29 Apr 2011
USA - Mix-up with chemicals at Arkansas water plant causes evacuation; drinking water not threatened
First Posted: April 28, 2011
ENGLAND, Ark. — A mix-up involving chemicals at the water treatment plant in the central Arkansas town of England led to an evacuation of several businesses Thursday near the facility.
Police in the Lonoke County community cleared the area for several hours after they say a chemical company worker mistakenly poured fluoride into a storage vat containing chlorine. Between 50 and 75 people were forced to leave from restaurants and other businesses, said England Police Chief Herman Hutton.
He said the chemical worker poured about 10 to 20 gallons of fluoride into a container holding around 150 gallons of bleach before realizing his mistake. The chemical reaction, which happened around 11 a.m., created a dangerous gas.
A water plant worker and an employee from a nearby fertilizer company were treated for breathing problems at the scene.
"It could have been a more serious situation had it happened in an enclosed area," Hutton said, adding that the doors of the building were open, which allowed the gas to circulate.
He said there was no threat to the city's drinking water because the container where the chemicals were mixed was only used for storage.
The Pulaski County Hazmat team had the area cleaned up by 2 p.m.
ENGLAND, Ark. — A mix-up involving chemicals at the water treatment plant in the central Arkansas town of England led to an evacuation of several businesses Thursday near the facility.
Police in the Lonoke County community cleared the area for several hours after they say a chemical company worker mistakenly poured fluoride into a storage vat containing chlorine. Between 50 and 75 people were forced to leave from restaurants and other businesses, said England Police Chief Herman Hutton.
He said the chemical worker poured about 10 to 20 gallons of fluoride into a container holding around 150 gallons of bleach before realizing his mistake. The chemical reaction, which happened around 11 a.m., created a dangerous gas.
A water plant worker and an employee from a nearby fertilizer company were treated for breathing problems at the scene.
"It could have been a more serious situation had it happened in an enclosed area," Hutton said, adding that the doors of the building were open, which allowed the gas to circulate.
He said there was no threat to the city's drinking water because the container where the chemicals were mixed was only used for storage.
The Pulaski County Hazmat team had the area cleaned up by 2 p.m.
28 Apr 2011
Don't Feed Babies Fluoridated Water say NYS Health Officials
Don't Feed Babies Fluoridated Water say NYS Health Officials
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
NEW YORK, April 27, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Babies fed infant formula mixed with New York's fluoridated tap water risk developing enamel fluorosis or discolored teeth, according to the New York State Department of Health (1). Bureaucrats fail to effectively broadcast this vital information beyond their little-read websites which places babies at unnecessary risk of developing fluoride-damaged teeth, reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).......
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
NEW YORK, April 27, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Babies fed infant formula mixed with New York's fluoridated tap water risk developing enamel fluorosis or discolored teeth, according to the New York State Department of Health (1). Bureaucrats fail to effectively broadcast this vital information beyond their little-read websites which places babies at unnecessary risk of developing fluoride-damaged teeth, reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).......
27 Apr 2011
Anger as NHS chiefs run up £13m bill
Anger as NHS chiefs run up £13m bill on wining, dining and lavish away days
By James Slack
Last updated at 7:32 AM on 27th April 2011
NHS bureaucrats have blown £13million on lavish dinners and hospitality for themselves, it emerged last night.
Freedom of Information requests reveal strategic health authority staff are enjoying away days which cost more than a luxury meal at the Ritz.
Strategic Health Authorities – which face the axe under controversial NHS reforms – have squandered the extraordinary sums over the past four years.
Last year alone, the average spending by SHA chiefs on ‘hospitality for conferences, meetings and staff away days’ was £361,113 each.
The estimated £3.6million bill for wining and dining by the ten SHAs last year is the equivalent of 120 nurses, 600 hip operations or more than 16,000 hospital bed days.
By James Slack
Last updated at 7:32 AM on 27th April 2011
NHS bureaucrats have blown £13million on lavish dinners and hospitality for themselves, it emerged last night.
Freedom of Information requests reveal strategic health authority staff are enjoying away days which cost more than a luxury meal at the Ritz.
Strategic Health Authorities – which face the axe under controversial NHS reforms – have squandered the extraordinary sums over the past four years.
Last year alone, the average spending by SHA chiefs on ‘hospitality for conferences, meetings and staff away days’ was £361,113 each.
The estimated £3.6million bill for wining and dining by the ten SHAs last year is the equivalent of 120 nurses, 600 hip operations or more than 16,000 hospital bed days.
House of Lords
Asked by Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the High Court decision on the water fluoridation scheme in Southampton, they will encourage other health authorities to consult on the introduction of similar schemes elsewhere. [HL8552]
Earl Howe: The Chief Dental Officer has advised primary care trusts with high levels of tooth decay to consider requesting their strategic health authority to undertake public consultation on the fluoridation of their water supplies. The Government's policy is that decisions on fluoridation should be taken locally.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the High Court decision on the water fluoridation scheme in Southampton, they will encourage other health authorities to consult on the introduction of similar schemes elsewhere. [HL8552]
Earl Howe: The Chief Dental Officer has advised primary care trusts with high levels of tooth decay to consider requesting their strategic health authority to undertake public consultation on the fluoridation of their water supplies. The Government's policy is that decisions on fluoridation should be taken locally.
26 Apr 2011
Daily Echo In My View
What about 'first do no harm'?THE Strategic Health Authority is now making plans to implement fluoridation in Southampton and Hampshire, having been persuaded that the health benefits outweigh all risks.
However, information that has come to light under the Freedom Of Information Act suggests that the truth is very different and the public are being deceived.
1) The Government and Department Of Health have admitted that dental f luorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity (Baroness Hayman 1999).
2) They are nonetheless going ahead with their agenda in full knowledge of the harm it will do to the body and the teeth.
3) Even worse, in a cruel Nazi-style experiment, they intend to use a newly fluoridated community to study the harms that their forced agenda will
4) This is where the cogency of their arguments in favour of the health benefits of fluoridation disintegrates completely. Not only do they know it does not protect teeth, but that it also harms the entire body.
5) Over the next ten years, they will collect data that will not only never be disclosed to the public, but the evidence will be denied and the fluoridation programme will be declared a huge success, awards will be given and they will congratulate themselves for implementing the most important and most successful public health measure of all time. Meanwhile, unless phosphate fertilisers are banned, the industry will salivate at the growing mountain of dishonourable revenues from water companies.
6) At the same time, babies will have been poisoned and distressed families will face huge dental costs for remedial work on f luorosed teeth in their adolescent children.
Should not a Health Authority have a moral obligation to honour the Hippocratic oath "first do no harm" at all times?
22 Apr 2011
Daily Echo - Letter
Keep tap water pure
IT has been suggested that if our water supply is contaminated, bottled water can be purchased.
