condition must have been worsened by the children, when babies, drinking baby formula and soft drinks made from fluoridated tap water, by eating baby food some brands of which contain fluoridated deboned meat and by skin absorption of fluoride when bathing or swimming. If more fluoride is injected into the water via fluoridation schemes (and, by default, via manufactured food and drink), soon, we'll all be overdosing on fluoride. The legal maximum is l.5mg fluoride/litre of water but with contaminated foodstuffs and drink, the legal maximum will either be equalled or overtaken.
Those believing in civil liberties are up against people who use their Public Health 'qualifications' and their CBE's and OBE's as psychological persuaders.
JOY WARREN, BSc (Hons) Environmental Science Co-ordinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation.
MESSRS Beal (Echo Letters May 11 and 28) and John Charlton (June 1) are doing their utmost to draw attention away from the Rock and Sabieha dental fluorosis study of five Birmingham Primary Schools in 1995 (published in 1997 in the British Dental Journal). Their tactics try to defuse this dental fluorosis study by adopting flanking tactics. Let me make it absolutely clear: fluoride
damages teeth. This was proven by the Rock and Sabieha study. Although the study dealt with swallowed fluoridated toothpaste and concluded that 34 per cent of the children sampled had dental fluorosis, this disfiguring condition must have been worsened by the children, when babies, drinking baby formula and soft drinks made from fluoridated tap water, by eating baby food some brands of which contain fluoridated deboned meat and by skin absorption of fluoride when bathing or swimming. If more fluoride is injected into the water via fluoridation schemes (and, by default, via manufactured food and drink), soon, we'll all be overdosing on fluoride. The legal maximum is l.5mg fluoride/litre of water but with contaminated foodstuffs and drink, the legal maximum will either be equalled or overtaken.
Those believing in civil liberties are up against people who use their Public Health 'qualifications' and their CBE's and OBE's as psychological persuaders.
JOY WARREN, BSc (Hons) Environmental Science Co-ordinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation.
12 Jun 2010
Daily Echo - Abolish these outrageous fluoride laws
In my view
By Jenny Godshall
of Upper Clatford
Abolish these outrageous fluoride laws
FLUORIDE pushers like Tim Retout replace overwhelming peer reviewed evidence against fluoridation, with crude propaganda. But the science is stacked too heavily against them.
In a written answer to Parliament, Baroness Hayman stated: "We (the Government) accept that dental f luorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity." - Hansard, 20 Apr 1999: WA 158.
The severity of fluorosis and related diseases, depends on one's physical constitution.
It spans the entire spectrum from mild to potentially fatal. Much like smoking. This is a risk Mr Retoirt is prepared to take.
However, he has no right to force that risk on everyone else. Using children to front a scheme that has no health, social, ethical or financial benefits, is despicable, These people wilfully ignore the findings of the York Review, recognised as being the most balanced and scientifically honest
assessment of fluoridation. Its conclusions were a bombshell. Fluoridation was not proved safe. Its contentious
benefits had to be weighed against potentially very serious harms.
The claim of equalising dental health between rich and poor also failed. The policy was skwmed - a staggering blow to the fluoride lobby. There was an immediate cover-up. But in art unprecedented move, the review's chairman, Professor Sheldon, publicly denounced the shocking propaganda that followed.
The peddlers of fluoridation must be judged against this background. A scheme this preposterous defies logic until we realise that dental health is just a cover story. Hexafluorosilicic Acid (used in fluoridation) is industrial toxic waste, banned from sea, rivers and landfill sites. However, by political connivance, it can be dumped in public water supplies, despite being contaminated with up to two per cent of heavy metals and carcinogens.
Fluoride pushers demand the unconstitutional and despotic takeover of the public water supply as a conduit for enforced mass medication with this toxin. It's shameful that they would rather spend millions on this travesty than put the money where it's most needed - on more NHS dentists, frontline services and life-saving drugs,
The corrupt fluoride laws must be abolished.
By Jenny Godshall
of Upper Clatford
Abolish these outrageous fluoride laws
FLUORIDE pushers like Tim Retout replace overwhelming peer reviewed evidence against fluoridation, with crude propaganda. But the science is stacked too heavily against them.
In a written answer to Parliament, Baroness Hayman stated: "We (the Government) accept that dental f luorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity." - Hansard, 20 Apr 1999: WA 158.
The severity of fluorosis and related diseases, depends on one's physical constitution.
It spans the entire spectrum from mild to potentially fatal. Much like smoking. This is a risk Mr Retoirt is prepared to take.
However, he has no right to force that risk on everyone else. Using children to front a scheme that has no health, social, ethical or financial benefits, is despicable, These people wilfully ignore the findings of the York Review, recognised as being the most balanced and scientifically honest
assessment of fluoridation. Its conclusions were a bombshell. Fluoridation was not proved safe. Its contentious
benefits had to be weighed against potentially very serious harms.
The claim of equalising dental health between rich and poor also failed. The policy was skwmed - a staggering blow to the fluoride lobby. There was an immediate cover-up. But in art unprecedented move, the review's chairman, Professor Sheldon, publicly denounced the shocking propaganda that followed.
The peddlers of fluoridation must be judged against this background. A scheme this preposterous defies logic until we realise that dental health is just a cover story. Hexafluorosilicic Acid (used in fluoridation) is industrial toxic waste, banned from sea, rivers and landfill sites. However, by political connivance, it can be dumped in public water supplies, despite being contaminated with up to two per cent of heavy metals and carcinogens.
Fluoride pushers demand the unconstitutional and despotic takeover of the public water supply as a conduit for enforced mass medication with this toxin. It's shameful that they would rather spend millions on this travesty than put the money where it's most needed - on more NHS dentists, frontline services and life-saving drugs,
The corrupt fluoride laws must be abolished.
