30 May 2011
Only 18 days left - can you help?
We still need more signatures - can you help?
A copy of the Petition Form with the address to return the form to is attached as well a Poster . Only citizens within Southampton are eligible to sign - do you know friends or family members in Southampton who may like to know about this chance to put a spoke in the SCSHA's plan to enforce fluoridation.
Time is running out to sign the petition against Water Fluoridation…
Industrial-grade fluoride is due to be added to the drinking water of the Southampton area. The consultation showed that 72% of local people were against compulsory water fluoridation. Despite this, the Strategic Health Authority (based outside the area in Berkshire) is determined to push the scheme through before they are abolished in 2012.
Is this fair? Is this ethical? Is this democratic? Is Southampton willing to be both the first and last area to be used to further the pro-fluoridation lobby?
A copy of the Petition Form with the address to return the form to is attached as well a Poster . Only citizens within Southampton are eligible to sign - do you know friends or family members in Southampton who may like to know about this chance to put a spoke in the SCSHA's plan to enforce fluoridation.
Time is running out to sign the petition against Water Fluoridation…
Industrial-grade fluoride is due to be added to the drinking water of the Southampton area. The consultation showed that 72% of local people were against compulsory water fluoridation. Despite this, the Strategic Health Authority (based outside the area in Berkshire) is determined to push the scheme through before they are abolished in 2012.
Is this fair? Is this ethical? Is this democratic? Is Southampton willing to be both the first and last area to be used to further the pro-fluoridation lobby?
Daily Echo and Daily Mail letters
WHILE I agree with Bob Shergold that the fluoridation of our drinking water is against our human rights (Letters, May 24), I would suggest that any claim would be more likely of success if challenged on behalf of those in our society who possess such rights, ie criminals or illegal immigrants.ALAN KEBBELL, Southampton.
The wrong source?
FLUORIDE in tap water is supposed to be aimed at the younger generation.
How much tap water do they really drink?
Most of them seem to drink bottle water or high energy drinks going by the amount you see littering our streets and if parents are worried about their children's teeth, they can get extra fluoride in other forms. Very angry and it stinks.
MR S DAVIDSON, Bitterne Park, Southampton.
Take court action to prevent lunacy
THE Great Fluoride Debate: Caution must be exercised says Carol Scarborough in her My View column. And so say all of us, wth the exception of the SHA brigade, of course, who are hell bent on their mission of inflicting unknown damage on the health of Hampshire citizens despite the biggest public protest in the country.
No doubt the SHA will ignore all the latest information provided in Carol Scarborough's detailed and very well researched report, Fluoride Is Dangerous'. The truth of the report is obvious for a normal person of average intelligence.
My thanks to Carol and all the leaders and supporters of the Anti-Fluoride Protesters and the Echo who I'm sure will carry on the battle for common sense and democracy.
May I suggest a court injunction be taken out against the SHA, preventing this devious deed taking place (i.e. poisoning our water supply), in the European Court of Human Rights. I support action to prevent this lunacy taking place.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.
Using city as guinea pigs
WITH regards to fluoride in our water, those to whom it was intended will not benefit? How many children drink water these days?
In the 1930s children would go on picnics with jam butties and a bottle of water, and although I don't think children have changed a lot, now they can afford sugary bottled drinks.
Young people don't drink tap water as much as we did.
Then there are people on life-saving drugs - and not just old people, but many young people
too.
How will fluoride in the water affect them and their medicines?
Has SHA really gone into this or is it just bent on using a whole city as guinea pigs? Shame on them and those who support this.
It will be a very sad and slippery slope for democracy if this goes through.
Where are the human rights our generation fought for? And above all integrity?
J BAILEY, Shirley Warren, Southampton.
Additive causes tooth erosion
SO a judge has decided that the people of Totton and other areas will have fluoride added to our water - surely this infringes our human rights not to receive mass medication.
Although fluoride is supposed to protect our teeth, the irony is that there is a substance - a chemical -which is ever more widely added to processed food and soft drinks and which eats away at tooth enamel.
This chemical is described in
various ways, i.e. E330 or flavour enhancer, preservative, anti-oxidant, acidity regulator etc.
The substance I refer to is citric acid.
The one use to which citric acid can be put is to destroy limescale.
Daily Mail Letters - Fluoride fears
THE strategic health authority is set to impose fluoridation in my local water supply, despite 72 per cent of people being opposed to it.
The matter has been taken to court, but the judge, while appearing sympathetic, was handcuffed because the SHA had acted legally, if not morally. A further appeal might be made, but in the meantime I can't tell you how much anxiety this is causing.
This is, after all, a ten-year experiment to study the effects of fluoride. The long-term side-effects are known, so I wonder whether the driving force for this move is the need of industry to rid itself of its waste because it's illegal to dispose of it in the rivers or sea.
Once it's in our drinking/cooking/ bath water, where else will it end up? I'm 79, but still fear the prospect of drinking something that might react adversely to any medication I might take. Far more worrying are the ill effects on every other age group, including babies.
How can an unelected body insist that a private water company add hexafluorosilicic acid to our water?
MAUREEN DARNELL, Southampton.
28 May 2011
Daily Echo - It is your responsibility Southern Water
It is your responsibility Southern Water
I AM writing about the fluoride debate. I have phoned the water company that is Southern Water many times to say that they are responsible for keeping our water as pure as possible for it to be safe to drink.
If they allow this toxic fluoride to be added to our water supply then as far as many people are concerned they are not doing their job properly.
If this fluoride is supposed to be harmless like the SHA seem to think it is, then why has the water board made sure that they have an indemnity in place to protect themselves from any ill effects that this fluoride will have on us?
I think it just goes to prove doesn't it that when we have the water board shirking responsibility and having to have safety equipment put in place in case of overdose then how can this fluoride be safe?
The only way we can be safe is to leave our water alone. Southern Water keeps saying that if it doesn't do what it's told by the SHA it will probably lose its licence, but the SHA is supposed to be going next year anyway.
How can it take its licence away as who will supply us with water then?
Nobody can stop the water, it would be inhuman. So why is Southern Water so scared of refusing this toxic waste in the first place?
It annoys me when Southern Water keep on telling me to talk to the SHA about this as it says it has nothing to do with the water board, well Southern Water is completely wrong. It has everything to do with them.
We, the customer, pay Southern Water, the supplier, to do its job and that is to keep our water fit to drink.