You would need a lot of bottled water to have a shower or a bath at home and what about public swimming baths where people and children dive into the water? Obviously it must go into their eyes, nose and ears apart from amounts swallowed. The water will not reach teeth in these instances.
The people who may well suffer the most will be the bulge drinkers who down several pints in an evening. It will not do their teeth any good as they just pour it down their throats, not touching the teeth. I wonder what it does to their insides? If it is going to prevent decay in teeth it must be fairly strong. Have tests been done on what action this has on flesh?
A better and cheaper plan would be for the shops to sell water which contains fluoride to those who feel they need it and keep our taps running with water as pure as is possible.
AC DAVIDSON, Locks Heath.
IT has been suggested that if our water supply is contaminated, bottled water can be purchased.
You would need a lot of bottled water to have a shower or a bath at home and what about public swimming baths where people and children dive into the water? Obviously it must go into their eyes, nose and ears apart from amounts swallowed. The water will not reach teeth in these instances.
The people who may well suffer the most will be the bulge drinkers who down several pints in an evening. It will not do their teeth any good as they just pour it down their throats, not touching the teeth. I wonder what it does to their insides? If it is going to prevent decay in teeth it must be fairly strong. Have tests been done on what action this has on flesh?
A better and cheaper plan would be for the shops to sell water which contains fluoride to those who feel they need it and keep our taps running with water as pure as is possible.
AC DAVIDSON, Locks Heath.
Leading Wellness Professional Asserts that Many “Natural” Toothpastes Are Ineffective and May Even Pose Health Hazards
Leading Wellness Professional Asserts that Many “Natural” Toothpastes Are Ineffective and May Even Pose Health Hazards
Recent reports regarding fluoride toxicity leads to a misguided “natural” toothpaste movement, according to leading Dentist, USC Professor and prominent wellness professional, Dr. Flora Stay
PRWEB) April 21, 2011
Spurred by recent debates about fluoride toxicity, many health professionals are stepping back into the toothpaste and dental health discussion. There is a rising concern that we may be over-exposing our citizens to fluoride. This naturally occurring mineral is typically added to drinking water in an effort to prevent cavities in children. Recent studies suggest that fluoridation may pose more health risks than benefits. In fact, couple enriched water with fluoride toothpaste, fluoride supplements and mouthwash, and fluoride can reach toxic levels. In response to this debate a whole culture of natural toothpaste proponents has been on the rise. While based in good intentions, this phenomena is rooted in more myth than in reality. According to health professional Dr. Flora Stay, simply being a “natural toothpaste” is not enough.
Dr. Flora Stay knows a thing or two about toothpaste. She is the author of Secret Gateway to Health, a practicing dentist, a USC professor, and she has spent the last 20 years in toothpaste research and development. “I believe it is my responsibility to let consumers know why natural toothpaste is typically a waste of money.”
“A healthy mouth requires several things. It must have adequate saliva, maintain a neutral pH, be regularly cleaned by a professional dentist… and of course it’s nice to have minimum sugar exposure.” Dr. Stay adds, “I understand the desire to limit fluoride consumption and exposure to synthetic chemicals. That makes sense to me too… but rather than seeking out “natural toothpaste”, look for an effective and safe toothpaste.”
What makes for an effective and safe toothpaste?
Your toothpaste should include Xylitol to aid in decay prevention and help flow of saliva as well as baking soda to help remove stains and neutralize acids.
It should taste good without adding saccharin.
It should be free of harsh abrasives, herbs and other irritating additives.
It should be free of fluoride and sodium lauryl sulfate or SLS.
So why is natural toothpaste a myth?
It’s a marketing ploy… if a product is truly natural, it would require refrigeration.
Most of the herbs featured in many of the so-called natural toothpastes are totally ineffective against tooth decay, may have unpleasant side effects and are often sprayed with pesticides. If an herb has drug-like properties, it should be used with caution, especially on pregnant, breastfeeding women or children
Recent reports regarding fluoride toxicity leads to a misguided “natural” toothpaste movement, according to leading Dentist, USC Professor and prominent wellness professional, Dr. Flora Stay
PRWEB) April 21, 2011
Spurred by recent debates about fluoride toxicity, many health professionals are stepping back into the toothpaste and dental health discussion. There is a rising concern that we may be over-exposing our citizens to fluoride. This naturally occurring mineral is typically added to drinking water in an effort to prevent cavities in children. Recent studies suggest that fluoridation may pose more health risks than benefits. In fact, couple enriched water with fluoride toothpaste, fluoride supplements and mouthwash, and fluoride can reach toxic levels. In response to this debate a whole culture of natural toothpaste proponents has been on the rise. While based in good intentions, this phenomena is rooted in more myth than in reality. According to health professional Dr. Flora Stay, simply being a “natural toothpaste” is not enough.
Dr. Flora Stay knows a thing or two about toothpaste. She is the author of Secret Gateway to Health, a practicing dentist, a USC professor, and she has spent the last 20 years in toothpaste research and development. “I believe it is my responsibility to let consumers know why natural toothpaste is typically a waste of money.”
“A healthy mouth requires several things. It must have adequate saliva, maintain a neutral pH, be regularly cleaned by a professional dentist… and of course it’s nice to have minimum sugar exposure.” Dr. Stay adds, “I understand the desire to limit fluoride consumption and exposure to synthetic chemicals. That makes sense to me too… but rather than seeking out “natural toothpaste”, look for an effective and safe toothpaste.”
What makes for an effective and safe toothpaste?
Your toothpaste should include Xylitol to aid in decay prevention and help flow of saliva as well as baking soda to help remove stains and neutralize acids.
It should taste good without adding saccharin.
It should be free of harsh abrasives, herbs and other irritating additives.
It should be free of fluoride and sodium lauryl sulfate or SLS.
So why is natural toothpaste a myth?
It’s a marketing ploy… if a product is truly natural, it would require refrigeration.
Most of the herbs featured in many of the so-called natural toothpastes are totally ineffective against tooth decay, may have unpleasant side effects and are often sprayed with pesticides. If an herb has drug-like properties, it should be used with caution, especially on pregnant, breastfeeding women or children
21 Apr 2011
Daily Echo - We're not alone
We're not alone
WE hear so little from other UK cities regarding their attitude to fluoridation and so might feel Southampton is fighting a lone battle.
I was reassured to read a letter from Tennessee, USA and to learn of their rational and legitimate concerns for their community and realize the concerns are equally valid in the UK.
Surely the SHA must be encouraged to delay their fluoridation plans for Southampton while there is so much uncertainty of its effects on health, especially on the health of the vulnerable members of society.
GILL HOLLOWAY, Locks Heath.
WE hear so little from other UK cities regarding their attitude to fluoridation and so might feel Southampton is fighting a lone battle.
I was reassured to read a letter from Tennessee, USA and to learn of their rational and legitimate concerns for their community and realize the concerns are equally valid in the UK.