11 Jun 2010
Parliament
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): May we have a reaffirmation by health Ministers of the statement made in opposition that fluoridation would not be imposed on Southampton and Totton without the approval of the majority of the people concerned, given that South Central strategic health authority has put aside £400,000 to fight a court case, despite opposition to fluoridation from 72% of the community?
Sir George Young: The coalition Government have no plans at this stage to change the legislation under which the health authority is proceeding with its plans to add fluoride to the water in Southampton and the surrounding district. My constituency verges on that district, and I am aware of the strong local feelings and the unhappiness among some people about the consultation exercise that was undertaken before the decision was made to go ahead. However, I would mislead my hon. Friend if I said that we were planning to do anything in the short term to change the legislative framework in which the decisions are made.
Sir George Young: The coalition Government have no plans at this stage to change the legislation under which the health authority is proceeding with its plans to add fluoride to the water in Southampton and the surrounding district. My constituency verges on that district, and I am aware of the strong local feelings and the unhappiness among some people about the consultation exercise that was undertaken before the decision was made to go ahead. However, I would mislead my hon. Friend if I said that we were planning to do anything in the short term to change the legislative framework in which the decisions are made.
10 Jun 2010
Daily Echo - Folly of fluoride
Folly of fluoride
ONLY human beings would go to all the expense and detriment to others and put fluoride in our water to clear their conscience for their 'little darlings' not cleaning their teeth after allowing them harmful food and drinks.
We could take a leaf out of nature's book. Wild birds & creatures bring their young up sensibly on food good for them, the exception being when they are tricked into taking poisons indiscriminately and in most cases unnecessarily put down by humans!
HEATHER READ, Highcliffe.
ONLY human beings would go to all the expense and detriment to others and put fluoride in our water to clear their conscience for their 'little darlings' not cleaning their teeth after allowing them harmful food and drinks.
We could take a leaf out of nature's book. Wild birds & creatures bring their young up sensibly on food good for them, the exception being when they are tricked into taking poisons indiscriminately and in most cases unnecessarily put down by humans!
HEATHER READ, Highcliffe.
Daly Echo - Dear Andrew stop the fluoride
Dear Andrew stop the fluoride
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
HAMPSHIRE'S top politician is urging the new health secretary to step in to stop fluoride being added to the water supply of almost 200,000 homes. It is the latest salvo in the battle by campaigners to stop a scheme, which health bosses say will Improve children's teeth in Southampton.
County Council leader, Cllr Ken Thornber wants Tory Andrew Lansley to force South Central Strategic Health Authority to scrap its plans.
He says the cost of fluoridation -including £400,000 set aside by the unelected NHS quango to fight a High Court legal challenge of its decision - is "nonsense" at a time when the public sector is feeling budget cuts.
In a letter to the health secretary Cllr Thornber said: "In addition to the lack of accountability demonstrated by the SHA there is a further issue about the use of public funding at a time when we are all facing significant financial challenges.
"The cost of taking this proposal forward has significantly exceeded the initial estimates of the consultation exercise, and a further £400,000 has been set aside to fight the judicial review.
"Despite repeated requests... the SHA has not been able to confirm the final costs of implementing this programme."
During the public consultation, 10,000 people gave their views on the plans to add fluoride to tap water delivered to two-thirds of Southampton, as well as parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and APPEAL: :Cllr Ken Thornber has written to Andrew Lansley, left.
Rownhams.
Of those from the affected area, 72 per cent of those who responded opposed the scheme, but the SHA's 12 board members unanimously voted to approve it because they said they were convinced by arguments of the health benefits.
That has led to calls, backed by this newspaper, for residents to be given a referendum on the plans, with the public being given the final say on whether they should go ahead.
In January, Mr Lansley joined those expressing concerns about the decision when he told the Daily Echo that the SHA's public consultation was "not real".
Cllr Thornber said he hopes that scepticism means the health secretary will step in to the row now he's in office.
He said: "I think he would be loathe for a further consultation be carried out given the economic climate.
"He could and should say that he's not convinced of the medical and dental arguments, that he believes that this money could be better spent elsewhere and in the circumstances believes that the whole programme should be shelved."
Since the decision, made in February last year, campaigners have taken a 15,000-name petition to Downing Street calling on former Prime Minister Gordon Brown to make the authority change its mind. And Southampton resident Geraldine Milner has lodged a request for a judicial review against the decision, arguing ministers assured Parliament when passing legislation around fluoridation that schemes could only go ahead where there is local support. That case is unlikely to take place before the end of this year, with an initial hearing taking place in November, appealing against a judge's decision to refuse to look at whether the SHA ignored evidence against fluoridation.
He described the authority's process as "unimpeachable".
The SHA has repeatedly insisted it met or exceeded all that was required of it by the legislation. The delays in the legal mean it is fairly unlikely fluoridation could be in place before the summer of 2012, by which time the new coalition is
to have all will have been scrapped.
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
HAMPSHIRE'S top politician is urging the new health secretary to step in to stop fluoride being added to the water supply of almost 200,000 homes. It is the latest salvo in the battle by campaigners to stop a scheme, which health bosses say will Improve children's teeth in Southampton.
County Council leader, Cllr Ken Thornber wants Tory Andrew Lansley to force South Central Strategic Health Authority to scrap its plans.
He says the cost of fluoridation -including £400,000 set aside by the unelected NHS quango to fight a High Court legal challenge of its decision - is "nonsense" at a time when the public sector is feeling budget cuts.
In a letter to the health secretary Cllr Thornber said: "In addition to the lack of accountability demonstrated by the SHA there is a further issue about the use of public funding at a time when we are all facing significant financial challenges.
"The cost of taking this proposal forward has significantly exceeded the initial estimates of the consultation exercise, and a further £400,000 has been set aside to fight the judicial review.
"Despite repeated requests... the SHA has not been able to confirm the final costs of implementing this programme."
