Daily Echo - letters

This what the Chief Medical Officer says about the stuff they put in. The BFS call it a co-product but they would call it that rather than a waste product.

Water Industry Act, allows hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) to be used to increase the fluoride content of water. The published Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies (Department of the Environment, 1987) gives specifications for these substances and states that 'the product. ..must not contain any mineral or organic substances capable of impairing the health of those drinking water correctly treated with the product'. For H2SiF6, limits are given for a number of possible impurities, including for iron, heavy metals, sulphate, phosphate, and chloride. The specification for Na2SiF6 powder requires a minimum of 98% m/m of the pure chemical, and gives maximum limits for impurities, including heavy metals (as lead) and iron. No other substances are allowed to be used in the fluoridation process, other than an anti-caking agent (the identity of which must be disclosed) in the case of Na2SiF6. Synthetic detergents are not permitted.

Thus there is no likelihood, in normal operation, for any fluoridation plants to introduce other compounds into the drinking water supply (other than approved anti-cakinq aqents and any impurities present in the fluoridation chemicals).

Ignorance is bliss

Obviously Fred doesn't read the letter page and the In MY View column of the paper he contributes to: the Echo.

FLUORIDE: The Air We Breathe - 3 / 20

Daily Echo - Putting new laws to test

Putting new laws to test
AS I usually drink bottled water, the physical aspect of fluoridating the water will not affect me.
However I take my own health seriously, and attach a lot of weight to taking responsibility for your decisions, and to the psychology of good health, and feel that sometimes these factors are not given sufficient consideration.
Even if my own principles are more in line with one side than the other, I do listen to both sides of the argument, and read the judges report in full.
There are people who support fluoridation whom I respect, but in my view the way this debate has been handld has not been psychologically good for the health of the people opposing fluoridation, and I would like to see the law changed.
It appears that the Water Act of 2003 and the Water Fluoridation Consultation Regulations of 2005 are the two most important acts of legislation introduced to allow the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to proceed in the way they did. This is as I understand the first case to be assessed under this new legislation, and with the abolition of SHAs on the cards could be the last. I also believe that prior to this, no new fluoridation scheme had been introduced in the past 20 years. Can I suggest that in the future, if it is decided to fluoridate the water, and there is not public support for the proposal, that a working group is set up to thrash out the most contentious issues.
Even the local MPs who voted for the legislation in Parliament, did not recommend going ahead without greater support for it. It does seem ironic that all local MPs find themselves powerless to' intervene on behalf of the f
constituents who elected them, especially as some of them will have voted to introduce a law which left them in that position.
I half expected the judge's decision as almost from the outset the SHA was assessing how they could overcome any legal challenges. For me if a working group was set up as I recommend there are three things that I would like to see discussed:
• It has been stated that fluoridation has worked well in other parts of the country, but that could be to due other factors such as increasing the dental budget?
• However safe one considers fluoride is, it must still be difficult to set it an optimum level for every person in the country, especially when it could react with other chemicals in the body.
• The idea has been suggested that other means of improving dental health such as fluoride tablets are less effective. Is this due, in part at least to the fact that communication between dentists and patients is not as good as it could be.


He would still have to bathe in it though and it does get through the skin barrier.
The Hampshire County Council did have a scrutiny panel and they rejected fluoridation.

USA - Low-income children who consumed recommended fluoride doses have more fluoride-damaged teeth

NEW YORK, Feb. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
Low-income children who consumed recommended fluoride doses have more fluoride-damaged teeth and high cavity rates, according to research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, January 2011.
NEW YORK, Feb. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Low-income children who consumed recommended fluoride doses have more fluoride-damaged teeth and high cavity rates, according to research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, January 2011.
Fluoride (hydrofluosilicic acid) is added to U.S. water supplies in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay. However, in Mexico fluoride is added to salt because water fluoride levels are low.
Mexican preschoolers and school-aged children in a low-income area were measured for cavities, fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) and urine fluoride levels.
Despite urinary excretion within an optimal fluoride intake range, 78% of 4- to 5-year-olds and 73% of 11- to 12-year-olds have cavities while 60% of the older children have dental fluorosis.