Surely the SHA must be encouraged to delay their fluoridation plans for Southampton while there is so much uncertainty of its effects on health, especially on the health of the vulnerable members of society.
GILL HOLLOWAY, Locks Heath.
19 Apr 2011
18 Apr 2011
Daily Echo Letters
Ready market for fertilizer effluent
SO John Oliver is yet another one duped by the pro-fluoride lobby! What's more, to support his view, he quotes a leaflet from the USA which claims that the addition of fluoride to the water supply there has had nothing but beneficial effects on the nation's teeth.
While that claim itself is disputable, they are scarcely likely to admit to the damage it does to the thyroid gland, the kidneys, the skeletal frame, the brain of the developing foetus, and the child's IQ, etc.
However, even if fluoride were beneficial, I am not alone in objecting on principle to mass-medication without consent, which violates our human rights.
Moreover, fluoride should more accurately be known as hexafluorsilicic acid, which is too toxic to be dumped at sea or placed in landfill sites, but, so it is claimed, can safely be poured down our throats!
As an effluent from the fertilizer industry, its disposal was an expense to the industrialists until the government was persuaded to offer a ready market!
It is not possible to outline here all the arguments against fluoride but, anyway, at this time of economic stringency.can the government possibly justify spending millions to treat the water when only one per cent of it goes anywhere near teeth, especially as the claim that it prevents caries is disputable.
EILEEN EDMONDSON, Cheshire.
Fluoride petition
I AM writing to ask people that if they want to sign a new petition against fluoride being proposed to be added to our water supply. You can sign on-line at. Sign Petition
Please remember this is a completely new petition and nothing to do with the 15,000 signatures that went to 10 Downing Street last year. There will be pen to paper petitions as well, but only one or the other is to be signed.
If we still want to try to keep this toxic fluoride out please take the time to sign. Our water should be left alone for us to drink. It is not in place to treat anything. We will carry on the fight.
MRS KINCHINGTON, Address supplied.
SO John Oliver is yet another one duped by the pro-fluoride lobby! What's more, to support his view, he quotes a leaflet from the USA which claims that the addition of fluoride to the water supply there has had nothing but beneficial effects on the nation's teeth.
While that claim itself is disputable, they are scarcely likely to admit to the damage it does to the thyroid gland, the kidneys, the skeletal frame, the brain of the developing foetus, and the child's IQ, etc.
However, even if fluoride were beneficial, I am not alone in objecting on principle to mass-medication without consent, which violates our human rights.
Moreover, fluoride should more accurately be known as hexafluorsilicic acid, which is too toxic to be dumped at sea or placed in landfill sites, but, so it is claimed, can safely be poured down our throats!
As an effluent from the fertilizer industry, its disposal was an expense to the industrialists until the government was persuaded to offer a ready market!
It is not possible to outline here all the arguments against fluoride but, anyway, at this time of economic stringency.can the government possibly justify spending millions to treat the water when only one per cent of it goes anywhere near teeth, especially as the claim that it prevents caries is disputable.
EILEEN EDMONDSON, Cheshire.
Fluoride petition
I AM writing to ask people that if they want to sign a new petition against fluoride being proposed to be added to our water supply. You can sign on-line at. Sign Petition
Please remember this is a completely new petition and nothing to do with the 15,000 signatures that went to 10 Downing Street last year. There will be pen to paper petitions as well, but only one or the other is to be signed.
If we still want to try to keep this toxic fluoride out please take the time to sign. Our water should be left alone for us to drink. It is not in place to treat anything. We will carry on the fight.
MRS KINCHINGTON, Address supplied.
17 Apr 2011
The Fluoride Detective Speaks Up Against Fluoridation
The Fluoride Detective Speaks Up Against Fluoridation
Last month, Jim wrote a powerful article about what signs point toward the possibility of a new American Revolution on the horizon.
One of the signs Jim pointed to was the tendency of U.S. industry to inflict their products upon the population in a premature manner – before sufficient testing can be finished as to the effects those products have on humans.
One specific example was outlined in a section of Jim’s article titled “The Fluoridation of America.”
The response was overwhelming. A number of readers Tweeted, Facebooked and even sent me direct emails about their own personal experiences dealing with the inappropriate (and many would say unnecessary) fluoridation of the U.S. public water supply.
One such reader was Golda Starr, a self-described survivor of water fluoridation. On her website, Fluoride Detective, Golda shares her personal experience about having “fluoridated kidneys,” how she prevented kidney failure by avoiding the ingestion of fluoride.
As a medical social worker, the realization that fluoride was what caused her medical problems ticked her off.
She is now on a mission to explore and identify the cause of this continued fluoridation of our country, and to once and for all put an end to what essentially could amount to the slow poisoning of millions of Americans – including children – with what is essentially an industrial waste product. It is good for the teeth – on the teeth – but not good when ingested.
In Her Own Words – Golda Starr the Fluoride Detective
I asked Golda for her story, and what inspired her to start a blog about her experiences. The following is Golda’s response, which she agreed to have published on Top Secret Writers...........................
Last month, Jim wrote a powerful article about what signs point toward the possibility of a new American Revolution on the horizon.
One of the signs Jim pointed to was the tendency of U.S. industry to inflict their products upon the population in a premature manner – before sufficient testing can be finished as to the effects those products have on humans.
One specific example was outlined in a section of Jim’s article titled “The Fluoridation of America.”
The response was overwhelming. A number of readers Tweeted, Facebooked and even sent me direct emails about their own personal experiences dealing with the inappropriate (and many would say unnecessary) fluoridation of the U.S. public water supply.
One such reader was Golda Starr, a self-described survivor of water fluoridation. On her website, Fluoride Detective, Golda shares her personal experience about having “fluoridated kidneys,” how she prevented kidney failure by avoiding the ingestion of fluoride.
As a medical social worker, the realization that fluoride was what caused her medical problems ticked her off.
She is now on a mission to explore and identify the cause of this continued fluoridation of our country, and to once and for all put an end to what essentially could amount to the slow poisoning of millions of Americans – including children – with what is essentially an industrial waste product. It is good for the teeth – on the teeth – but not good when ingested.
In Her Own Words – Golda Starr the Fluoride Detective
I asked Golda for her story, and what inspired her to start a blog about her experiences. The following is Golda’s response, which she agreed to have published on Top Secret Writers...........................
16 Apr 2011
Daily Echo - Will fluoride counter risk of starter cups?
Will fluoride counter risk of starter cups?
HEALTH and safety warnings jump out at us from the most unlikely places. Take an 'Essentials First Cup'.
This is a spouted drinking cup sold as suitable for babies and young children.
The packaging contains the warning 'continuous and prolonged sucking of fluids will cause tooth decay. Tooth decay in young children can occur even when non-sweetened fluids are used'. It is a good thing this company recognises this health hazard
regarding its product. Are there similar warnings on other children's products relating to tooth decay?