During the public consultation, 10,000 people gave their views on the plans to add fluoride to tap water delivered to two-thirds of Southampton, as well as parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and APPEAL: :Cllr Ken Thornber has written to Andrew Lansley, left.
Rownhams.
Of those from the affected area, 72 per cent of those who responded opposed the scheme, but the SHA's 12 board members unanimously voted to approve it because they said they were convinced by arguments of the health benefits.
That has led to calls, backed by this newspaper, for residents to be given a referendum on the plans, with the public being given the final say on whether they should go ahead.
In January, Mr Lansley joined those expressing concerns about the decision when he told the Daily Echo that the SHA's public consultation was "not real".
Cllr Thornber said he hopes that scepticism means the health secretary will step in to the row now he's in office.
He said: "I think he would be loathe for a further consultation be carried out given the economic climate.
"He could and should say that he's not convinced of the medical and dental arguments, that he believes that this money could be better spent elsewhere and in the circumstances believes that the whole programme should be shelved."
Since the decision, made in February last year, campaigners have taken a 15,000-name petition to Downing Street calling on former Prime Minister Gordon Brown to make the authority change its mind. And Southampton resident Geraldine Milner has lodged a request for a judicial review against the decision, arguing ministers assured Parliament when passing legislation around fluoridation that schemes could only go ahead where there is local support. That case is unlikely to take place before the end of this year, with an initial hearing taking place in November, appealing against a judge's decision to refuse to look at whether the SHA ignored evidence against fluoridation.
He described the authority's process as "unimpeachable".
The SHA has repeatedly insisted it met or exceeded all that was required of it by the legislation. The delays in the legal mean it is fairly unlikely fluoridation could be in place before the summer of 2012, by which time the new coalition is
to have all will have been scrapped.
9 Jun 2010
Daily Echo letters
Reading York review into fluoridation
IT IS understandable that John Beal MBE, vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society (Echo May 28) rushed to defend fluoridation, as it is the organisation's raison d'etre.
When the NHS centre at York University was funded to confirm once and for all whether fluoridation was safe and effective it found there was no reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature worldwide.
The British Medical Association (BMA), the British Dental Association (BDA) and others claimed differently. "The review confirms that water fluoridation is safe and effective," said the BDA.
The BMA exhorted: "There is no evidence of any adverse risk to human health.
"Fluoridation is the most effective way to reduce dental health inequalities."
The British Fluoridation Society also echoed those views of the other two organisations.
This was a complete fabrication, the British Fluoridation Society has no integrity and ought to be abolished as the Strategic Health Authority will be in 2012. York University was forced to publish this statement. "We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence. Read the review conclusions in full at york.ac.uk/inst/crd/summary.pdf."
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review.
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam.
Sick of fluoride plan
I AM sick, sore and fed up with experts telling us how good fluoridated water is. Mr John Beal MBE, vice-president of the Fluoride Society (Letters, May 28) goes off on one giving us all the scientific data, which, quite frankly, is beginning to bore me. It seems these people are just not getting it. I couldn't care less whether it prolonged life, got rid of spots and made me look ten years younger, I still wouldn't want it in my drinking water.
If I go to my doctor and he prescribes me pills, I have a choice; I can swallow them or put them in the bin. What fluoride would do is force a medication onto people without the choice. I am 56 years old and still have all my own teeth. My children, born in the 70s do not have a filling between them and they did not have fluoride in their water. Mr Beale and his colleagues want fluoride otherwise it would interfere with their livelihoods. Mr Seal's letter made no mention that the proposed fluoride would come from industrial waste and that the EU has banned products containing it, so much for the safety aspect then!
S E IRELAND, Southampton.
IT IS understandable that John Beal MBE, vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society (Echo May 28) rushed to defend fluoridation, as it is the organisation's raison d'etre.
When the NHS centre at York University was funded to confirm once and for all whether fluoridation was safe and effective it found there was no reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature worldwide.
The British Medical Association (BMA), the British Dental Association (BDA) and others claimed differently. "The review confirms that water fluoridation is safe and effective," said the BDA.
The BMA exhorted: "There is no evidence of any adverse risk to human health.
"Fluoridation is the most effective way to reduce dental health inequalities."
The British Fluoridation Society also echoed those views of the other two organisations.
This was a complete fabrication, the British Fluoridation Society has no integrity and ought to be abolished as the Strategic Health Authority will be in 2012. York University was forced to publish this statement. "We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence. Read the review conclusions in full at york.ac.uk/inst/crd/summary.pdf."
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review.
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam.
Sick of fluoride plan
I AM sick, sore and fed up with experts telling us how good fluoridated water is. Mr John Beal MBE, vice-president of the Fluoride Society (Letters, May 28) goes off on one giving us all the scientific data, which, quite frankly, is beginning to bore me. It seems these people are just not getting it. I couldn't care less whether it prolonged life, got rid of spots and made me look ten years younger, I still wouldn't want it in my drinking water.
If I go to my doctor and he prescribes me pills, I have a choice; I can swallow them or put them in the bin. What fluoride would do is force a medication onto people without the choice. I am 56 years old and still have all my own teeth. My children, born in the 70s do not have a filling between them and they did not have fluoride in their water. Mr Beale and his colleagues want fluoride otherwise it would interfere with their livelihoods. Mr Seal's letter made no mention that the proposed fluoride would come from industrial waste and that the EU has banned products containing it, so much for the safety aspect then!
S E IRELAND, Southampton.
8 Jun 2010
Parliament Question
Fluoride: Drinking Water
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it remains his policy that fluoridation of the water supply in Totton and Southampton should not take place without the consent of a majority of the local population. [1011]
Mr Simon Burns: Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 empowers strategic health authorities (SHAs) to contract with water undertakers to fluoridate a water supply after conducting public consultations. It is essential that any consultation gives people a real opportunity to make their views known and that those views are taken into account before a final decision is made.