In this study, dental fluorosis was significantly associated with the amount of toothpaste used, age and frequency of brushing. Three-fourths of the parents used fluoridated salt for cooking.

Fluoride was measured in bottled water, juices, nectars and carbonated drinks (range 0.08 ppm to 1.70 ppm)

The researchers report that "the results of previous studies show that the consumption of fluoridated water in addition to fluoride-containing products may promote an increased development of dental fluorosis lesions, even in people living in regions considered to be non-endemic areas."

"Legislators cavalierly order fluoride into the bodies of American children without considering their individual total fluoride intake, clearly causing potential harm," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. "Legislators who vote for fluoridation often base their decision on hearsay and fail to look at the science behind fluoridation."

The researchers stress individual variables be considered before fluoride is administered such as nutritional status, total fluoride ingestion and excretion. Also, environment and geographical factors should be evaluated, including location, weather and altitude.

The CDC admits that fluoride's predominant mode of action is topical and that "(t)he prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries."

This study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating that fluoride ingestion is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, therefore making water fluoridation an outdated drug delivery system. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html

Reference: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/1/148/pdf

Lymington Times - Anti-fluoride campaign to challenge High Court loss

Anti-fluoride campaign to challenge High Court loss
AN appeal has been lodged against the High Court decision to allow fluoride to be added to the water supply of 8,000 Totton residents.
Earlier this month a judge ruled the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) acted legally when it approved Southampton Primary Care Trust's proposals affecting a total of 190,000 people around the city overall, including those in Totton.
Now solicitors for Southampton mum-of-three Gerri Milner have lodged an application to appeal against part of the judicial review's finding.
The appeal will not focus on the original claim that the SHA should have listened to public opinion when considering plans to fluoridate water. Instead, it will target the way the SHA assessed evidence for and against fluoridation.
The SHA says fluoride will help
fight child tooth decay but opponents who gathered a 15,000-name petition protesting against "forced medication" took their fight to the High Court at a two-day hearing in January.
Lawyers for Mrs Milner argued the SHA had failed to properly take account of the views of residents, and statements by government ministers meant a local majority must be in favour for it to go ahead.
But although Mr Justice Edward Holman accepted widespread local opposition, he concluded the SHA had not actually breached regulations which for the first time allow the NHS to order water companies to add fluoride.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: "Although disappointing, the judicial review has meant a two-year delay in implementing the scheme for which we should be grateful to Gerri Milner for pursuing this case.
"[It] has highlighted the absurdity of consultation guidelines that give absolute power to SHAs to do what they like when it comes to mass-medicating local drinking water.
"This gives the unelected board more power than local MPs, councils and the many thousands of local people who objected. Not only is this unfair it is clearly undemocratic too."
During consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38% opposed, compared with 32% in support.
The SHA declined to comment on the appeal when approached by the 'A&T'.

Daily Echo - letter

Consultation not genuine
IN the Daily Echo report (February 19) it is reported that the Strategic Health Authority 'was not bound by the results of the public consultation'. No one who remembers that the SHA distributed pre-paid postcards so that people would agree with their intention to fluoridate our water (no other option offered) would seriously contend that their 'consultation' was genuine. An inspection of the glossy booklet sent out by the authority, padded with irrelevant material, using misleading terminology, avoiding facts of key importance and trivialising health concerns, serves but to confirm that conviction.
It is a pity that the SHA did not bear in mind the words of Judge Webster several years ago when he observed: 'In any context the essence of consultation is "the communication of a genuine invitation to give advice and a genuine consideration of that advice."
G PAYNE, Southampton