We don't pay them to add a chemical to supposedly treat children's teeth. We, the customer, have made it quite clear that we don't want it, so as the SHA don't seem to be listening then Southern Water must.
They should stand with the people of Southampton and surrounding areas to say NO to the SHA.
Just remember Southern Water we are the paying customer, you are the supplier of water fit for us to drink and that doesn't include fluoride.
MRS KINCHINGTON, address supplied.
25 May 2011
House of Lords
Questions
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 1 October 2007 (WA 132), what progress has been made towards the wider programme of research on the impact of fluoridation on children to which he referred; and whether this will take account of the findings of the 2006 report by the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the United States National Research Council.[HL9240]
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 30 January 2008 (WA 124), what progress has been made towards the comprehensive examination of the risks, benefits and costs of existing water fluoridation programmes that was being considered; and whether the protocol for any such study or studies is freely available.[HL9241]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We share Lord Darzi's view that future research on the overall effects of fluoridation should be carried out in accordance with relevant recommendations in the report of A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation published by the University of York in 2000. Central to the report's recommendation is that future research should compare the effects of fluoridation in an intervention area with a control area. This can best be achieved where a new area is to be fluoridated. South Central Strategic Health Authority has decided to fluoridate Southampton and part of south west Hampshire and we will consider, if the scheme goes ahead, whether it would be a suitable model for this research. We would need to ensure that the setting of the research criteria took account of research studies published since the York report, including the United States National Research Council report.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 1 October 2007 (WA 132), what progress has been made towards the wider programme of research on the impact of fluoridation on children to which he referred; and whether this will take account of the findings of the 2006 report by the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the United States National Research Council.[HL9240]
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 30 January 2008 (WA 124), what progress has been made towards the comprehensive examination of the risks, benefits and costs of existing water fluoridation programmes that was being considered; and whether the protocol for any such study or studies is freely available.[HL9241]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We share Lord Darzi's view that future research on the overall effects of fluoridation should be carried out in accordance with relevant recommendations in the report of A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation published by the University of York in 2000. Central to the report's recommendation is that future research should compare the effects of fluoridation in an intervention area with a control area. This can best be achieved where a new area is to be fluoridated. South Central Strategic Health Authority has decided to fluoridate Southampton and part of south west Hampshire and we will consider, if the scheme goes ahead, whether it would be a suitable model for this research. We would need to ensure that the setting of the research criteria took account of research studies published since the York report, including the United States National Research Council report.
24 May 2011
Daily Echo Letter
Fluoride a human rights breach?THE Human Rights claim seems to be very effective in so many incidents these days, so it does seem to me that they could be applied in the interests of all anti-fluoridists, as the introduction of this chemical would amount to a gross breach of health regulations.
Under our Health Act, if anyone should refuse to take any form of medicine, their wishes are granted.
The introduction of this chemical is not even intended to
benefit the health of the majority of us but for a minority who have already exercised their human rights by choosing not to clean their teeth.
Apparently the strategic health authority will be abolished next year but the scheme is still likely to go ahead. Therefore, I think that should any such body take this on, they will be liable to prosecution for breach of our human rights.
BOB SHERGOLD, Southampton.
23 May 2011
Dail Echo - Letters
Absurd situations in fluoridation planPURE water is one of the basic necessities of life.
In the 21st century it is profoundly undemocratic that an unelected and unaccountable body such as the Strategic Health Authority should be allowed to impose its will upon the local population by forcing them to consume fluoride in their drinking water. In this respect the SHA (which is itself due for abolition) is acting in the teeth of the decisions of elected local authorities and the great majority of local people, as expressed in the results of the SHA's own 'public consultation' exercise back in 2008.
While the greatest emphasis has been on the city of Southampton, we should not forget the outlying areas which would also be affected, based on the map published in the SHA's consultation document.
In my own home town of Totton, there would be the absurd situation whereby districts such as Hounsdown, Rushington and the town centre would receive fluoridated water, while other areas such as Eling village, Calmore and Testwood would escape entirely.
There remains the suspicion that the SHA has resolved to use local people as 'guinea pigs' in some mass scientific experiment in order that the long-term effects on health of the consumption of additional fluoride can be assessed.
If the aim is to improve dental health in our young people, surely the real answer lies in better education to encourage regular tooth-cleaning as well as persuading parents to ignore 'pester power' by not allowing their children to consume sugary sweets and drinks. MICHAEL SOUTHGATE, New Forest District Councillor representing Totton South.
21 May 2011
Daily Echo - In my view
Caution must be exercisedIN its 1994 monograph on fluoride and dental health, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded "dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure of the population before introducing any additional programme for prevention." The WHO guidelines state clearly it is essential to consider the intake of water by the population and the intake of fluorides from other sources. Given the extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, and tolerance levels, establishing a margin of safety would, obviously, require careful evaluation of every individual in the target population; a task which would, no doubt, prove too onerous for a Strategic Health Authority (SHA) intent on fluoridating come what may. There can, surely, be no more compelling argument than this to demonstrate the sheer folly of mass medication via the public water supply.
Fluorides are ubiquitous in our environment, in dental products, foods, canned drinks, household products, pesticides and even the air we breathe. So any such study would, undoubtedly, reveal a population already perilously overdosed on fluoride. With this concern in mind, in 1980 the West German Society For Water And Gas experts considered it impossible to deliver a controlled dose of fluoride to each house through the public water supplies.
Basel in Switzerland, the last place in Europe to fluoridate, finally ended the practice in 2003 after 40 years, alarmed at the unacceptably high levels of dental fluorosis and higher rates of tooth decay compared with unfluoridated communities.
The experience in Basel has been mirrored in a paper submitted to Health Canada in 2009 by Dr Kathleen Thiesen of The Center For Risk Analysis.
The data collected by lida and Kumar on 16,000 children in 1986-7 shows no dental health benefits from ingested fluoride, with fluorosis detectable at 0.3 parts per million, and a corresponding dose related increase in rates of fluorosis.
As if further proof were needed, the only two trials in the world to run for 50 years both show no benefit from fluoridation. In New Zealand, unfluoridated Napier today, as it did in 1954, has less tooth decay than fluoridated Hastings. Similarly, in the US, unfluoridated Kingston has less tooth decay than fluoridated Newburgh. The SHA now faces an ignominious demise by ignoring the valuable lessons to be. learned from the wisdom and experience gained by international communities, by implementing their agenda with disregard to the precautionary principle urged by the World Health Organisation.