The decision by South Central SHA to approve the fluoridation of water supplies to the Southampton area is the subject of a judicial review, which is likely to be heard in the autumn, and so due to the legal challenge the Department is unable to comment.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it remains his policy that fluoridation of the water supply in Totton and Southampton should not take place without the consent of a majority of the local population. [1011]
Mr Simon Burns: Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 empowers strategic health authorities (SHAs) to contract with water undertakers to fluoridate a water supply after conducting public consultations. It is essential that any consultation gives people a real opportunity to make their views known and that those views are taken into account before a final decision is made.
The decision by South Central SHA to approve the fluoridation of water supplies to the Southampton area is the subject of a judicial review, which is likely to be heard in the autumn, and so due to the legal challenge the Department is unable to comment.
7 Jun 2010
daily Echo - Beware of 'facts' behind fluoridation
Beware of 'facts' behind fluoridation
THOSE opposed to water fluoridation have for a long time said that those in favour cherry-pick their statistics, use bad science and crazy logic (some people assume wrongly it is the other way around). This is well demonstrated by John Beal MBE, vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society in the Echo (In My View, May 28).
For instance he says that children on average have 2.25 fewer teeth decayed, missing and filled in fluoridated areas than in non-fluoridated. How is that physically possible, considering that children in Southampton only have 1.13 decayed, missing or filled teeth in the first place?
So the magic of fluoride is going to give them negative amounts of fillings? It is blatantly crazy logic.
In fact Southampton's children have some of the best teeth of any city in Britain and indeed the world already, without fluoride in the water.
John Beal then goes on to use his farcical numbers to work out how many fillings and teeth could be saved, completely missing the point that his statistics are physically impossible to work.
In fact what he is quoting is based on very old research which the York Review said was "poor quality" and does not tie in at all with more modern good-quality research.
Unsafe
For instance recent research from Ontario in Canada shows that fluoridated Ontario has almost identical tooth decay rates compared with non-fluoridated Quebec. So they are now considering following Quebec's lead and stopping fluoridation. Fluoridation demonstrably does not work and is highly unsafe in the body.
Then the pro-fluoride camp often point to the number of children I having their teeth extracted, and how awful this is for the children. I have heard Southampton PCT put precisely this point. This is intended to get the emotions going.
They omit to mention that the large majority of dental extraction in children is due to problems like "bottle caries". This is when dummies are left in children's mouths for a long time, often sweetened with sugar. This does major damage to the children's | teeth leading to extractions. But it has zero to do with whether there is fluoride in the water or not, and it is scientifically dishonest to use this when arguing about water fluoridation.
So beware of the misinformation and bad science. You see it all the time, not just from John Beal MBE, and unfortunately it comes from those in authority who are entrusted to be scientifically honest with us.
THOSE opposed to water fluoridation have for a long time said that those in favour cherry-pick their statistics, use bad science and crazy logic (some people assume wrongly it is the other way around). This is well demonstrated by John Beal MBE, vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society in the Echo (In My View, May 28).
For instance he says that children on average have 2.25 fewer teeth decayed, missing and filled in fluoridated areas than in non-fluoridated. How is that physically possible, considering that children in Southampton only have 1.13 decayed, missing or filled teeth in the first place?
So the magic of fluoride is going to give them negative amounts of fillings? It is blatantly crazy logic.
In fact Southampton's children have some of the best teeth of any city in Britain and indeed the world already, without fluoride in the water.
John Beal then goes on to use his farcical numbers to work out how many fillings and teeth could be saved, completely missing the point that his statistics are physically impossible to work.
In fact what he is quoting is based on very old research which the York Review said was "poor quality" and does not tie in at all with more modern good-quality research.
Unsafe
For instance recent research from Ontario in Canada shows that fluoridated Ontario has almost identical tooth decay rates compared with non-fluoridated Quebec. So they are now considering following Quebec's lead and stopping fluoridation. Fluoridation demonstrably does not work and is highly unsafe in the body.
Then the pro-fluoride camp often point to the number of children I having their teeth extracted, and how awful this is for the children. I have heard Southampton PCT put precisely this point. This is intended to get the emotions going.
They omit to mention that the large majority of dental extraction in children is due to problems like "bottle caries". This is when dummies are left in children's mouths for a long time, often sweetened with sugar. This does major damage to the children's | teeth leading to extractions. But it has zero to do with whether there is fluoride in the water or not, and it is scientifically dishonest to use this when arguing about water fluoridation.
So beware of the misinformation and bad science. You see it all the time, not just from John Beal MBE, and unfortunately it comes from those in authority who are entrusted to be scientifically honest with us.
5 Jun 2010
Daily Echo letters
Statistics Can mislead
LETTERS contributor Bill Edmunds notes 75 per cent of Irish children have experienced tooth decay (Letters, May 24), and points out that Ireland fluoridates its water.
However, this proves nothing - the number for non-fluoridated Northern Ireland was 81 per cent.
Bill also mentions a 700 per cent increase in
fluorosis in Irish 15-year-olds since 1984.
Looking at the original report, the non-fluoridated areas saw a 2,800 per cent increase -this is a classic statistical trick to exaggerate changes in small numbers.
D R Smith tells us 72 per cent of people in the area oppose fluoridation. This was indeed the proportion of negative respondents to the consultation -however, those opposed to fluoridation might be more inclined to respond. I have much more sympathy for the "democracy" argument but the true opposition rate is more like 38 per cent (based on a telephone survey of 2,000 people) and even that will have been inflated by the confusing misuse of statistics by campaigners.
TIM RETOUT, Southampton.
Stop this waste of money
WITH the current emphasis on cutting waste, I note that the attempt to force water fluoridation on Southampton is continuing, with a date now set for the first hearing of the Judicial Review (November 3).