Tooth decay in young children was the emotive reason given by our PCT and SHA, so I fail to understand how fluoridation of our water supply will protect these very young children from tooth decay while they continue to suck on their drinking cups.
JWE POPE, Southampton
HEALTH and safety warnings jump out at us from the most unlikely places. Take an 'Essentials First Cup'.
This is a spouted drinking cup sold as suitable for babies and young children.
The packaging contains the warning 'continuous and prolonged sucking of fluids will cause tooth decay. Tooth decay in young children can occur even when non-sweetened fluids are used'. It is a good thing this company recognises this health hazard
regarding its product. Are there similar warnings on other children's products relating to tooth decay?
Tooth decay in young children was the emotive reason given by our PCT and SHA, so I fail to understand how fluoridation of our water supply will protect these very young children from tooth decay while they continue to suck on their drinking cups.
JWE POPE, Southampton
15 Apr 2011
Australian children have terrible teeth
Australian children have terrible teeth, researchers say, and oral health is decaying
By Sheradyn Holderhead From: AdelaideNow April 14, 2011 1:16PM
AUSTRALIAN children have terrible teeth and their oral health is getting worse, despite billions of dollars being spent on fixing the problem, Adelaide University researchers say.
Dental researchers from Adelaide University have been awarded $1.3 million to find out why the system is failing Australia's children.
Professor John Spencer from the Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health will lead a national study over the next four years.
"Despite a substantial level of resources, approximately $1 billion dollars annually being directed to dental services for children in Australia in the last decade, their oral health is still a major public health problem," Professor Spencer says.
"After several decades of improvement, child oral health has worsened and inequalities have widened."
Latest statistics show that dental restorations and extractions are the most common reason for hospital admissions among Australian children under 14 years of age......
75% fluoridated: NYSCOF
Comments
nakia lamir of Bellingen Posted at 12:24 PM Today
When I first started teaching in Primary Schools in 1980, the Dental van would come around every year and check the students teeth. Those that needed fillings would get them fixed. Gradually they phased it out so that now the children don't have access to this fantastic facility. Instead the government seems to be hell bent on spending hundreds of thousands on forced water fluoridation as the panacea for bad oral health instead of oral education with the dental van - lessons on Brushing, flossing, eating healthy foods and drinking unfluoridated water. It is obvious that water fluoridation isn't the magic potion that will prevent cavities. As we can see from the studies in the US and elsewhere, children are being exposed to too much fluoride with dire consequences. See fluoridealert.org for more details on this hot topic.
Zofia Majak of Ettalong Posted at 12:19 PM Today
This is the proof that the compulsory water fluoridation doesn't help the teeth, not to mention the damage that the fluoride does to the general health.
Bill Kilvert of Cairns, Qld Posted at 12:10 PM Today
What a Joke - Putting John Spencer in charge of this program is like putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank. He is part of the problem as he is a strong advocate for water fluoridation and this is part of the problem. While people believe fluoride will fix teeth there will be no progress on this issue. The main ingredients to fixing dental decay is: regular brushing, a good wholesome diet and regular dental check-ups. Especially drastically reducing the intake of refined sugar. Yes it is hard work policing your children when advertising is blatant lying by omission. Take a popular brand of cornflakes for instance, they don't tell you it contains 30% sugar. Governments have to obtain a bit of backbone and legislate to ban junk food, sugar drinks and many confectionary items or there will be very many younger people in hospital beds in the future.
By Sheradyn Holderhead From: AdelaideNow April 14, 2011 1:16PM
AUSTRALIAN children have terrible teeth and their oral health is getting worse, despite billions of dollars being spent on fixing the problem, Adelaide University researchers say.
Dental researchers from Adelaide University have been awarded $1.3 million to find out why the system is failing Australia's children.
Professor John Spencer from the Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health will lead a national study over the next four years.
"Despite a substantial level of resources, approximately $1 billion dollars annually being directed to dental services for children in Australia in the last decade, their oral health is still a major public health problem," Professor Spencer says.
"After several decades of improvement, child oral health has worsened and inequalities have widened."
Latest statistics show that dental restorations and extractions are the most common reason for hospital admissions among Australian children under 14 years of age......
75% fluoridated: NYSCOF
Comments
nakia lamir of Bellingen Posted at 12:24 PM Today
When I first started teaching in Primary Schools in 1980, the Dental van would come around every year and check the students teeth. Those that needed fillings would get them fixed. Gradually they phased it out so that now the children don't have access to this fantastic facility. Instead the government seems to be hell bent on spending hundreds of thousands on forced water fluoridation as the panacea for bad oral health instead of oral education with the dental van - lessons on Brushing, flossing, eating healthy foods and drinking unfluoridated water. It is obvious that water fluoridation isn't the magic potion that will prevent cavities. As we can see from the studies in the US and elsewhere, children are being exposed to too much fluoride with dire consequences. See fluoridealert.org for more details on this hot topic.
Zofia Majak of Ettalong Posted at 12:19 PM Today
This is the proof that the compulsory water fluoridation doesn't help the teeth, not to mention the damage that the fluoride does to the general health.
Bill Kilvert of Cairns, Qld Posted at 12:10 PM Today
What a Joke - Putting John Spencer in charge of this program is like putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank. He is part of the problem as he is a strong advocate for water fluoridation and this is part of the problem. While people believe fluoride will fix teeth there will be no progress on this issue. The main ingredients to fixing dental decay is: regular brushing, a good wholesome diet and regular dental check-ups. Especially drastically reducing the intake of refined sugar. Yes it is hard work policing your children when advertising is blatant lying by omission. Take a popular brand of cornflakes for instance, they don't tell you it contains 30% sugar. Governments have to obtain a bit of backbone and legislate to ban junk food, sugar drinks and many confectionary items or there will be very many younger people in hospital beds in the future.
14 Apr 2011
Daily Echo letters
Total toxic load is what causes harmREGARDING the letter by John Oliver, Hamble, 'Fluoride does more good than harm' (Letters, March 26).
Regarding the statement 'There is not a shred of evidence that says that fluoridation is harmful', fluoride is obtained from many sources, and it is total toxic load, rather than the contribution from fluoridation alone, which can cause harm.
Fluoridation ensures that anyone with a high fluoride intake will have an even higher one, and some individuals (including bottle-fed babies whose formula feed is mixed with fluoridated water) will exceed safe limits.
John Oliver would do well to read Bruce Spittle's book Fluoride Fatigue, Fluoride Poisoning: is fluoride in drinking water - and from other sources - making you sick?
Dr Spittle has had a distinguished career in medicine and psychiatry in New Zealand. The book is available to read online, at no cost, from www.pauapress.com/fluoride/ files/1418.pdf.
ELIZABETH A McDONAGH, chairman, National Pure Water Association.
Double dose worry
WITH reference to fluoride being added to our water.
Considering it is already in 99 per cent of toothpastes, everyone would be getting a double dose.