20 May 2011
Houses of Parliament
Fluoride
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is on the provision by his Department of funding for fluoridation to strategic health authorities where consultations show local communities not to be in favour of fluoridation; [56567]
(2) on what date funding by his Department for fluoridation in pursuance of the announcement of February 2008 ceased to be available; and what plans he has for the availability of funds for fluoridation in 2011-12. [56568]
Anne Milton: The central allocation for funding the capital costs of fluoridation schemes, announced by the previous Government in February 2008, covered the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011. It is now for strategic health authorities and the primary care trusts that would be affected to agree how expenditure on fluoridation can be provided for from the overall allocations they receive for capital and revenue expenditure.
Fluoride: Southampton
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department made funding for fluoridation available to South Central Strategic Health Authority for use in Southampton and parts of Totton in the period from April 2008 to March 2011. [56566]
Anne Milton: In November 2006, the Department allocated £35,000 to South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to commission consultants to conduct a feasibility study of fluoridating Southampton. The study found that, in addition to 160,000 residents of Southampton, the water distribution system also served approximately 35,000 people living in parts of Eastleigh, Totton and Netley in south-west Hampshire. The SHA has funded subsequent expenditure on the proposed fluoridation scheme from its own resources.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is on the provision by his Department of funding for fluoridation to strategic health authorities where consultations show local communities not to be in favour of fluoridation; [56567]
(2) on what date funding by his Department for fluoridation in pursuance of the announcement of February 2008 ceased to be available; and what plans he has for the availability of funds for fluoridation in 2011-12. [56568]
Anne Milton: The central allocation for funding the capital costs of fluoridation schemes, announced by the previous Government in February 2008, covered the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011. It is now for strategic health authorities and the primary care trusts that would be affected to agree how expenditure on fluoridation can be provided for from the overall allocations they receive for capital and revenue expenditure.
Fluoride: Southampton
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department made funding for fluoridation available to South Central Strategic Health Authority for use in Southampton and parts of Totton in the period from April 2008 to March 2011. [56566]
Anne Milton: In November 2006, the Department allocated £35,000 to South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to commission consultants to conduct a feasibility study of fluoridating Southampton. The study found that, in addition to 160,000 residents of Southampton, the water distribution system also served approximately 35,000 people living in parts of Eastleigh, Totton and Netley in south-west Hampshire. The SHA has funded subsequent expenditure on the proposed fluoridation scheme from its own resources.
18 May 2011
House of Lords
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The National Fluoride Information Centre was hosted by Manchester University Dental School. With the cessation of funding, the school may archive the website or take it over. Either way we will ask that the amendment is made beforehand.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have ceased to fund the National Fluoride Information Centre.[HL9033]
Earl Howe: We have sought to reduce central funding to a minimum in order that priorities on use of the limited funds available to the National Health Service may be determined locally. Information on the effects of fluorides continues to be available from university dental schools, professional bodies in dentistry and other relevant research and healthcare support organisations.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley (Crossbench)
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have ceased to fund the National Fluoride Information Centre.
Earl Howe (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Quality), Health; Conservative)
We have sought to reduce central funding to a minimum in order that priorities on use of the limited funds available to the National Health Service may be determined locally. Information on the effects of fluorides continues to be available from university dental schools, professional bodies in dentistry and other relevant research and healthcare support organisations.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have ceased to fund the National Fluoride Information Centre.[HL9033]
Earl Howe: We have sought to reduce central funding to a minimum in order that priorities on use of the limited funds available to the National Health Service may be determined locally. Information on the effects of fluorides continues to be available from university dental schools, professional bodies in dentistry and other relevant research and healthcare support organisations.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley (Crossbench)
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have ceased to fund the National Fluoride Information Centre.
Earl Howe (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Quality), Health; Conservative)
We have sought to reduce central funding to a minimum in order that priorities on use of the limited funds available to the National Health Service may be determined locally. Information on the effects of fluorides continues to be available from university dental schools, professional bodies in dentistry and other relevant research and healthcare support organisations.
16 May 2011
Deadly vCJD may have a link to tooth decay
Deadly vCJD may have a link to tooth decay
by Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail
May 16 2011
A GROUP of Welsh experts believe cases of the human form of mad cow disease could be linked to simple tooth decay.
They have put forward an hypothesis, which suggests tooth decay may be the way in which people became infected with the incurable disease as a result of eating contaminated meat during the 1980s.
Dr Roland Salmon, one of the Public Health Wales professionals involved in developing the idea, said the hypothesis also helps to explain why there have been relatively few cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)...
“One particularly interesting thing is that the area with the lowest numbers of filled teeth and the lowest incidence of vCJD is the West Midlands, which is also the region with the highest levels of water fluoridation.”
I thought unfluoridated Kent had the lowest dental decay and have they considered it might be because the West Midlands has many immigrants on a different diet?
by Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail
May 16 2011
A GROUP of Welsh experts believe cases of the human form of mad cow disease could be linked to simple tooth decay.
They have put forward an hypothesis, which suggests tooth decay may be the way in which people became infected with the incurable disease as a result of eating contaminated meat during the 1980s.
Dr Roland Salmon, one of the Public Health Wales professionals involved in developing the idea, said the hypothesis also helps to explain why there have been relatively few cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)...
“One particularly interesting thing is that the area with the lowest numbers of filled teeth and the lowest incidence of vCJD is the West Midlands, which is also the region with the highest levels of water fluoridation.”
I thought unfluoridated Kent had the lowest dental decay and have they considered it might be because the West Midlands has many immigrants on a different diet?
Daily Echo In my view
Fluoridation is against the flowBy Anna Peckham
IT seems perverse that the Strategic Health Authority (SNA) is still determined to push ahead with plans to fluoridate the region's water despite the fact that the SHA itself will be abolished next year.
With big changes proposed for the way health services are organised and this government's emphasis on localism, it is illogical that a hugely unpopular decision I taken in 2009 by an unelected soon-to-be-scrapped quango can be allowed to proceed.
From next year, public health decisions will be transferred to local councils.
The Department of Health says that it "wishes to consider how, in any future local consultations on proposals for new fluoridation schemes, fuller account can be taken of the views of the people that would be affected". This is a blatant admission of the failure of the Southampton consultation.