This is wasting £400,000 of taxpayers' (our) money to force us to have something that we do not want. 72 per cent opposed fluoridation in the so-called public consultation.
I am glad to hear that South Central Strategic Health Authority is to be abolished in 2012. They are the ones behind this bad science, unethical behaviour and waste of money While I sympathise with the good people in the authority, the ineptitude of the board has meant that they deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history. However they still seem determined to push fluoridation through to leave us with a toxic legacy.
Will the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats now instruct the health authorities to stop wasting our money on water fluoridation? Or have they forgotten what they promised just before the elections?
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE,
Southampton,
We don't want it - fact!
MR Tim Retout (Letters, May 24) expresses the view that while he is disinterested whether fluoride is introduced to our water or not, he does resent the use of quotations of scientific research. For or against, usually out of context. He then uses approximately 8½ column inches doing precisely that, in favour of fluoride introduction.
Hopefully he will have read my little article, which was inset into his, which expresses the only incontrovertible fact based on such surveys as have been done - we do not want it!
Short of a full referendum, that's all that should be necessary
MR D R SMITH, Bitterne, Southampton.
LETTERS contributor Bill Edmunds notes 75 per cent of Irish children have experienced tooth decay (Letters, May 24), and points out that Ireland fluoridates its water.
However, this proves nothing - the number for non-fluoridated Northern Ireland was 81 per cent.
Bill also mentions a 700 per cent increase in
fluorosis in Irish 15-year-olds since 1984.
Looking at the original report, the non-fluoridated areas saw a 2,800 per cent increase -this is a classic statistical trick to exaggerate changes in small numbers.
D R Smith tells us 72 per cent of people in the area oppose fluoridation. This was indeed the proportion of negative respondents to the consultation -however, those opposed to fluoridation might be more inclined to respond. I have much more sympathy for the "democracy" argument but the true opposition rate is more like 38 per cent (based on a telephone survey of 2,000 people) and even that will have been inflated by the confusing misuse of statistics by campaigners.
TIM RETOUT, Southampton.
Stop this waste of money
WITH the current emphasis on cutting waste, I note that the attempt to force water fluoridation on Southampton is continuing, with a date now set for the first hearing of the Judicial Review (November 3).
This is wasting £400,000 of taxpayers' (our) money to force us to have something that we do not want. 72 per cent opposed fluoridation in the so-called public consultation.
I am glad to hear that South Central Strategic Health Authority is to be abolished in 2012. They are the ones behind this bad science, unethical behaviour and waste of money While I sympathise with the good people in the authority, the ineptitude of the board has meant that they deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history. However they still seem determined to push fluoridation through to leave us with a toxic legacy.
Will the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats now instruct the health authorities to stop wasting our money on water fluoridation? Or have they forgotten what they promised just before the elections?
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE,
Southampton,
We don't want it - fact!
MR Tim Retout (Letters, May 24) expresses the view that while he is disinterested whether fluoride is introduced to our water or not, he does resent the use of quotations of scientific research. For or against, usually out of context. He then uses approximately 8½ column inches doing precisely that, in favour of fluoride introduction.
Hopefully he will have read my little article, which was inset into his, which expresses the only incontrovertible fact based on such surveys as have been done - we do not want it!
Short of a full referendum, that's all that should be necessary
MR D R SMITH, Bitterne, Southampton.
4 Jun 2010
Daily Echo Editor Ian Murray Give us a vote on fluoride
Give us a vote on fluoride
DENTAL HEALTH: We are told that fluoride in the water will help to save our children's teeth.
This is your chance to take your place to see England at The Rose Bowl...
WITH breathtaking audacity health bosses appear determined to plough on with plans to force through their project to add fluoride to local water supplies.
It is truly difficult to get the measure of what lies behind the thinking of such people.
As this paper reported this week, the legal hearings into whether the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) can add the chemical to some Southampton supplies and those affecting some surrounding areas will not take place now until next year.
This means that the plan, if finally given the go-ahead, will not take shape until the year 2012. By which time, it looks increasingly likely the SHA itself will have ceased to exist. The new Government have made it plain that they wish to see SHAs swept away. This is on top of the small detail that the Prime Minister David Cameron and the new Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley have made it plain they agree with calls for a referendum on the issue.
It is a referendum you may recall that lies at the heart of this issue with campaigners who are against the fluoride plan, claiming this proposal has never truly been put to the people and public objections have been ignored.
The result of all this is that we now have the, some might say, obscene situation of a doomed health body preparing to spend an estimated
£400,000 of precious public funds on fighting a battle to force through an issue that virtually everyone is against. Surely it would be far better to hold up their hands, agree to spend a fraction of that money on a straight forward referendum and if they lose, and I believe increasingly that they will, to channel the remainder of the cash into targeting the small group of youngsters in the city who are most at risk of dental decay
As someone who lived most of his young life with fluoride in the water I personally have no fears over its long-term effects. However, I do believe this is a matter for the public to have a veto if they wish, a veto they are being denied at present.
DENTAL HEALTH: We are told that fluoride in the water will help to save our children's teeth.
This is your chance to take your place to see England at The Rose Bowl...
WITH breathtaking audacity health bosses appear determined to plough on with plans to force through their project to add fluoride to local water supplies.
It is truly difficult to get the measure of what lies behind the thinking of such people.
As this paper reported this week, the legal hearings into whether the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) can add the chemical to some Southampton supplies and those affecting some surrounding areas will not take place now until next year.
This means that the plan, if finally given the go-ahead, will not take shape until the year 2012. By which time, it looks increasingly likely the SHA itself will have ceased to exist. The new Government have made it plain that they wish to see SHAs swept away. This is on top of the small detail that the Prime Minister David Cameron and the new Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley have made it plain they agree with calls for a referendum on the issue.