What would happen if we had another thalidomide tragedy?
IRENE O'CONNELL, Southampton.
12 Apr 2011
11 Apr 2011
Daily Echo Lettters
Unkind to dump muck in our waterJOHN Oliver (Letters, March 26), may well believe the fluoride-sponsored experts who say fluoride is good for the teeth.
However, just what's the use of fluoride-strengthened teeth if they are made brown and mottled by the same substance? I attended a fluoride consultation and a woman from the SHA informed me that in a water fluorinated area, it would take six years, from conception, for a child to develop fluoride poisoning,manifesting as dental fluorisis. It's unbelievably unkind of the SHA to dump this muck into our drinking water knowing it will adversely affect the teeth, growing in the mouths of babies and toddlers and knowing that the majority of us can never afford costly corrective dental treatment.
Dentists will tell you this correptive treatment will cause further damage to the teeth.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
Warning to ignore?
WRITERS of a number of letters about fluoridation have commented on its responsibility for fluorosis, which, if more than slight, causes concern.
We are constantly being advised to be wary of blemishes in the skin or unidentified swellings, since they might indicate serious problems which merit early attention.
Is it not a very curious thing, therefore, that in the case of a chemical in the water which can cause discoloration of teeth and so presumably has an effect on other unseen parts of the body, that we are told to ignore it?
G PAYNE, Southampton.
Is SHA protected?
IS it a case that the SHA is simply following the precedent set by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, to sign up for a deal knowing they will not be in office when/should "the pigeons come home to roost"?
Although the Chancellor was part of a 'Sovereign Body' and therefore safe from action, is the SHA considered to be the same?
If not, are the members open to legal action should their decision be found to be detrimental to the community, not based upon best knowledge?
Barry Burton. Fareham
9 Apr 2011
Daily Echo - Our water must be pure
Our water must be pure
REGARDING the recent letter 'Fluoride does more good than harm', this gentleman is obviously ignorant of the damage that fluoride does to the teeth and body.
The people who have studied it are not so-called experts, as he put it, but truly professional people.
To name one, Professor Connett has been studying its ill effects on the body and teeth for at least 14 years.
Many other
professional people have also studied its ill effects and proved it is a poison.
How long have you studied it, Mr Oliver, and what proof do you have that it is safe?
Do you not wonder why so many countries have banned fluoridation and others have taken it out of their water after many years of people drinking it? Do you think that is because it has no ill effects?
Water is precious, it is sacred, it is our lifeline. Absolutely nothing, except what is needed to keep it safe and pure, should be added to it. Nothing at all.
MRS D COVE, Freemantle, Southampton.
REGARDING the recent letter 'Fluoride does more good than harm', this gentleman is obviously ignorant of the damage that fluoride does to the teeth and body.
The people who have studied it are not so-called experts, as he put it, but truly professional people.
To name one, Professor Connett has been studying its ill effects on the body and teeth for at least 14 years.
Many other
professional people have also studied its ill effects and proved it is a poison.
How long have you studied it, Mr Oliver, and what proof do you have that it is safe?
Do you not wonder why so many countries have banned fluoridation and others have taken it out of their water after many years of people drinking it? Do you think that is because it has no ill effects?
Water is precious, it is sacred, it is our lifeline. Absolutely nothing, except what is needed to keep it safe and pure, should be added to it. Nothing at all.
MRS D COVE, Freemantle, Southampton.
8 Apr 2011
Lymington Times - fluoride bid to mire scheme in legal red tape
Anti-fluoride bid to mire scheme in legal red tape ANOTHER legal battle is in prospect to stop the NHS adding fluoride in Totton's drinking water by tying the scheme up in red tape. Campaigners hope a bid to redefine fluoride as a medicine will fatally delay the project by the time the body responsible, the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), is dissolved in March 2012 under nation wide reforms. The SHA gave approval last year to add the controversial chemical to 190,000 people's supply around Southampton — including 8,000 in Totton. It was put on hold until a Judicial review in February, which found In favour of the scheme. On Thursday in last week its board was told Southern Water might take months to draw up plans to implement the plan, which the SHA believes is safe and will drive down rates of child tooth decay. But opponents fear health side-effects and resent "forced" treatment — an issue Totton and Eling Town Council said it would take up by demanding a legal ruling on whether fluoride was "medication". The SHA is to be disbanded next year to make way for the government's NHS reforms handing funding to GPs, and the councillors' strategy is it to hold up fluoridation or possibly bring in new regulations to require public consent. Town clerk Derek Biggs said the council will contact the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and ask New Forest East MP Julian Lewis to write to the Department of Health. Coun. David Harrison proposed the action, which included refusing to recognise the SHA, and said it would be a "slap in the face" to show how the council felt the public had been ignored. Last year opponents gathered a 15,000-name petition against fluoride and during consultation 72% of responses objected, although a Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38% against. Coun. Harrison added: "We seek to demonstrate, with a legal ruling, that adding fluoride to tap water to treat a disease is indeed medicating. With the SHA set to be abolished within 12 months, we are hoping that this will be enough to see off the threat of water fluoridation." Fluoride was deemed not to be a medicine in 1999, and an MHRA spokesman told the 'A&T' it had no plans to amend the legislation. An application to appeal against February's High Court ruling has been listed for a short hearing on June 16th in the Court of Appeal
Andover Advertiser - Facts revealed on a local fluoridation human experiment
Facts revealed on a local fluoridation human experiment
4:20pm Thursday 7th April 2011
DISTURBING information regarding the secret agenda behind water fluoridation in Southampton has just been uncovered. The hidden truth the DoH and fluoride pushers never meant you to know was revealed in a Freedom of Information request on fluoridation research. 'The Southampton Project' is a major human experiment on the harms caused by putting the industrial poison hexafluorosilicic acid in drinking water. Here is the direct quote from the DoH:‘We are also supporting a major current research project into the extent and severity of dental fluorosis for which costs are estimated at some £700,000. . . a new fluoridation scheme would provide an excellent opportunity to undertake prospective research and we are keeping closely in touch with developments on the proposed scheme for Southampton’. We were told that fluoridation was not only beneficial but absolutely safe. The depth of government deception defies belief. No safe health programme - but experimental research on the masses without their knowledge or consent, using a drug capable of causing serious harm. All for powerful industrial benefit.
The DoH knows (as their statement proves) that dental fluorosis is a 'manifestation of systemic toxicity', a fact acknowledged by the government in 1999 (Hansard 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.) though the public were never told.
Let's be clear about this, systemic toxicity means that the entire body is being poisoned, not just the teeth. So by their own admission, the health authorities (with government approval) will be using Southampton people as lab rats in an experiment that could take decades and cause untold suffering - though the cause of that suffering will never be divulged. But for the FoI, this would have remained a closely guarded secret.What else aren't they telling us? Could their experiment include investigating American research studies that uncovered a five to seven fold increase in osteosarcoma, the fatal bone cancer in young boys born in fluoridated areas? Will they be monitoring the IQ of Southampton children to see whether it drops significantly, as Chinese research suggests? Will they be studying how fluoride overdose affects the kidneys, the thyroid, the pituitary and pineal glands, and how it crosses the blood brain barrier?