So why is the Department of Health still supporting the SHA and instructing it to push ahead regardless? Clearly, it thinks that transferring power to local councils will make this process more "democratically accountable" in other regions.
As Justice Holman emphasised at the recent court hearing, the original legislation is drawn up in such a way as to empower health authorities to do what they want without scrutiny. All that is required is for the board of directors to say they have given "due regard" to local opinion, without actually doing so. The scheme can proceed - even if 99.9 per cent of local people are opposed.
It also transpires that the Department of Health sees this area as the perfect place to conduct a long-term research study into the effects of fluoridation on children.
Now is the time to ask your councillor what their view is on I this issue. If, like some of those I I have spoken to, they tell you it is "not a council issue", inform them 1 that they are wrong. From next year, it will be a council issue and we need to know what our councillors' views are. So ask your councillors how they would vote in a future debate -would they keep this chemical out of your drinking water?
Southampton City Council needs to follow the example of other councils in Hampshire and take action to reject fluoridation.
Now is the time to tell the SHA that, if the scheme is implemented, the council will reverse the decision when it assumes responsibility for public health next year. The council could simply stop dosing the water with hexafluorosilicic acid, refuse to purchase this toxic waste-product and mothball the expensive equipment that the SHA is squandering public money on.
15 May 2011
NZ - Dental Experts Suggest Parenting to Avert Risk of Tooth Decay
Dental Experts Suggest Parenting to Avert Risk of Tooth Decay in Children
Submitted by Neeraj Shahane on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 11:34 HealthTNM
Preventive dental care has always been a mooting point for dental experts across the world. With the rising cases of dental decay in young children, call for fluoridation of water has been kicked off in medical fraternity.
The situation of dental decay has become so grim that children aged 0 to 14 were hospitalized, as per NMDHB's 2010 and 2008 Health Needs Assessment reports. Citing grave concern over the spiralling rate of dental surgeries, senior hospital dentist Roby Beaglehole, consultant to the British Department of Health, and political adviser to the Government, is of the view that spurt in junk food items, laden with sugar content beyond the safe limit, is one of the potential cause of the crippling dental health in most of the European countries.Contrary to the common recommendation to increase fluoride intake to cater to tooth decay, the NMDHB's oral health steering group Chairman, Ed Kiddle, is of the view that though fluoridation is one of the best way to address the issue, more steps should be taken to eradicate the persistent concern.
Though the controversy to revise existing standard of fluoridation continues, dental experts are of the view that rational parenting is a must to track the percolating concern of children's oral health care.
Why not treat the cause or are the food producers too powerful?
Submitted by Neeraj Shahane on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 11:34 HealthTNM
Preventive dental care has always been a mooting point for dental experts across the world. With the rising cases of dental decay in young children, call for fluoridation of water has been kicked off in medical fraternity.
The situation of dental decay has become so grim that children aged 0 to 14 were hospitalized, as per NMDHB's 2010 and 2008 Health Needs Assessment reports. Citing grave concern over the spiralling rate of dental surgeries, senior hospital dentist Roby Beaglehole, consultant to the British Department of Health, and political adviser to the Government, is of the view that spurt in junk food items, laden with sugar content beyond the safe limit, is one of the potential cause of the crippling dental health in most of the European countries.Contrary to the common recommendation to increase fluoride intake to cater to tooth decay, the NMDHB's oral health steering group Chairman, Ed Kiddle, is of the view that though fluoridation is one of the best way to address the issue, more steps should be taken to eradicate the persistent concern.
Though the controversy to revise existing standard of fluoridation continues, dental experts are of the view that rational parenting is a must to track the percolating concern of children's oral health care.
Why not treat the cause or are the food producers too powerful?
14 May 2011
Dr. Dean Burk - Fluoride causes cancer
He died in 1988 so his message powerful at the time still wasn't enough.
12 May 2011
Protesters hold Coventry public meeting over fluoride in water
Protesters hold Coventry public meeting over fluoride in water
By Mary Griffin
May 11 2011
PROTESTERS are mounting a fight against adding fluoride to the water supply.
A public meeting has been called tonight in Coventry to debate the issue after a petition with nearly 300 signatures was handed to the city council.
Joy Warren, a member of Coventry Friends of the Earth, is spearheading the campaign and wants to fight the current practice of deliberately adding fluoride to the tap water supply across the West Midlands.
She has set up the website West Midlands Against Fluoridation, calling fluoridation a “compulsory mass medication”.
She said: “The public doesn’t know about this. It’s an invisible issue.
“If they tried to get fluoride into the water supply now there would be huge uproar from everybody, as is the case currently in Southampton.
“But if you were born after 1968 you probably don’t realise you’re being fluoridated.
“This is the only compulsory medicine in the whole world, apart from those given to people in mental health institutions governed by the Mental Health Act.”
She added: “Fluoride doesn’t prevent decay in teeth, it delays it by delaying the growth of teeth.
“It affects individuals differently depending on susceptibilities.”
The West Midlands Against Fluoridation campaign reckons there are health and environmental hazards, and also claims it’s putting an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.
According to the campaign’s website, the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority spent more than £4 million on fluoridation between 2009 and 2010, nearly double the £2,228,000 spent the year before.
And, aside from health and environmental issues, campaigners claim it’s a waste of cash as less than five per cent of tap water passes the lips – with most of it being used for showers and washing machines.
A statement from Severn Trent reads: “Fluoride is naturally present in all water supplies at varying levels. However, fluoride is added into the water supply by Severn Trent Water in some areas at the request of the relevant health officials to protect teeth from decay.”
The water supplier says fluoride is usually added as a powder or a diluted solution to bring the fluoride content up to one part per million and control systems make sure it doesn’t exceed the maximum concentration permitted by European standards.
Tonight’s meeting, starting at 8pm at St Oswald’s Church Hall, Jardine Crescent in Tile Hill, will hear from former city GP Dr Diane Philips, who claims she was made ill by the fluoride in the drinking water when she first moved to Coventry.
By Mary Griffin
May 11 2011
PROTESTERS are mounting a fight against adding fluoride to the water supply.
A public meeting has been called tonight in Coventry to debate the issue after a petition with nearly 300 signatures was handed to the city council.