Daily Echo - Fluoride anomaly

Fluoride anomaly
By Jenny Godschall
IN the judicial review on the fluoridation consultation process, Judge Holman was forced to find in favour of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), though his heart was clearly with the people.
His decision reveals an extraordinary anomaly - a law that is contrary to the code of justice intrinsic in a democracy.
Labour's Water Bill legalises state enforced mass medication via the water supply, without individual consent and without choice. Ethical repercussions and public outcry were obvious threats to the policy. To overcome this, the Government egregiously used the fig leaf of consultation to pretend that there was no state oppression.
Fluoridation, we were assured, would not take place unless the people agreed. However, this was in itself unlawful, as the democratic process is not relevant in medical ethics. Human rights were also swept under the carpet.
In upholding the letter of the law, the judicial review uncovered something startling - the promises were fake, the people had no say whatsoever. The process was a deliberate political scam.
Communities could be fluoridated by force, without consent of individuals or their elected representatives, and as revealed in the hearing, without proper and unbiased assessment of evidence.
In fact the SHA board were never told to take the views of the people into consideration. The only purpose the consultation served was to falsely legitimise a corrupt law and provide a cloak of integrity to unelected SHAs who had been primed to make the "right decision". For this, they were given total legal immunity.
Water companies which had in the past refused to implement fluoridation schemes, were similarly bribed with immunity against all fluoridation claims by customers.
The intended purpose of this legislation is to achieve nationwide fluoridation whether people want it or not. The unintended consequence is that extraordinary powers were given to an unelected and unqualified quango.
Judges and MPs can do nothing but shrug and blame the law that has tied their hands. Thus protected, South Central SHA used their power to ignore the will of the people, the will of local councils, MPs and even ministers of state.
The Government must now decide. It can continue to use state force to commandeer the public's water supply for the indiscriminate delivery of medication - or it can repeal the law and ban fluoridation for good.
Forcing people to take a drug (fluoride) against their will, can never be a matter of majority vote. It is, and must always remain, a matter of individual choice.

FLUORIDE BAD FOR YOUR TEETH & HEALTH

I don't think the CDC have said all that. They have called for a reduced level but I can't imagine them ever decrying fluoridation.

USA - Fluoride warnings need your support in Concord

February 22, 2011 2:00 AMFeb. 19 — To the Editor:
Wednesday, Feb. 12, was a sad day for New Hampshire parents and their babies. But most of them will not even realize it, and that was the point of what happened.

House Bill 312, legislation that would have required a notice on water bills warning parents not to give fluoridated water to their infants, was recommended for defeat in subcommittee under heavy lobbying pressure by the N.H. Dental Association and the N.H. Water Works Association. State Rep. Rich DiPentima, D-Portsmouth, a member of the subcommittee, who has written multiple letters to the editor supporting water fluoridation, is said to have been instrumental in the committee's decision to recommend the bill be killed........

Why would they do that? It ought to be mandatory for a warning in all fluoridated communities.

Daily Echo Letters

Scientists admit dementia not a normal part of aging, refuse to acknowledge known causes

Scientists admit dementia not a normal part of aging, refuse to acknowledge known causes
Sunday, February 20, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031417_dementia_aging.html#ixzz1EV7mlKgl
(NaturalNews) Contrary to popular belief, dementia is not a normal part of the aging process. The condition, which most often plays itself out in the form of Alzheimer's disease, is an abnormal neurological condition that is likely caused by a combination of factors, including but not limited to things like fluoride in the water, artificial chemicals in food, and mercury and aluminum in vaccines -- but the establishment medical and scientific community will never admit this.

"Dementia is not a normal part of aging -- it is caused by brain diseases that we can beat," said Prof. Kevin Morgan from the University of Nottingham recently, a Scientific Adviser for Alzheimer's Research U.K. But what is his solution? "More investment in research," he told reporters, which is the usual tactic used to address diseases of this nature........

Toxic Fluoride Poison

Don't follow his comment on amounts but worth watching.

FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace (Part 6 of 9)‬

Dr Mercola

Daily Echo letter

Daily Echo Legal Challenge to Fluoride Ruling

Legal Challenge to Fluoride Ruling
By Jon Reeve
THE High Court ruling upholding health chiefs' controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies is to be legally challenged, the Daily Echo can reveal.
Solicitors for Southampton mum-of-three Gerri Milner yesterday lodged an application to appeal against part of the judicial review decision made in London last week.
They want to challenge Mr Justice Edward Holman's judgment that there were no grounds to consider the case that South Central Strategic Health Authority didn't fully assess the arguments against fluoridation.
As reported, he expressed sympathy with Ms Milner and other anti-fluoride campaigners, but ruled against her lawyers' arguments that the SHA should have paid attention to public opinion and that not all board members were fully aware of evidence against the scheme.
Ms Milner told the Daily Echo last night she feels it is essential she doesn't give up her fight, for which she is receiving legal aid.
She said: "I was absolutely devastated by the decision.
"We have to continue.
"If you look at the polls of public opinion, the taxpayers don't want it, so I'm sure they don't mind the tiny proportion more that it's costing to further the case, compared to what it's cost already.
"The figures the board was given were based on the best possible prognosis and a very flattering position.
"I believe they didn't have the right information to make the right decision. "This is such an important issue it's our fundamental right to say what we put in our own bodies and just because its meant to be good for us because someone else says it is doesn't mean we have to accept it."
The appeal will not focus on the original claim that the SHA should have listened to public opinion when considering plans to fluoridate water delivered to nearly 200,000 residents in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. Mr Justice Holman said the law clearly states the authority was not bound by the results of the public consultation, in which 72 per cent of the 10,200 respondents opposed the scheme.
Instead, the challenge will focus on the judge's refusal to allow a full judicial review of the way the SHA assessed evidence for and against fluoridation.
In court 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's solicitor, Sean Humber said it is not yet known how long it could take for a decision to be made on the latest application.
A spokeswoman for the SHA, which has set aside £400,000 to fight the legal case, confirmed the authority was aware the appeal application had been lodged.

And that is sodium fluoride what about Hexafluorosilicic acid?

Lymington Times - Anti-fluoride campaign to fight on.

Click to enlarge

Echo letter

Some-hopefully-encouraging news

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): Because I cannot without massive inconvenience to others be present for the upcoming statement on forests, may I unreservedly welcome the Prime Minister's sensible and timely initiative on that matter? Given that the Government are responding so well to the views of the public on that issue, may we have a statement from the Minister for Housing and Local Government on the question of fluoridation in the Southampton area? A court has held that the soon-to-be-abolished strategic health authority has the legal right to proceed with fluoridation despite the opposition of three quarters of the population; nevertheless, if we are down for localism, surely the matter should be for elected local government to decide.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right that the High Court rejected an application for judicial review of the decision by the South Central strategic health authority to apply fluoride to the water for his constituents, and indeed many others. It is now considering what next to do. I have some-hopefully-encouraging news for my hon. Friend. Under the reforms envisaged in the Health and Social Care Bill, the South Central strategic health authority will be abolished, and its public health responsibilities will be passed to local authorities, which will give my hon. Friend the control that he seeks. The Government are now, in the light of that court decision, working out how best to apply the regulations to take the fluoridation policy forward.

FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace (Part 5 of 9)

Daily Mail letter

Fluoride override
SO MUCH for David Cameron's 'let the people have more say'.
How can it be right that such a large majority of residents in Southampton don't want fluoride in their water, yet one judge can overrule them all? Surely they have the right to decide on whether they want their water fluoride-free?
How do we know what long-term effects fluoride can have? Aren't we already consuming enough additives and drugs without adding one we really don't need or want?
We suggest Southampton residents continue to protest strongly. What about the human rights of these people?
DEREK, PAUL and RITA MEAD, Peacehaven, Sussex.

HAF February 2011 Newsletter

HAF February 2011 Newsletter

FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace (Part 4 of 9)

Face-Off between Southampton and SCSHA

Davell Wilkins on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 08:38 United Kingdom
A unique controversy pulled thousands of Southampton campaigners on the roads over the issue of fluoridation of water against the attempt made by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).In the wake of rising health concern over adding fluoride to the drinking water, many local residents have registered their complaints in the High court.

Voicing the potential risk of thyroid and even bone cancer, campaigners alleged that inclusion of chemical like fluoride in drinking water can prove to be fatal for the human health and SHA is going against the consensus.

Contrary to the local opinion, dental experts claim that fluoride protects people from severe tooth decay, and is highly recommended for young children and poor families.

Defending the stand taken by SHA, Mr. Justice Holman from the health authority claimed that democratic parliament had already announced that fluorination of water can be done under special cases and henceforth, is legal under the eyes of law.