Will they be assessing the increase in brittle bone disease and osteoporosis? Will they be monitoring the health of infants whose parents have no choice but to give their babies fluoridated water, despite the official advice not to do so? Has the SHA or the DoH put into place a mechanism for providing safe unfluoridated water for these young families, and if not, are they prepared for the compensation claims that will surely follow?
Were the water companies told they were not taking part in a safe health measure but an illegal experiment on the entire population? Can they now legally refuse to do the DoH's dirty work?
All fluoridation schemes must now be recognised as illegal experimentation on UK citizens, and banned.
Jennifer Godschall Johnson, Balksbury Hill, Upper Clatford.
4:20pm Thursday 7th April 2011
DISTURBING information regarding the secret agenda behind water fluoridation in Southampton has just been uncovered. The hidden truth the DoH and fluoride pushers never meant you to know was revealed in a Freedom of Information request on fluoridation research. 'The Southampton Project' is a major human experiment on the harms caused by putting the industrial poison hexafluorosilicic acid in drinking water. Here is the direct quote from the DoH:‘We are also supporting a major current research project into the extent and severity of dental fluorosis for which costs are estimated at some £700,000. . . a new fluoridation scheme would provide an excellent opportunity to undertake prospective research and we are keeping closely in touch with developments on the proposed scheme for Southampton’. We were told that fluoridation was not only beneficial but absolutely safe. The depth of government deception defies belief. No safe health programme - but experimental research on the masses without their knowledge or consent, using a drug capable of causing serious harm. All for powerful industrial benefit.
The DoH knows (as their statement proves) that dental fluorosis is a 'manifestation of systemic toxicity', a fact acknowledged by the government in 1999 (Hansard 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.) though the public were never told.
Let's be clear about this, systemic toxicity means that the entire body is being poisoned, not just the teeth. So by their own admission, the health authorities (with government approval) will be using Southampton people as lab rats in an experiment that could take decades and cause untold suffering - though the cause of that suffering will never be divulged. But for the FoI, this would have remained a closely guarded secret.What else aren't they telling us? Could their experiment include investigating American research studies that uncovered a five to seven fold increase in osteosarcoma, the fatal bone cancer in young boys born in fluoridated areas? Will they be monitoring the IQ of Southampton children to see whether it drops significantly, as Chinese research suggests? Will they be studying how fluoride overdose affects the kidneys, the thyroid, the pituitary and pineal glands, and how it crosses the blood brain barrier?
Will they be assessing the increase in brittle bone disease and osteoporosis? Will they be monitoring the health of infants whose parents have no choice but to give their babies fluoridated water, despite the official advice not to do so? Has the SHA or the DoH put into place a mechanism for providing safe unfluoridated water for these young families, and if not, are they prepared for the compensation claims that will surely follow?
Were the water companies told they were not taking part in a safe health measure but an illegal experiment on the entire population? Can they now legally refuse to do the DoH's dirty work?
All fluoridation schemes must now be recognised as illegal experimentation on UK citizens, and banned.
Jennifer Godschall Johnson, Balksbury Hill, Upper Clatford.
Daily Echo Letter
We're right to fight enforced dosing
I'M glad to read in the Echo the legal fight against fluoridating Southampton will continue.
Fluoridation is a breach of the law, as it's illegal under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act to administer poisonous or noxious substances to anyone - and fluoride is very toxic. Just one teaspoonful of fluoride would kill a grown man!
Section 58 of the Water Act of 2003 violates our fundamental human right to refuse medication. The use of fluorosilicic acid to mass-medicate the public violates the code of medical ethics set out in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights & Biomedicine. This states that all medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision and in accordance with the patient's needs and fully informed wishes.
Ironically, all sorts of people now have unbelievable human rights and teachers are not allowed to put sun cream on their pupils. But our human right to say no to enforced dosing with a polluting chemical is ignored.
A WILLS. Ruislip, Middlesex.
I'M glad to read in the Echo the legal fight against fluoridating Southampton will continue.
Fluoridation is a breach of the law, as it's illegal under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act to administer poisonous or noxious substances to anyone - and fluoride is very toxic. Just one teaspoonful of fluoride would kill a grown man!
Section 58 of the Water Act of 2003 violates our fundamental human right to refuse medication. The use of fluorosilicic acid to mass-medicate the public violates the code of medical ethics set out in the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights & Biomedicine. This states that all medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision and in accordance with the patient's needs and fully informed wishes.
Ironically, all sorts of people now have unbelievable human rights and teachers are not allowed to put sun cream on their pupils. But our human right to say no to enforced dosing with a polluting chemical is ignored.
A WILLS. Ruislip, Middlesex.
7 Apr 2011
Daily Echo - Alarm bells over food concentration
Alarm bells over food concentrationFROM your many correspondents against the proposed introduction of hexafluorosilicic acid into our drinking water, I should like to add that it will not only be to (supposedly) improve children's teeth, but by the very nature of things be used in the preparation and cooking of food and beverages.
As water boils it evaporates, and given that this acid will therefore be more and more concentrated in the remaining water, the "recommended" dosage of this acid taken up by the food and drink will be that much greater.
This will exceed the Strategic Health Authority's "recommended" dosage into our body system and I bet they didn't want to tell us that little gem!
The catering industry, together with the burgeoning cruise ships in Southampton may like to take this on board when preparing menus and brochures. Their customers have a right to expect good and fresh water, not a substance containing a potential poison.
For goodness sake, are the SHA so domineering that the Government and Southern Water are frightened, and refuse to heed the wishes of the people who will have to suffer this if it is introduced?
I know the SHA won the recent " court action on a technicality, but just because the SHA are being abolished, are the 12 unelected members of the board intent on implementing this spiteful action as a final act of defiance in the face of all the opposition to it?
MICHAEL CLEMENTS, Southampton.