Joy Warren, a member of Coventry Friends of the Earth, is spearheading the campaign and wants to fight the current practice of deliberately adding fluoride to the tap water supply across the West Midlands.
She has set up the website West Midlands Against Fluoridation, calling fluoridation a “compulsory mass medication”.
She said: “The public doesn’t know about this. It’s an invisible issue.
“If they tried to get fluoride into the water supply now there would be huge uproar from everybody, as is the case currently in Southampton.
“But if you were born after 1968 you probably don’t realise you’re being fluoridated.
“This is the only compulsory medicine in the whole world, apart from those given to people in mental health institutions governed by the Mental Health Act.”
She added: “Fluoride doesn’t prevent decay in teeth, it delays it by delaying the growth of teeth.
“It affects individuals differently depending on susceptibilities.”
The West Midlands Against Fluoridation campaign reckons there are health and environmental hazards, and also claims it’s putting an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.
According to the campaign’s website, the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority spent more than £4 million on fluoridation between 2009 and 2010, nearly double the £2,228,000 spent the year before.
And, aside from health and environmental issues, campaigners claim it’s a waste of cash as less than five per cent of tap water passes the lips – with most of it being used for showers and washing machines.
A statement from Severn Trent reads: “Fluoride is naturally present in all water supplies at varying levels. However, fluoride is added into the water supply by Severn Trent Water in some areas at the request of the relevant health officials to protect teeth from decay.”
The water supplier says fluoride is usually added as a powder or a diluted solution to bring the fluoride content up to one part per million and control systems make sure it doesn’t exceed the maximum concentration permitted by European standards.
Tonight’s meeting, starting at 8pm at St Oswald’s Church Hall, Jardine Crescent in Tile Hill, will hear from former city GP Dr Diane Philips, who claims she was made ill by the fluoride in the drinking water when she first moved to Coventry.
Daily Echo Letters
Not the answer
I READ A C Davidson's letter 'Keep tap water pure' (Daily Echo, April 22) and I agree that buying bottled water would not be a good answer if Southampton's tap water is fluoridated.
Bottled water would be expensive as you would need to buy large quantities of it. This is because to avoid fluoride you would need to cook vegetables and everything else with bottled water j too. You cannot boil fluoride away as the fluoride just becomes stronger and more concentrated as the steam evaporates off. Bottled water also produces masses of Plastic waste which is not good for the environment. A C Davidson also mentions that we may receive fluoride from bath water. There was a study by George Glasser, published in The Ecologist; saying that people absorb fluoride through their skin when they bath or shower in fluoridated water. This is not as strange as it sounds as medication is often applied on the skin by skin patches.
I agree with your 'In my View' writer Carol Scarborough (Letters April 26), that health authorities should have a duty to honour the Hippocratic Oath of "First do no harm".
A WILLS, Ruislip. Middx.
• SOUTHERN Water's plan to add fluoride to our water supply is an expensive option and not a properly thought out plan. Fluoride added to our drinking water is not the answer to stopping dental decay. Most proprietary brands of toothpaste and mouthwashes contain sufficient fluoride to combat dental decay and adding fluoride to our water supply is totally unnecessary.
The answer is to educate and promote better oral hygiene by regular brushing of teeth with fluoride infused toothpaste and a suitable mouth wash and not to drink tooth decaying fizzy drinks.
Southern Water should concentrate their efforts on supplying clean safe drinking water to every household and not adding fluoride to camouflage what is already poor quality water as at present. My water filter jug shows self evidence of contaminated water taken from our water supply!
ALLAN FOXALL, Holbury.
I READ A C Davidson's letter 'Keep tap water pure' (Daily Echo, April 22) and I agree that buying bottled water would not be a good answer if Southampton's tap water is fluoridated.
Bottled water would be expensive as you would need to buy large quantities of it. This is because to avoid fluoride you would need to cook vegetables and everything else with bottled water j too. You cannot boil fluoride away as the fluoride just becomes stronger and more concentrated as the steam evaporates off. Bottled water also produces masses of Plastic waste which is not good for the environment. A C Davidson also mentions that we may receive fluoride from bath water. There was a study by George Glasser, published in The Ecologist; saying that people absorb fluoride through their skin when they bath or shower in fluoridated water. This is not as strange as it sounds as medication is often applied on the skin by skin patches.
I agree with your 'In my View' writer Carol Scarborough (Letters April 26), that health authorities should have a duty to honour the Hippocratic Oath of "First do no harm".
A WILLS, Ruislip. Middx.
• SOUTHERN Water's plan to add fluoride to our water supply is an expensive option and not a properly thought out plan. Fluoride added to our drinking water is not the answer to stopping dental decay. Most proprietary brands of toothpaste and mouthwashes contain sufficient fluoride to combat dental decay and adding fluoride to our water supply is totally unnecessary.
The answer is to educate and promote better oral hygiene by regular brushing of teeth with fluoride infused toothpaste and a suitable mouth wash and not to drink tooth decaying fizzy drinks.
Southern Water should concentrate their efforts on supplying clean safe drinking water to every household and not adding fluoride to camouflage what is already poor quality water as at present. My water filter jug shows self evidence of contaminated water taken from our water supply!
ALLAN FOXALL, Holbury.
11 May 2011
Health Restoration
Health Restoration
2011-05-11 / Health
20 Ways to Live Better
Carolyn Guilford, CNC
.....Drink Filtered Water: Municipal water has chlorine, fluoride and many other chemicals that are damaging to the immune systems and to the body’s systems. Then think about how water gets to your faucet: Concrete, lead, and plastic pipes.....
I wish it was that easy to get fluoride out of the water so fight to keep it from being put in. Worth reading a lot of good sense on health restoration
2011-05-11 / Health
20 Ways to Live Better
Carolyn Guilford, CNC
.....Drink Filtered Water: Municipal water has chlorine, fluoride and many other chemicals that are damaging to the immune systems and to the body’s systems. Then think about how water gets to your faucet: Concrete, lead, and plastic pipes.....
I wish it was that easy to get fluoride out of the water so fight to keep it from being put in. Worth reading a lot of good sense on health restoration
Leeds exhibition to host history of sugar
As part of the £180,000 three-year exhibition, Dr McCleery is running workshops looking at the bones of people who lived in the past, including some from Medieval times, in particular jaw bones, which show tooth decay.