Expressing satisfaction over the court’s decision, Prof Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser of British Dental Association (BDA) claimed that this remarkable step will promote more countries to adopt fluorination of water to combat dental decay.
Further, he affirmed that many scientific evidences have confirmed the safety of fluoride on human health and subsequently this historic judgment can help in striking a balance between various countries on dental health inequalities.

Daily Echo - letters

Click picture to enlarge.

High Court photos

FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace (Part 3 of 9)

Fox Doctor: "Fluoride Makes Teeth Enamel Weaker Not Stronger"!

Airing Date Feb.13, 2011

Disclose.tv - Fox Doctor: "Fluoride Makes Teeth Enamel Weaker

FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace parts1,2 of 9

Lee Day Solicitors - Fluoridation judicial review decision published

Fluoridation judicial review decision published
11 February 2011
Recent Developments
There have been a number of important developments since the SCSHA’s decision of 26th February 2009, the decision being challenged in these legal proceedings, to fluoridate the drinking water.

First of all, as set out in the Department of Health’s white paper entitled “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” dated July 2010 and subsequently in the Health and Social Care Bill currently being considered by Parliament, the Government is proposing to abolish SHAs in 2012 / 2013, with their functions being transferred to other organisations within the NHS or local authorities.

Secondly, in a consultation entitled “Healthy Lives, Health People – Consultation on the Funding and Commissioning Routes For Public Health” dated 21st December 2010, the Department of Health is now proposing for decisions on fluoridation to be taken by local authorities and that “consultations of proposals for new schemes will be conducted by local authorities using a majority rule where a scheme covers more than one local authority area” (Table A and para 3.22).

It therefore seems that the Government is now moving towards a system along the lines originally envisaged, that would require the local population to be in favour before a decision to fluoridate was made.

Responding to the judgment, Geraldine Milner stated:

“I am obviously disappointed. This is a grim day for justice for the people of Southampton. I am speaking with my legal team with regard to an appeal and sincerely hope to continue the fight.”

The SHA Board STATEMENT

Fluoridation Judicial Review decision
Posted on: 11 February 2011, 2:31 pm in GP Commissioning, News
STATEMENT
Judicial Review Decision
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) welcomes the decision by Mr Justice Holman to uphold the way in which the decision was made by the SHA to fluoridate the water in Southampton and parts of south west Hampshire.

The SHA Board remains satisfied that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve dental health and will now be considering its next steps.

Daily Echo High Court challenge to fluoridation plans for Southampton rejected

High Court challenge to fluoridation plans for Southampton rejected
2:30pm Friday 11th February 2011
Print Email Share Comments(53) By Jon Reeve »
THE legal challenge against the South Central Strategic Health Authority plan to add fluoride to Southampton's water has failed.
It has now been ruled that the decision to fluoridate the water supply was lawful and the strategic health authority was justified to take the action it has.
The judge decided against upholding the challenge by Southampton mum Gerri Milner.
Mr Justice Edward Holman, said: "I refuse this claim for judicial review. I appreciate that that will disappoint Ms Milner and the many objectors in the affected area, who whose position, I am sympathetic.
"However it is important to stress that our democratic parliament decided long ago that water can in certain circumstances be fluoridated.
"As I have endeavoured to show and contrary perhaps to the belief of Ms Milner and others it is not the law that fluoridation can only occur when a majority of the local population agree.
"Parliament has firmly entrusted area specific decision making to the relevant SHA.
"This SHA have not acted unlawfully and no court can interfere with their decision."
In a statement released after the judgement, the SHA welcomed the judge's decision. It said: "The SHA board remains satisfied that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve dental health and will now be considering its next steps."
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Gerri Milner's solicitor Sean Humber said she is now considering her next move.
He said: "She is disappointed by the decision and in her words it is a grim day for the justice of the people of Southampton.
"She is urgently considering an appeal with her legal team. It is really important to understand that the judgement is not a decision on the pros and cons of the merits of fluoridation.
"The judge went out of his way to express his sympathy for Geraldine's position and on any analysis it could not be said there was a majority public supports for fluoridation in Southampton and that was accepted by the SHA."
Justice Holman heard two days of arguments after the legal challenge was lodged by Southampton mum-of-three Gerri Milner.
Her lawyers believe South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should not have ignored public opposition to the plans to fluoridate two-thirds of the city, as well as parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
During a public consultation on the scheme, 72 per cent of respondents living in the affected areas said they were against fluoridation, but the SHA board unanimously gave it the green light, saying they were convinced by the health benefits.
A second string of Ms Milner’s case was that the SHA also failed to properly evaluate some of the arguments lodged against the plans.
Barristers for the SHA, which set aside £400,000 to fight the judicial review, and the Government told the Royal Courts of Justice the decision was legally correct.
Mr Justice Edward Holman has now agreed with the SHA, rejecting the arguments put forward by Ms Milner.