Dail Echo - MUM'S FLUORIDE APPEAL DATE
MUM'S FLUORIDE APPEAL DATE
By Jon Reeve
THE controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire tap water will go back to the High Court later this year. A date in June has been set for an application by Southampton mum Gerri Milner to appeal against part of the ruling that South Central Strategic Health Authority was right to approve the scheme. Since winning the judicial review case in February, the authority has vowed to press ahead with its plans, affecting nearly 200,000 residents in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. Ms Milner last night said she believes it is "ridiculous" that the body has restarted work on fluoridation despite the on-going court challenge, and government plans to scrap all strategic health authorities as early as next spring. Her legal team, led by Sean Humber from Leigh Day solicitors in London, has lodged an appeal arguing the SHA did not properly evaluate the evidence for and against adding fluoride to tap water before its 12-man board unanimously approved the scheme in February 2009. The plans had been on hold since June that year, when Ms Milner first applied for a judicial review, but earlier this year Mr Justice Edward Holman ruled the law states the SHA was not required to in follow public opinion reaching its decision. During a public consultation, more than 10,000 people gave their views on the plans, with 72 per cent saying they were opposed. The judge also refused Ms Milner permission to have a full judicial review into the way the health authority evaluated evidence before giving the scheme the green light. At the two-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in January, it was claimed that not all board members had been properly informed of detailed arguments put forward in opposition, including those of Hampshire Against Fluoridation and Hampshire County Council. Ms Milner told the Daily Echo last night she is determined to fight the plans through the courts. She said: "It makes me so angry. Clearly they shouldn't do it while there's still legal proceedings against them. "It's so undemocratic. I don't think they've assessed either side properly." An authority spokesman said: "The SHA remains satisfied that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve the dental health of children in the Southampton area. "The SHA will work with the water authority on developing an implementation plan and it is likely to be a number of months before the necessary plant and machinery is constructed, operational and ready to commence the process of adding fluoride to the water supply." The application to appeal has been listed for a short hearing on June 16.
By Jon Reeve
THE controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire tap water will go back to the High Court later this year. A date in June has been set for an application by Southampton mum Gerri Milner to appeal against part of the ruling that South Central Strategic Health Authority was right to approve the scheme. Since winning the judicial review case in February, the authority has vowed to press ahead with its plans, affecting nearly 200,000 residents in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. Ms Milner last night said she believes it is "ridiculous" that the body has restarted work on fluoridation despite the on-going court challenge, and government plans to scrap all strategic health authorities as early as next spring. Her legal team, led by Sean Humber from Leigh Day solicitors in London, has lodged an appeal arguing the SHA did not properly evaluate the evidence for and against adding fluoride to tap water before its 12-man board unanimously approved the scheme in February 2009. The plans had been on hold since June that year, when Ms Milner first applied for a judicial review, but earlier this year Mr Justice Edward Holman ruled the law states the SHA was not required to in follow public opinion reaching its decision. During a public consultation, more than 10,000 people gave their views on the plans, with 72 per cent saying they were opposed. The judge also refused Ms Milner permission to have a full judicial review into the way the health authority evaluated evidence before giving the scheme the green light. At the two-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in January, it was claimed that not all board members had been properly informed of detailed arguments put forward in opposition, including those of Hampshire Against Fluoridation and Hampshire County Council. Ms Milner told the Daily Echo last night she is determined to fight the plans through the courts. She said: "It makes me so angry. Clearly they shouldn't do it while there's still legal proceedings against them. "It's so undemocratic. I don't think they've assessed either side properly." An authority spokesman said: "The SHA remains satisfied that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve the dental health of children in the Southampton area. "The SHA will work with the water authority on developing an implementation plan and it is likely to be a number of months before the necessary plant and machinery is constructed, operational and ready to commence the process of adding fluoride to the water supply." The application to appeal has been listed for a short hearing on June 16.
6 Apr 2011
Daily Echo letters
Being dictated to
WITH reference to the disputes regarding biomass and fluoride, I would be interested to know how many of the people involved in deciding that we need these unwanted additions to our community live in the areas that will be affected by them.
My guess is not many, if any.
I live in an area that will be on the receiving end of both. How can we have the nerve to talk about dictatorship in other countries?
A MOULD,
No point in healthy teeth if we die early
I AM writing in support of the quest to stop the SHA introducing fluoride into our drinking water. The public have been consulted and rejected it by 72 per cent so as far as I am concerned this should be the end of the matter.
Fluoride is a poison and should not be added willy nilly to the water where customers are
made to drink it, whether they have consented or not to its use.
The only thing is I suspect the lifespan of unsuspecting persons drinking this substance will be cut shorter and in time everyone will be going to their graves or crematoria with full sets of healthy teeth. What's the point?
CLLR MIKE REID, Calmore, Totton.
5 Apr 2011
Experts agree to stop fluoridation in Alaska why can't the SCSHA?
The City of Fairbanks, Alaska has responded to critics of fluoridation by creating a panel of local experts and tasking it with answering the relevant questions: is fluoridation safe and effective.
Last month, after a year of study, the panel announced its findings: stop the fluoride; it causes more harm than good. Read the (pdf) report here:
http://www.smalllinks.com/SJ2
Or go the city's web site and see the additional information it is presenting to its citizens.
http://www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/index.php
To learn about the evidence used to educate and inform the panel, see:
www.fluoridefreefairbanks.org.
Fluoridation is built on a false premise. Do not let your council members off the hook; demand that they educate themselves.
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
Last month, after a year of study, the panel announced its findings: stop the fluoride; it causes more harm than good. Read the (pdf) report here:
http://www.smalllinks.com/SJ2
Or go the city's web site and see the additional information it is presenting to its citizens.
http://www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/index.php
To learn about the evidence used to educate and inform the panel, see:
www.fluoridefreefairbanks.org.
Fluoridation is built on a false premise. Do not let your council members off the hook; demand that they educate themselves.
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
Daily Echo letters
SOAPBOX: Fluoride• DESPITE aU the protests the SHA are hell bent on fluoridation of our water supply and are going ahead come what may. Arrogance, despicable, call it what you may. Like a horror movie will our heroine Mrs Gerri Milnier yet save the day with her court appeal.
This astonishing saga continues, compliments of the good guys, ie Ian Murray, Jon Reeve and Matt Smith, etc,
feeding us with an unbiased update of this ridiculous act of madness. Is this the end of the saga? No, no, no. Like myself there are people who will not be dictated to. Democracy is worth fighting for. Unelected quangos have no place in a decent society.
My son, age 12, drinks a lot of tap water. To replace this from the supermarket free of contamination will cost money
which I do not intend to pay for. All bills for family consumption I shall deduct from my water rates. The water authority is obligated by law to supply uncontaminated water to the public and I insist on a fresh supply. Furthermore, I will not finance the fluoride poison introduction into the water supply.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton
Pure and simple truth about fluoride
IN reply to the letter 'Fluoride does more good than harm' (Letters, March 26) by John Oliver from Ramble, can I just ask that when in his letter he said 'there is not a shred of evidence that says fluoride is harmful'.is he kidding?
I would say that maybe Mr Oliver should do more homework on the subject.
We are talking about a toxic waste fluoride.
Does he know what toxic means?
And as for us being accused of using fear techniques, it is simply not true.
All we have ever done is to try to tell people the truth that might have to drink this rubbish. We don't tell lies. Also, were you at the consultation Mr Oliver, back in 2009?
Well most of us protesters were and we all know what a complete scam it was.
So please don't accuse us of scare tactics. We are just telling the truth and all of us have worked very hard to try to let the people know what is going on, which they have a right to know.