It is a referendum you may recall that lies at the heart of this issue with campaigners who are against the fluoride plan, claiming this proposal has never truly been put to the people and public objections have been ignored.
The result of all this is that we now have the, some might say, obscene situation of a doomed health body preparing to spend an estimated
£400,000 of precious public funds on fighting a battle to force through an issue that virtually everyone is against. Surely it would be far better to hold up their hands, agree to spend a fraction of that money on a straight forward referendum and if they lose, and I believe increasingly that they will, to channel the remainder of the cash into targeting the small group of youngsters in the city who are most at risk of dental decay
As someone who lived most of his young life with fluoride in the water I personally have no fears over its long-term effects. However, I do believe this is a matter for the public to have a veto if they wish, a veto they are being denied at present.
Daily Echo - An often repeated fluoridation error
An often repeated fluoridation error
JOHN Beal MBE of the British Fluoridation Society (In My View, May 28) repeats a very silly error which I also heard stated repeatedly by senior members of the Strategic Health Authority and Southampton City Primary Care Trust during the public consultation.
It is blatantly wrong and I feel I must correct it here. John Beal wrote "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." Other commentators have used the example of water as being poisonous "at the wrong concentration".
What such individuals always forget to point out is that fluoride (unlike, oxygen, nitrogen, water etc. etc.) is bio-accumulative. That is, it builds up in living organisms through metabolic processes, thereby increasing in concentration over time. Fifty per cent of all the fluoride you take into your body (by drinking, eating, breathing or through the skin) will stay in your body for the rest of your life. That's why, when you brush your teeth, you are supposed to spit out fluoridated toothpaste, not swallow it.
While 50 per cent will be excreted, the fluoride that stays in your body binds to calcium - in your teeth but also in your bones and your brain and other organs. Here it builds up over the years and can never be removed.
DR SARAH GOODE, Eastleigh
A vested interest?
WATCHING the letters appearing about fluoridation I can't help but notice that Dr John Beal MBE, vice chairman of The British Fluoridation Society obviously has a vested interest in promoting this toxic product.
What part of "forced medication without consent" does he not understand? Also, why has Ireland reduced the amount of added fluoride to their water?
Don't bother Dr Beal, you surely know it's because of the amount of fluorosis that their young are suffering. If I needed to take medication for any condition I would not expect everyone else to take it too. Oh, how I wish common sense would reappear.
Name & address supplied.
JOHN Beal MBE of the British Fluoridation Society (In My View, May 28) repeats a very silly error which I also heard stated repeatedly by senior members of the Strategic Health Authority and Southampton City Primary Care Trust during the public consultation.
It is blatantly wrong and I feel I must correct it here. John Beal wrote "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." Other commentators have used the example of water as being poisonous "at the wrong concentration".
What such individuals always forget to point out is that fluoride (unlike, oxygen, nitrogen, water etc. etc.) is bio-accumulative. That is, it builds up in living organisms through metabolic processes, thereby increasing in concentration over time. Fifty per cent of all the fluoride you take into your body (by drinking, eating, breathing or through the skin) will stay in your body for the rest of your life. That's why, when you brush your teeth, you are supposed to spit out fluoridated toothpaste, not swallow it.
While 50 per cent will be excreted, the fluoride that stays in your body binds to calcium - in your teeth but also in your bones and your brain and other organs. Here it builds up over the years and can never be removed.
DR SARAH GOODE, Eastleigh
A vested interest?
WATCHING the letters appearing about fluoridation I can't help but notice that Dr John Beal MBE, vice chairman of The British Fluoridation Society obviously has a vested interest in promoting this toxic product.
What part of "forced medication without consent" does he not understand? Also, why has Ireland reduced the amount of added fluoride to their water?
Don't bother Dr Beal, you surely know it's because of the amount of fluorosis that their young are suffering. If I needed to take medication for any condition I would not expect everyone else to take it too. Oh, how I wish common sense would reappear.
Name & address supplied.
USA - Dental Benefit Plans Will Provide Coverage to Children from the Age of Birth
Dental Benefit Plans Will Provide Coverage to Children from the Age of Birth
June 3rd, 2010
“With this legislation Maine is setting a high standard for children’s dental benefit coverage,” notes Governor John Baldacci. “I am pleased to sign this bill into law and make Maine a leader for children’s oral health.”
Studies have shown the dramatic positive effect early visits to the dentist provide…
“Children who receive early preventive care, starting at age 1, can have 50% less tooth decay,” notes Dr. Jonathan Shenkin, a Maine pediatric dentist and President of the Maine Dental Association.
“Less oral disease means children will have less dental pain – and fewer visits to the dentist over their lifetime. Parents can reduce costs for dental care over a short period of time by bringing babies in to the dentist as soon as the baby teeth erupt,” he adds............
Maine is fluoridated
June 3rd, 2010
“With this legislation Maine is setting a high standard for children’s dental benefit coverage,” notes Governor John Baldacci. “I am pleased to sign this bill into law and make Maine a leader for children’s oral health.”
Studies have shown the dramatic positive effect early visits to the dentist provide…
“Children who receive early preventive care, starting at age 1, can have 50% less tooth decay,” notes Dr. Jonathan Shenkin, a Maine pediatric dentist and President of the Maine Dental Association.
“Less oral disease means children will have less dental pain – and fewer visits to the dentist over their lifetime. Parents can reduce costs for dental care over a short period of time by bringing babies in to the dentist as soon as the baby teeth erupt,” he adds............
Maine is fluoridated
1 Jun 2010
Daily Echo - Fluoride will not turn you into a monster!
Fluoride will not turn you into a monster!
JOY Warren's interventions in the Southampton fluoride debate need to be put into perspective.
Echo readers might like to know the organisation she represents warns people against drinking tea (because tea leaves contain fluoride), as well as against using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes, and consuming any food that contains fluoride. If we all did what she suggests, we might as well stop eating and drinking and lie down in a darkened room somewhere.