Milner Judgment 11022011

HAMPSHIRE: After years of campaigning, decision to be made on fluoridation plans

HAMPSHIRE: After years of campaigning, decision to be made on fluoridation plans
HAMPSHIRE: After years of campaigning, decision to be made on fluoridation plans
IT'S HERE: D-DAY IN COURT FLUORIDE BATTLE
• By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
FINALLY - today is the day.
After years of fighting, months of delays, two days of legal argument and a further three weeks of waiting, campaigners and health chiefs will discover who has been victorious in the battle over controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water.
A High Court judge who last month presided over a landmark judicial review on the scheme, affecting nearly 200,000 residents in and around Southampton, was due to deliver his verdict on the case in London.
Mr Justice Edward Holman heard two days of arguments after the legal challenge was lodged by Southampton mum-of-three Gerri Milner.
Her lawyers believe South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should not have ignored public opposition to the plans to fluoridate two-thirds of the city, as well as parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
During a public consultation on the scheme, 72 per cent of respondents living in the affected areas said they were against fluoridat but the SHA board unanimously gave it the green light, saying they were convinced by the health benefits. A second string of Ms Milner's case is that the SHA also failed to properly evaluate some of the arguments lodged against the plans.
Barristers for the SHA, which set aside £400,000 to fight the judicial review, and the Government told the Royal Courts of Justice the
decision was legally correct.
Today's judgement comes almost two years after the SHA board voted to approve fluoridation, becoming the first health body to do so since the law was changed to give them the power to order water companies to add the chemical to supplies.
If the ruling goes against the SHA, it would almost certainly mean the scheme will be scrapped.""
But even if the authority wins, there is the chance it may still never happen.
Ms Milner has already hinted she would be prepared to take the case further, and time is running out for the SHA to implement its plans.
The Government has announced all SHAs will be scrapped by spring next year, with powers over fluoride being handed to elected councils.
The leaders of both Southampton City and Hampshire County councils have told the Daily Echo they would ask the government to step in to stop health chiefs imposing fluoridation in the body's "dying days".
The project has been on hold since June 2009 because of the judicial review.
Health bosses initially said it would take more than 18 months to finalise the infrastructure needed to put fluoride in the water.
For full updates on
today's hearing, as well as
full background reports and
videos, log on to
dailyecho.co.uk.• By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
FINALLY - today is the day.
After years of fighting, months of delays, two days of legal argument and a further three weeks of waiting, campaigners and health chiefs will discover who has been victorious in the battle over controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water.
A High Court judge who last month presided over a landmark judicial review on the scheme, affecting nearly 200,000 residents in and around Southampton, was due to deliver his verdict on the case in London.
Mr Justice Edward Holman heard two days of arguments after the legal challenge was lodged by Southampton mum-of-three Gerri Milner.
Her lawyers believe South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should not have ignored public opposition to the plans to fluoridate two-thirds of the city, as well as parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
During a public consultation on the scheme, 72 per cent of respondents living in the affected areas said they were against fluoridat but the SHA board unanimously gave it the green light, saying they were convinced by the health benefits. A second string of Ms Milner's case is that the SHA also failed to properly evaluate some of the arguments lodged against the plans.
Barristers for the SHA, which set aside £400,000 to fight the judicial review, and the Government told the Royal Courts of Justice the
decision was legally correct.
Today's judgement comes almost two years after the SHA board voted to approve fluoridation, becoming the first health body to do so since the law was changed to give them the power to order water companies to add the chemical to supplies.
If the ruling goes against the SHA, it would almost certainly mean the scheme will be scrapped.""
But even if the authority wins, there is the chance it may still never happen.
Ms Milner has already hinted she would be prepared to take the case further, and time is running out for the SHA to implement its plans.
The Government has announced all SHAs will be scrapped by spring next year, with powers over fluoride being handed to elected councils.
The leaders of both Southampton City and Hampshire County councils have told the Daily Echo they would ask the government to step in to stop health chiefs imposing fluoridation in the body's "dying days".
The project has been on hold since June 2009 because of the judicial review.
Health bosses initially said it would take more than 18 months to finalise the infrastructure needed to put fluoride in the water.
For full updates on
today's hearing, as well as
full background reports and
videos, log on to
dailyecho.co.uk.