Dr McCleery said: “Sugar is not necessarily bad for you, there’s a reason we like the taste of it, it gives us energy. For babies, it’s one of the first things they taste, because mother’s milk is sweet. There’s even an argument which says sugar fuelled the Industrial Revolution.
“One thing which is certain, however, is it does increase tooth decay and by studying old bones we can plot the introduction of sugar and correlate that with cavities precisely.”........
It isn't lack of fluoride that causes dental decay it is sugar.
Dr McCleery said: “Sugar is not necessarily bad for you, there’s a reason we like the taste of it, it gives us energy. For babies, it’s one of the first things they taste, because mother’s milk is sweet. There’s even an argument which says sugar fuelled the Industrial Revolution.
“One thing which is certain, however, is it does increase tooth decay and by studying old bones we can plot the introduction of sugar and correlate that with cavities precisely.”........
It isn't lack of fluoride that causes dental decay it is sugar.
10 May 2011
Canadian Medical Journal - CMAJ
NEWS
May 9, 2011
Battle renewed over value of fluoridation
With the scientific pendulum appearing to slowly swing away from the value of fluoridating tap water, the United States Department of Health and Human Services has indicated that it will lower the recommended level of fluoride to be added to drinking water.
The partial retreat comes on the heels of city of Calgary, Alberta’s decision to discontinue fluoridation of its drinking water in a bid to save $750 000 per year in direct fluoride costs and a projected $6 million equipment upgrade at its treatment plants.
Although fluoridation proponents argue that such moves invite tooth decay, particularly among low-income groups who can’t afford dental care, US and Calgary officials counter that recent scientific evidence suggests that a high intake of fluoride can place people at risk of bone abnormalities and fractures.
The Department of Health and Human Services is proposing to lower fluoride concentrations in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L from 0.7–1.2 mg/L, the first time that the department has retreated from standards established in 1962. The lower level “provides the best balance of protection from dental caries (cavities) while limiting the risk of dental fluorosis,” the department stated in a release (www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-13/pdf/2011-637.pdf). About 73% of American communities fluoridate their water.
The new American level is in keeping with that of Canada and reflects a balance between fluoridating water to reduce cavities, while protecting against toxic effects, David Thomas, media relations officer for Health Canada, writes in an email.
Calgary recently became the latest of several major Canadian cities to have opted against fluoridation. Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver, British Columbia decided against it in the 1970s, while Quebec City voted against it in 2007 and residents of Waterloo, Ontario, narrowly voted to discontinue fluoridation in a 2010 referendum....
May 9, 2011
Battle renewed over value of fluoridation
With the scientific pendulum appearing to slowly swing away from the value of fluoridating tap water, the United States Department of Health and Human Services has indicated that it will lower the recommended level of fluoride to be added to drinking water.
The partial retreat comes on the heels of city of Calgary, Alberta’s decision to discontinue fluoridation of its drinking water in a bid to save $750 000 per year in direct fluoride costs and a projected $6 million equipment upgrade at its treatment plants.
Although fluoridation proponents argue that such moves invite tooth decay, particularly among low-income groups who can’t afford dental care, US and Calgary officials counter that recent scientific evidence suggests that a high intake of fluoride can place people at risk of bone abnormalities and fractures.
The Department of Health and Human Services is proposing to lower fluoride concentrations in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L from 0.7–1.2 mg/L, the first time that the department has retreated from standards established in 1962. The lower level “provides the best balance of protection from dental caries (cavities) while limiting the risk of dental fluorosis,” the department stated in a release (www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-13/pdf/2011-637.pdf). About 73% of American communities fluoridate their water.
The new American level is in keeping with that of Canada and reflects a balance between fluoridating water to reduce cavities, while protecting against toxic effects, David Thomas, media relations officer for Health Canada, writes in an email.
Calgary recently became the latest of several major Canadian cities to have opted against fluoridation. Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver, British Columbia decided against it in the 1970s, while Quebec City voted against it in 2007 and residents of Waterloo, Ontario, narrowly voted to discontinue fluoridation in a 2010 referendum....
Daily Echo - letter
Brushing your teeth is a viable alternative
Although I have written more letters than most people, expressing my opposition to fluoridation, there are several people I respect who say that in many cases fluoridation is beneficial without any side effects.
However, a lot of people could also say that the same about brushing one's teeth with fluoride toothpaste, which is in my view a viable alternative to fluoridation, flu jabs - which is something I would personally only want to have as a last resort - and drinking milk, which was one of my worst experiences at infant school.
I also fail to see that in cases where people have different chemicals in their body, as a result of being on different forms of medication, that the fluoride will in the majority of cases react favourably with the other chemicals.
People in favour of fluoridation often refer to what has happened in Birmingham, but fluoridation was introduced there in June 1964, when the resources available to dentists are very different to what they are today.
MALCOLM CLARKE,
Eastleigh.
Although I have written more letters than most people, expressing my opposition to fluoridation, there are several people I respect who say that in many cases fluoridation is beneficial without any side effects.
However, a lot of people could also say that the same about brushing one's teeth with fluoride toothpaste, which is in my view a viable alternative to fluoridation, flu jabs - which is something I would personally only want to have as a last resort - and drinking milk, which was one of my worst experiences at infant school.
I also fail to see that in cases where people have different chemicals in their body, as a result of being on different forms of medication, that the fluoride will in the majority of cases react favourably with the other chemicals.
People in favour of fluoridation often refer to what has happened in Birmingham, but fluoridation was introduced there in June 1964, when the resources available to dentists are very different to what they are today.
MALCOLM CLARKE,
Eastleigh.
9 May 2011
8 May 2011
7 May 2011
Daily Echo - All ages against fluoride
All ages against fluorideI KNOW this is one of many letters you will have received regarding the forced fluoridation in our water. I am totally against this as are my 22-year-old daughter and 85-year-old mother.
It was actually my mother who has asked me to write - she' has all her own teeth, few fillings and has brushed them twice a day as do most people. She's eaten sweets etc, but always looked after her teeth.
The children to whom the fluoride is aimed at probably don't always brush their teeth - having not being taught correct dental hygiene, and probably don't even drink water let alone tap water! So a pointless exercise to be forced upon us and with so much objection from the people of Southampton.
What will happen when this takes place and we don't want to drink, cook etc in the water poisoned by fluoride? Buying bottled water is not an option.
L O'Toole, Southampton.