There is plenty of evidence that this fluoride is harmful, especially if you get overdosed with it.
You say you watched some American video about fluoride. Well maybe you
should look to contacting the Pure Water Association on npwa.org.uk or telephone 020 8220 9168 for more information. Nothing should be added to treat teeth.
I wonder what the SHA's excuse would be if children didn't get teeth until the age of eighteen. They would think of something else to be able to dump it into our water supply.
People don't want their water tampered with, Mr Oliver, and rightly so.
We want water to drink, not to treat something. That makes a lot of sense to the majority of us.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
4 Apr 2011
Fluoridated Australia - Toddlers treated for rotten teeth
Toddlers treated for rotten teeth
BY ALISON BRANLEY
04 Apr, 2011 03:00 AM
HUNTER dentists are seeing children as young as two who need painful dental work and are blaming parents for perpetuating bad attitudes and even worse habits.
Hunter New England Health dentists said they were treating infants with severe teeth cavities while other children had teeth rotted so badly they needed a general anaesthetic to get them out.
Yet they said they were struggling to get parents to improve their child’s eating habits or bring them back for cleanings and follow-up appointments. They warned parents about sending toddlers to bed with a bottle, which promoted decay.
Hunter New England Local Health Network figures show that children under 12 who needed general anaesthetic for teeth extractions in the past year needed on average five teeth removed.
Network oral health director Dr Lanny Chor said he and colleagues had seen children under age five who needed most of their teeth pulled out.
‘‘Their teeth have decayed to the extent that the tooth is unrestorable and that decaying root stumps need to be removed,’’ he said.
‘‘I often hear parents just say ‘oh he has weak teeth like me’, but the reality is that this is a largely preventable disease and that parents have to take responsibility.’’
Dr Chor said, while nearly two-thirds of children had no tooth decay, they still saw a significant number of children with the dental disease and the situation was not improving.
Dr Chor said toddlers should not be sent to bed with a bottle unless it was water and children should avoid frequent snacking, sweet drinks, flavoured milks and fruit juice to prevent decay.
He encouraged parents to ensure children used fluoride toothpaste, brushed before bed and drank plain tap water.
Elysia McCarney took her daughter Luca, 3, to the Greater Newcastle Community Health Centre in February for her first dental appointment and was given the all clear.
‘‘Looking after teeth is important,’’ Ms McCarney said.
JAW-DROPPING STATS
* 62.9% of five- and six-year-old children in the Hunter had no decay
* Children under 12 who needed a general anaesthetic in the region on average had five teeth removed
Source: Hunter New England Local Health Network and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
BY ALISON BRANLEY
04 Apr, 2011 03:00 AM
HUNTER dentists are seeing children as young as two who need painful dental work and are blaming parents for perpetuating bad attitudes and even worse habits.
Hunter New England Health dentists said they were treating infants with severe teeth cavities while other children had teeth rotted so badly they needed a general anaesthetic to get them out.
Yet they said they were struggling to get parents to improve their child’s eating habits or bring them back for cleanings and follow-up appointments. They warned parents about sending toddlers to bed with a bottle, which promoted decay.
Hunter New England Local Health Network figures show that children under 12 who needed general anaesthetic for teeth extractions in the past year needed on average five teeth removed.
Network oral health director Dr Lanny Chor said he and colleagues had seen children under age five who needed most of their teeth pulled out.
‘‘Their teeth have decayed to the extent that the tooth is unrestorable and that decaying root stumps need to be removed,’’ he said.
‘‘I often hear parents just say ‘oh he has weak teeth like me’, but the reality is that this is a largely preventable disease and that parents have to take responsibility.’’
Dr Chor said, while nearly two-thirds of children had no tooth decay, they still saw a significant number of children with the dental disease and the situation was not improving.
Dr Chor said toddlers should not be sent to bed with a bottle unless it was water and children should avoid frequent snacking, sweet drinks, flavoured milks and fruit juice to prevent decay.
He encouraged parents to ensure children used fluoride toothpaste, brushed before bed and drank plain tap water.
Elysia McCarney took her daughter Luca, 3, to the Greater Newcastle Community Health Centre in February for her first dental appointment and was given the all clear.
‘‘Looking after teeth is important,’’ Ms McCarney said.
JAW-DROPPING STATS
* 62.9% of five- and six-year-old children in the Hunter had no decay
* Children under 12 who needed a general anaesthetic in the region on average had five teeth removed
Source: Hunter New England Local Health Network and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
3 Apr 2011
Signatures needed
City Council Petition Document
City Council Petition Document
FOR SIGNATORIES LIVING OUTSIDE THE CITY WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY FLUORIDATION
City Council Petition Document
FOR SIGNATORIES LIVING OUTSIDE THE CITY WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY FLUORIDATION
2 Apr 2011
SCSHA - Fluoride Statement
Fluoride Statement
Posted on: 31 March 2011, 2:31 pm in News
Statement
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has confirmed that it has instructed Southern Water to proceed with the process of adding fluoride to the water in the Southampton and south west Hampshire area.
The announcement comes following a period of judicial review into the SHA Board’s decision in February 2009 to fluoridate the water supply. The SHA remains satisfied that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve the dental health of children in the Southampton area.
The SHA will work with the water authority on developing an implementation plan and it is likely to be a number of months before the necessary plant and machinery is constructed, operational and ready to commence the process of adding fluoride to the water supply in the area concerned.
ENDS
Posted on: 31 March 2011, 2:31 pm in News
Statement
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has confirmed that it has instructed Southern Water to proceed with the process of adding fluoride to the water in the Southampton and south west Hampshire area.
The announcement comes following a period of judicial review into the SHA Board’s decision in February 2009 to fluoridate the water supply. The SHA remains satisfied that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve the dental health of children in the Southampton area.
The SHA will work with the water authority on developing an implementation plan and it is likely to be a number of months before the necessary plant and machinery is constructed, operational and ready to commence the process of adding fluoride to the water supply in the area concerned.
ENDS
1 Apr 2011
Daily Echo - Sound reasons for all this city's protests
Sound reasons for all this city's protests
SOUTHAMPTON is a very unhappy city at present, what with the concerns of the council workforce and three major protest campaigns underway at the same time, regarding the plans for forced fluoridation of tap water, the imminent closure of the Children's Heart Unit
and Helius pushing to build probably the biggest and ugliest power plant ever planned close to Millbrook homes. May commonsense prevail and powers that be listen to the locals who have so many good reasons to be worried. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
SOUTHAMPTON is a very unhappy city at present, what with the concerns of the council workforce and three major protest campaigns underway at the same time, regarding the plans for forced fluoridation of tap water, the imminent closure of the Children's Heart Unit
and Helius pushing to build probably the biggest and ugliest power plant ever planned close to Millbrook homes. May commonsense prevail and powers that be listen to the locals who have so many good reasons to be worried. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