Her website preposterously claims that full fat milk is better for us than skimmed milk and seems even to question whether people should be taking statins to reduce their cholesterol levels. To cap it all we are treated to the old-age conspiracy theory that fluoridation could all be a plot by wicked industrialists to get rid of waste products. Oh dear, oh dear. What next? Once upon a time the anti-fluoridation brigade were certain it was all a communist plot to undermine democracy in the West. I wish they would make up their minds.
The good citizens of Southampton can rest assured that if they come up to visit the mainly fluoridated West Midlands or fluoridated areas in Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Newcastle, Tyneside, east Cheshire or Cumbria, they won't find monsters with two heads round every corner.
In the West Midlands, where I live, many of our children have some of the best dental health in the country for their age group, and there are no studies or statistics suggesting that we are more susceptible to the almost endless list of nasty things that opponents of fluoride like to frighten us with.
I am very happy to drink fluoridated water myself and have been doing so for over 45 years. Polls show that a majority of people in fluoridated areas are similarly happy to be benefiting from this important public health measure.
JOHN CHARLTON CBE,
Selly Oak, Birmingham.
Daily Echo
Comment
Fluoride project riddled with flaws
THE game would appear to be up for those advocating adding fluoride to some of Southampton's water supply without a true consultation process with the public.
As this paper reports today, the legal hearings into whether the proposal from the Hampshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should go ahead with a referendum will now be delayed until next year and any scheme will not be up and running until the summer of 2012.
By that date, the SHA itself may have been abolished under proposals understood to be under consideration by the new Government.
Indeed, the government minister now in charge of such matters, Andrew Lansley, has already made plain his objection to the present fluoride proposals going through without public agreement. And even the Prime Minister David Cameron is believed to be against such measures.
None of this, however, seems to be deterring the SHA from pushing ahead with plans not only to introduce the scheme but spend some £400,000 of public funds to fight its case in court.
This is madness and seems to smack of sheer bloody mindedness in the case of the SHA.
No one doubts dental standards need to be improved in some areas of Southampton, but this whole project is riddled with flaws and should go back to the drawing board.
JOY Warren's interventions in the Southampton fluoride debate need to be put into perspective.
Echo readers might like to know the organisation she represents warns people against drinking tea (because tea leaves contain fluoride), as well as against using fluoride toothpaste or mouthwashes, and consuming any food that contains fluoride. If we all did what she suggests, we might as well stop eating and drinking and lie down in a darkened room somewhere.
Her website preposterously claims that full fat milk is better for us than skimmed milk and seems even to question whether people should be taking statins to reduce their cholesterol levels. To cap it all we are treated to the old-age conspiracy theory that fluoridation could all be a plot by wicked industrialists to get rid of waste products. Oh dear, oh dear. What next? Once upon a time the anti-fluoridation brigade were certain it was all a communist plot to undermine democracy in the West. I wish they would make up their minds.
The good citizens of Southampton can rest assured that if they come up to visit the mainly fluoridated West Midlands or fluoridated areas in Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Newcastle, Tyneside, east Cheshire or Cumbria, they won't find monsters with two heads round every corner.
In the West Midlands, where I live, many of our children have some of the best dental health in the country for their age group, and there are no studies or statistics suggesting that we are more susceptible to the almost endless list of nasty things that opponents of fluoride like to frighten us with.
I am very happy to drink fluoridated water myself and have been doing so for over 45 years. Polls show that a majority of people in fluoridated areas are similarly happy to be benefiting from this important public health measure.
JOHN CHARLTON CBE,
Selly Oak, Birmingham.
Daily Echo
Comment
Fluoride project riddled with flaws
THE game would appear to be up for those advocating adding fluoride to some of Southampton's water supply without a true consultation process with the public.
As this paper reports today, the legal hearings into whether the proposal from the Hampshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should go ahead with a referendum will now be delayed until next year and any scheme will not be up and running until the summer of 2012.
By that date, the SHA itself may have been abolished under proposals understood to be under consideration by the new Government.
Indeed, the government minister now in charge of such matters, Andrew Lansley, has already made plain his objection to the present fluoride proposals going through without public agreement. And even the Prime Minister David Cameron is believed to be against such measures.
None of this, however, seems to be deterring the SHA from pushing ahead with plans not only to introduce the scheme but spend some £400,000 of public funds to fight its case in court.
This is madness and seems to smack of sheer bloody mindedness in the case of the SHA.
No one doubts dental standards need to be improved in some areas of Southampton, but this whole project is riddled with flaws and should go back to the drawing board.
Daily Echo - Will SHA live long enough to bring in fluoride plans?
Will SHA live long enough to bring in fluoride plans?
By Jon Reeve
CONTROVERSIAL plans to add fluoride to Hampshire water have been delayed yet again - by so long that the health body that approved the scheme might not exist by the time it happens.
A date has finally been set for the first part of a High Court legal bid to stop fluoridation in and around Southampton, but crowded courts mean a full judicial review into the scheme might not be heard this year.
And with mounting speculation the new Government wants to axe all strategic health authorities by April 2012, it's unlikely the health chiefs who backed fluoridation will still be in charge by the time the chemical is added to water supplies.
The news was welcomed by anti-fluoride campaigners who are hopeful that this threat of abolition, along with the change of government, will see the whole scheme axed.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said he is encouraged by the news, particularly as those now in office are not keen to force fluoridation without proper public consultation.
'Not real'
In January, Andrew Lansley - now Secretary of State for Health - told the Daily Echo that the public consultation carried out by the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) was "not real", while new Prime Minister David Cameron voted against the proposals in the last government vote.
All fluoride schemes across the country are on hold while the courts examine the decision by South Central SHA last February to add fluoride to the water in 200,000 homes.