6 May 2011
Lymington Times - Fresh petition launched to stop fluoride scheme
Fresh petition launched to stop fluoride scheme
ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigners are gathering names for a fresh petition against the controversial chemical being added to their drinking water.
The NHS scheme will affect 190,000 people in the Southampton area, including 8,000 in Totton. Objectors have branded it "forced medication" and claimed unhealthy side-effects.
It was approved by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) last year as a way of reducing child tooth decay, but was opposed by New Forest and Hampshire councils.
The new petition is being compiled to persuade Southampton City Council to formally reverse its vote in 2008 to support the scheme, although it later backed a referendum.
The petition for outlying areas said: "We live outside the city but will be affected by this decision. We also ask that when it assumes responsibility for public health, the council will not implement a fluoridation scheme."
The SHA is due to be disbanded in March 2012 under the government's NHS reforms and local authorities given responsibility for fluoride
decisions.
The Hampshire Against Fluoride campaign hopes that if implementation is delayed beyond then, its petition will help force the city council to shut down the scheme. The deadline for signatures is June 17th.
It said; "Adding fluoride to the water supply is unethical because it constitutes mass medication without consent. The council has not taken into consideration the most up-to-date evidence of the impact of water fluoridation."
On Wednesday 427 people had signed the online petition www.southampton.gov.uk/modf gov/mgepetitiondisplay.aspx?ID=
Last year opponents gathered 15,000-name petition against fluoride and during consultation 7: of responses objected, although Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38%against.
Totton and Eling Town Council trying to delay the scheme with legal bid to redefine fluoride officia as a medicine. A hearing is also d on June 16th in the Court of Appeal against the High Court's ruling that the original consultation was fair.
ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigners are gathering names for a fresh petition against the controversial chemical being added to their drinking water.
The NHS scheme will affect 190,000 people in the Southampton area, including 8,000 in Totton. Objectors have branded it "forced medication" and claimed unhealthy side-effects.
It was approved by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) last year as a way of reducing child tooth decay, but was opposed by New Forest and Hampshire councils.
The new petition is being compiled to persuade Southampton City Council to formally reverse its vote in 2008 to support the scheme, although it later backed a referendum.
The petition for outlying areas said: "We live outside the city but will be affected by this decision. We also ask that when it assumes responsibility for public health, the council will not implement a fluoridation scheme."
The SHA is due to be disbanded in March 2012 under the government's NHS reforms and local authorities given responsibility for fluoride
decisions.
The Hampshire Against Fluoride campaign hopes that if implementation is delayed beyond then, its petition will help force the city council to shut down the scheme. The deadline for signatures is June 17th.
It said; "Adding fluoride to the water supply is unethical because it constitutes mass medication without consent. The council has not taken into consideration the most up-to-date evidence of the impact of water fluoridation."
On Wednesday 427 people had signed the online petition www.southampton.gov.uk/modf gov/mgepetitiondisplay.aspx?ID=
Last year opponents gathered 15,000-name petition against fluoride and during consultation 7: of responses objected, although Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38%against.
Totton and Eling Town Council trying to delay the scheme with legal bid to redefine fluoride officia as a medicine. A hearing is also d on June 16th in the Court of Appeal against the High Court's ruling that the original consultation was fair.
5 May 2011
Parliament
Fluoride
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy that future decisions about the fluoridation of water supplies shall be taken by elected local authorities following the abolition of strategic health authorities. [52429]
Anne Milton: Yes. We propose that local authorities should conduct consultations and ascertain public opinion on proposals for new fluoridation schemes, while contracts for existing (and any new) schemes will become the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the outcome of fluoridation exercises in countries where health authorities (i) continue to and (ii) have ceased administration of fluoride to water supplies; and if he will make a statement. [52432]
Anne Milton: A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation, which was commissioned by the Department from the university of York in 1999 and published in 2000, showed that, on the best available evidence, fluoridation increased the proportion of children without tooth decay by 15% and that children in fluoridated areas had, on average, 2.25 fewer teeth affected by decay than children in non-fluoridated areas.
Evidence from epidemiological surveys of child dental health, which are carried out at regular intervals, confirms that these benefits continue. An example of the effects of cessation is provided by a study of Anglesey(1) where fluoridation commenced in 1955, became intermittent from 1987 and ceased in 1991. In 1987-88, the last year of optimal fluoridation, the mean number of decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft) of five-year-old children was 0.80. By 1993 average dmft had increased to 2.01 with a dmft of 1.81 among those who had experienced fluoridation during approximately 35 % of their lives and one of 2.28 for those who had experienced fluoridation for less than 10% of their lives.
(1) Fluoridation in Anglesey 1993: a clinical study of dental caries in five-year-old children who had experienced sub-optimal fluoridation F. D. Thomas/J. Y. Kassab and B. M. Jones British Dental Journal 178, 55-59 (1995)
Fluoride: Southampton
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the proceedings of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Hampshire county council of 14 March 2011, what reports he has received on the plans of South Central Strategic Health Authority to proceed with fluoridation of drinking water supplies in and near Southampton; and if he will call in these plans for review. [52431]
Anne Milton: We understand that on 31 March, South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) asked Southern Water to proceed with the fluoridation of drinking water in Southampton and part of South West Hampshire following the outcome of the judicial review, which upheld the SHA's decision. The relevant legislation provides for these decisions to be taken locally.
Fluoride
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to strategic health authorities on the factors to take into account in determining whether to use fluoride in the local water supply. [53621]
Anne Milton: The Chief Dental Officer's letter ‘Fluoridation of Drinking Water’, issued in February 2008 under Gateway reference 9361, refers. A copy has already been placed in the Library and is available at:
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Lettersandcirculars/Dearcolleagueletters/DH_082666
The Health and Social Care Bill proposes that responsibility for consultations on proposals for fluoridation schemes should transfer to local authorities, in which case we will issue revised guidance on the conduct of consultations and taking account of public opinion.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy that future decisions about the fluoridation of water supplies shall be taken by elected local authorities following the abolition of strategic health authorities. [52429]
Anne Milton: Yes. We propose that local authorities should conduct consultations and ascertain public opinion on proposals for new fluoridation schemes, while contracts for existing (and any new) schemes will become the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the outcome of fluoridation exercises in countries where health authorities (i) continue to and (ii) have ceased administration of fluoride to water supplies; and if he will make a statement. [52432]
Anne Milton: A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation, which was commissioned by the Department from the university of York in 1999 and published in 2000, showed that, on the best available evidence, fluoridation increased the proportion of children without tooth decay by 15% and that children in fluoridated areas had, on average, 2.25 fewer teeth affected by decay than children in non-fluoridated areas.
