26 Mar 2011

Daily Echo - Letters

Not a penny until Southern Water writes
AS a customer of Southern Water I am surprised that they have not contacted their customers direct to inform them of a possible change to the product they supply. Unless I can be assured by
Southern Water that the fresh water they supply stays that way, I shall not be furnishing them with the upfront, annual payment that is due on April 1. KEN EVERETT, Southampton.Fluorosis is more than just 'cosmetic'
FOLLOWING the discovery that the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) do indeed plan to implement fluoridation, this is clearly outrageous, against the will of those affected and therefore deeply
immoral and against all the principles of medical ethics.
• It is a waste of scarce money. The politicians must deliver on their promises to stop the SHA, firstly by denying them funding from the Department of Health(DH). The DH did promise to subsidise the implementation of water fluoridation back in 2008, but that budget was only available for three years and runs out on March 31. It must not be renewed.
• Fluoridation causes more damage to teeth
from dental fluorosis than even the more optimistic predictions of reduction in cavities. The health services must recognise dental fluorosis as much more than cosmetic damage and pay the thousands of pounds per person for treatment to deal with dental fluorosis. They must also recompense people for the health damage caused.
• It is outrageous for the letter from the SHA to talk about the "hundreds of children per year" needing "general anaesthetic for the extraction of diseased teeth" as if this has anything to do with fluoridation at all. It does not. The vast majority of extractions are due to "bottle caries" and gum disease, neither of which is improved by fluoridation at all.
Who is going to stop this illogial, unethical and deeply anti-democratic SHA?
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE, Southampton, South West Hampshire

Why do these people want to poison us?
I AM certainly against putting fluoride in drinking water. It is said to be a dangerous product.
Unless there is a money backhander what are these SHA people thinking about. They are trying to poison people.
Children have been around for years, I was born in the 40's.
I was made to clean my teeth twice a day by my parents. I know (due to bureaucracy) parents are not allowed to dictate to their children these days, but surely they can tell them to clean their teeth. Most toothpastes have extra tooth decaying products in them.
We frown on people who inject drugs into themselves but an organisation feeding a poison into people appears to be acceptable.
It will also save government money by not having to pay dentist wages.
MISS C PURKISS, West End.Fluoride does more good than harmIT'S a fact that fluoride protects teeth from decay. It has been known for many years children's teeth are much healthier in areas where the water is fluoridated.
Why these anti-fluoride campaigners persist in attempting to ban fluoridation beats me. They're like a dog with a bone. They have no case. There is not a shred of evidence that says it is harmful. These anti-fluoride campaigners are unable to produce any proven evidence of harm caused by fluoridation
In response to a letter I sent to the Echo back in 2009 received a letter and an American CD video from an anti-fluoridation campaigner which attempted to make a case against fluoridation using fear techniques, which is a well known method used especially in America and many other countries, when you don't have a case and want to win. The CD video based its fear argument by stating that practically every medical condition known to man is caused by fluoridation.
There was no statement or argument whatsoever in favour of fluoridation. It used dubious names of so-called experts who furthered the fear of fluoride to the masses, never mind the improvement of fluoride to the health of our teeth.
Dental charges are high enough without making things worse by banning fluoride.
It's been decided to fluoridate our water for our benefit, yes, for our benefit.
Let's close the case.

Why would we give a statement for fluoridation - the dumping of a concrete eating poisonous waste in our water? No doubt you received Professor Connett's DVD a toxicologist and yet you dismiss everything as rubbish. Oh well shame you don't have to drink it if they do succeed in putting it in.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I must be such a cynic. Why is it that when someone's decided that something is "for my own good" I immediately wonder what's in it for them?

I don't care if fluoride is fabulous for teeth (which I doubt) and a cure for baldness (which I just made up) ... I don't want it. THAT should be the end of it, not that the decision's been taken and we should all just shut up and accept it.