Southampton resident Geraldine Milner is arguing the authority should have listened to the views of residents before giving the scheme the go-ahead, after 72 per cent of 10,000 people consulted said they were against the idea.
Her solicitors also wanted judges to examine whether the SHA, which insists it followed the legislation and has set aside £400,000 to fight the legal challenge, ignored evidence.
The judge had said the process was "unimpeachable", but allowed Sean Humber from Leigh Day & Co to appeal against the decision to reject that part of the application.
That petition will now be heard in November - more than a year later than was initially expected.
And the full judicial review hearing, which will examine what the Labour Government meant when it said health bosses should listen to public opinion, cannot be given a hearing date until the appeal is decided.
"I think it's fair to say this has taken a surprisingly long time, but I'm afraid that's just the way the legal system works. The full hearing can't be listed until we've had that first hearing, because they don't know what they're listing," said Mr Humber, who believes it could be as late as next spring.
Fluoridation in Hampshire has been on hold since last June, when talks about implementing the scheme between the SHA and Southern Water, were suspended.
Even if the judicial review gives it
the green light, there is little chance the scheme could be up and running before summer 2012.
The SHA might not even exist by then as the Government looks to axe expensive quangos as part of £6billion budget cuts.
It has been reported that Mr Lansley has already told SHA bosses they will be abolished by April 2012 and replaced by an NHS commissioning board.
The SHA has been so concerned about the delays in hearing the judicial review it asked the High-Court to hurry it through the system to "end uncertainty".
However an offer to hold both hearings on the same day was rejected by the SHA who said: "It does not seem to be an appropriate use of public funds to prepare the case in full where there is real doubt as to whether permission will be granted."
THIS is definitely good news.
That's the view of anti-fluoride campaigners who are hoping that this latest delay and the power of a new Government could lead to the scrapping of the plans.Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Stephen Peckham said: "The threat of abolition must raise serious questions about the whole scheme. "Despite questions from Hampshire County Council there have been no answers on the feasibility of part of the scheme and the actual cost, so there must still be a lot of work to do. How will that be done if the SHA is no longer in existence?" "This is definitely good news and it is encouraging because it brings a lot more uncertainty. With this and the change of Government we are very hopeful that we can get the whole plan scrapped. "From where we were in February 2009, with the bland statement that it would be implemented within a year, here we are 18 months later and there had been no movement. "The furore is clearly continuing."
By Jon Reeve
CONTROVERSIAL plans to add fluoride to Hampshire water have been delayed yet again - by so long that the health body that approved the scheme might not exist by the time it happens.
A date has finally been set for the first part of a High Court legal bid to stop fluoridation in and around Southampton, but crowded courts mean a full judicial review into the scheme might not be heard this year.
And with mounting speculation the new Government wants to axe all strategic health authorities by April 2012, it's unlikely the health chiefs who backed fluoridation will still be in charge by the time the chemical is added to water supplies.
The news was welcomed by anti-fluoride campaigners who are hopeful that this threat of abolition, along with the change of government, will see the whole scheme axed.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said he is encouraged by the news, particularly as those now in office are not keen to force fluoridation without proper public consultation.
'Not real'
In January, Andrew Lansley - now Secretary of State for Health - told the Daily Echo that the public consultation carried out by the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) was "not real", while new Prime Minister David Cameron voted against the proposals in the last government vote.
All fluoride schemes across the country are on hold while the courts examine the decision by South Central SHA last February to add fluoride to the water in 200,000 homes.
Southampton resident Geraldine Milner is arguing the authority should have listened to the views of residents before giving the scheme the go-ahead, after 72 per cent of 10,000 people consulted said they were against the idea.
Her solicitors also wanted judges to examine whether the SHA, which insists it followed the legislation and has set aside £400,000 to fight the legal challenge, ignored evidence.
The judge had said the process was "unimpeachable", but allowed Sean Humber from Leigh Day & Co to appeal against the decision to reject that part of the application.
That petition will now be heard in November - more than a year later than was initially expected.
And the full judicial review hearing, which will examine what the Labour Government meant when it said health bosses should listen to public opinion, cannot be given a hearing date until the appeal is decided.
"I think it's fair to say this has taken a surprisingly long time, but I'm afraid that's just the way the legal system works. The full hearing can't be listed until we've had that first hearing, because they don't know what they're listing," said Mr Humber, who believes it could be as late as next spring.
Fluoridation in Hampshire has been on hold since last June, when talks about implementing the scheme between the SHA and Southern Water, were suspended.
Even if the judicial review gives it
the green light, there is little chance the scheme could be up and running before summer 2012.
The SHA might not even exist by then as the Government looks to axe expensive quangos as part of £6billion budget cuts.
It has been reported that Mr Lansley has already told SHA bosses they will be abolished by April 2012 and replaced by an NHS commissioning board.
The SHA has been so concerned about the delays in hearing the judicial review it asked the High-Court to hurry it through the system to "end uncertainty".
However an offer to hold both hearings on the same day was rejected by the SHA who said: "It does not seem to be an appropriate use of public funds to prepare the case in full where there is real doubt as to whether permission will be granted."
THIS is definitely good news.
That's the view of anti-fluoride campaigners who are hoping that this latest delay and the power of a new Government could lead to the scrapping of the plans.Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Stephen Peckham said: "The threat of abolition must raise serious questions about the whole scheme. "Despite questions from Hampshire County Council there have been no answers on the feasibility of part of the scheme and the actual cost, so there must still be a lot of work to do. How will that be done if the SHA is no longer in existence?" "This is definitely good news and it is encouraging because it brings a lot more uncertainty. With this and the change of Government we are very hopeful that we can get the whole plan scrapped. "From where we were in February 2009, with the bland statement that it would be implemented within a year, here we are 18 months later and there had been no movement. "The furore is clearly continuing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