Evidence from epidemiological surveys of child dental health, which are carried out at regular intervals, confirms that these benefits continue. An example of the effects of cessation is provided by a study of Anglesey(1) where fluoridation commenced in 1955, became intermittent from 1987 and ceased in 1991. In 1987-88, the last year of optimal fluoridation, the mean number of decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft) of five-year-old children was 0.80. By 1993 average dmft had increased to 2.01 with a dmft of 1.81 among those who had experienced fluoridation during approximately 35 % of their lives and one of 2.28 for those who had experienced fluoridation for less than 10% of their lives.
(1) Fluoridation in Anglesey 1993: a clinical study of dental caries in five-year-old children who had experienced sub-optimal fluoridation F. D. Thomas/J. Y. Kassab and B. M. Jones British Dental Journal 178, 55-59 (1995)
Fluoride: Southampton
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the proceedings of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Hampshire county council of 14 March 2011, what reports he has received on the plans of South Central Strategic Health Authority to proceed with fluoridation of drinking water supplies in and near Southampton; and if he will call in these plans for review. [52431]
Anne Milton: We understand that on 31 March, South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) asked Southern Water to proceed with the fluoridation of drinking water in Southampton and part of South West Hampshire following the outcome of the judicial review, which upheld the SHA's decision. The relevant legislation provides for these decisions to be taken locally.
Fluoride
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to strategic health authorities on the factors to take into account in determining whether to use fluoride in the local water supply. [53621]
Anne Milton: The Chief Dental Officer's letter ‘Fluoridation of Drinking Water’, issued in February 2008 under Gateway reference 9361, refers. A copy has already been placed in the Library and is available at:
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Lettersandcirculars/Dearcolleagueletters/DH_082666
The Health and Social Care Bill proposes that responsibility for consultations on proposals for fluoridation schemes should transfer to local authorities, in which case we will issue revised guidance on the conduct of consultations and taking account of public opinion.
4 May 2011
Daily Echo - Chemical mix is already in water
Chemical mix is already in water
I'm no chemist but, it would appear all the detritus from the medication prescribed for us is, after use, flushed down into the sewage systems and remains in the drinking water even after treatment by the water
companies, which makes one wonder as to any chemical reaction between the fluoride and the chemicals already present?
One reads of fish and other species in the waterways turning into hermaphrodites due apparently to these chemicals in the water, e.g. "birth pill", growth hormones, penicillin, probably even traces of class 'A' drugs, so there must be further concern when adding yet another chemical into the mix.
BARRY BURTON, Fareham.
I'm no chemist but, it would appear all the detritus from the medication prescribed for us is, after use, flushed down into the sewage systems and remains in the drinking water even after treatment by the water
companies, which makes one wonder as to any chemical reaction between the fluoride and the chemicals already present?
One reads of fish and other species in the waterways turning into hermaphrodites due apparently to these chemicals in the water, e.g. "birth pill", growth hormones, penicillin, probably even traces of class 'A' drugs, so there must be further concern when adding yet another chemical into the mix.
BARRY BURTON, Fareham.
3 May 2011
Australia - Fluoride case could have flow-on effects
Fluoride case could have flow-on effects
Posted May 3, 2011 09:31:00
A Lismore man says he's won a David-and-Goliath battle with Rous Water.
Al Oshlack says the Land and Environment Court has ruled that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act must be applied if fluoride is being added to a water supply.
He says it's a landmark decision that will form the basis of a subsequent case on the 21st of June.
"This will be the first time that I know of in Australia that a case has ever been held," Mr Oshlack said.
"Over the 55 years we've had fluoridation in NSW there's never been one court case and nor has there been any scientific analysis in human health and the impact on the environment caused by fluoride," he said.
The chairman of Rous Water says a decision by the Land and Environment Court this week could see the debate about fluoride resolved once and for all.
Richard Staples says the decision exposed a conflict between the Fluoridation Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
Cr Staples says that could lead to a wide-ranging legal debate.
"I think it's possible because if the environment is interpreted in its widest sense it would include human health and welfare as well," he said.
"So perhaps the whole issue of fluoride could be tested legally instead of just the mountains of information we're seeing on both sides which is never resolved," Cr Staples said.
Meanwhile, the Rous general manager says the authority was acting under the directions of the Health Department when it started work on the dosing systems needed to add fluoride to the water supply.
Kyme Lavelle says the advice will now be tested in court.
"That was the first stage, but the case now has to be heard on its merits," he said.
"(It) can question now the impact of fluoride on the environment which obviously the Department of Health will have to respond to, and its experts," Mr Lavelle said.
Shame we haven't got a Land and Environment Court here.
Posted May 3, 2011 09:31:00
A Lismore man says he's won a David-and-Goliath battle with Rous Water.
Al Oshlack says the Land and Environment Court has ruled that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act must be applied if fluoride is being added to a water supply.
He says it's a landmark decision that will form the basis of a subsequent case on the 21st of June.
"This will be the first time that I know of in Australia that a case has ever been held," Mr Oshlack said.
"Over the 55 years we've had fluoridation in NSW there's never been one court case and nor has there been any scientific analysis in human health and the impact on the environment caused by fluoride," he said.
The chairman of Rous Water says a decision by the Land and Environment Court this week could see the debate about fluoride resolved once and for all.
Richard Staples says the decision exposed a conflict between the Fluoridation Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
Cr Staples says that could lead to a wide-ranging legal debate.
"I think it's possible because if the environment is interpreted in its widest sense it would include human health and welfare as well," he said.
"So perhaps the whole issue of fluoride could be tested legally instead of just the mountains of information we're seeing on both sides which is never resolved," Cr Staples said.
Meanwhile, the Rous general manager says the authority was acting under the directions of the Health Department when it started work on the dosing systems needed to add fluoride to the water supply.
Kyme Lavelle says the advice will now be tested in court.
"That was the first stage, but the case now has to be heard on its merits," he said.
"(It) can question now the impact of fluoride on the environment which obviously the Department of Health will have to respond to, and its experts," Mr Lavelle said.
Shame we haven't got a Land and Environment Court here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