Judicial Review Judgement

We are advised judgment will be given tomorrow (Friday 11th February 2011) at 2.00pm in Court 49 of Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.

Dail Echo - Letter

Society demands better
I AGREE with Jenny Johnson's letter "Threat to Democracy" (January 28) saying that laws which empower the state to enforce medication without consent through drinking water, is against everything that a decent society stands for.
A competent ethical doctor would not prescribe for a person he's never met, with no control over dosage received and without knowing a person's general health or of any allergies they may have.
A previous leader of The National Pure Water Association wrote that there are over 40,000 published studies in scientific literature on the effects of fluorides on health. Many indicate very serious adverse effects on bone, thyroid, and stomach problems, lowered male fertility and lowered IQ in children.
She wrote that the fluorosilicate wastes from the phosphate fertilizer industry, which are used in water fluoridation schemes, are hazardous pollutants contaminated with arsenic, lead, beryllium, cadmium, vanadium, mercury and radionuclides. Arsenic and beryllium are known cancer-causers and lead and mercury are nerve toxins. A WILLS, address supplied.

Healthwatch: Fluoridation

Canada - Council makes right decision on the ethics of mass fluoridation

The moral imperative
Council makes right decision on the ethics of mass fluoridation
Calgary Herald February 8, 2011 10:00 PM
Calgary city council deserves praise for voting overwhelmingly Tuesday to remove fluoride from Calgary's drinking water. The 10-3 vote, with Mayor Naheed Nenshi absent for meetings in Toronto, is a courageous step on a contentious issue.
Despite pressure from the scientific establishment to keep fluoridation, council made the right decision.
Imposing mass fluoridation on an entire population is ethically questionable.
With the many widespread topical applications of fluoride that are available today, we have argued that fluoridation is a vestige from another era and that fluoride should be removed from Calgary's water -- as it has in other cities and in nations that include Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and Finland.
In 2004, British forensic ecologist Douglas W. Cross and Robert J. Carton, a risk assessment manager for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, forcefully argued that fluoridation is a violation of medical ethics and human rights.
Because it administers fluoride to large populations "without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner, fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity," they wrote. "The ethical validity of fluoridation policy does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics."
Calgary city council wisely decided not to refer the issue to University of Calgary medical experts who offered to educate them on the benefits of fluoridation.
Judging from the public comments by some of those experts, the U of C review likely would have been a predictable reaffirmation of the benefits of fluoridation from the scientific establishment. Calgary aldermen showed they are quite capable, thank you very much, of reviewing the literature already widely available.
Last year, for instance, the European Union's scientific panel did an exhaustive review of the evidence and concluded that there are no risks to most of the population when acceptable fluoride levels of less than 0.8 parts per million are ingested in drinking water. Calgary has 0.7 parts per million.
However, the EU science panel also concluded that "topical application is the more efficient measure."
And, in the critical risk group of children, it said that "a very narrow margin exists between achieving the maximal beneficial effects of fluoride in caries prevention and the adverse effects of dental fluorosis."
The report also said there may be risks to children up to age 12 who consume large amounts of water and use more than the recommended doses of fluoridated toothpaste.
The scientific establishment invokes the precautionary principle to justify fluoridation, saying that it benefits the poor and disadvantaged who cannot afford fluoride treatments.
Yet, if there are risks to an age-specific demographic that may ingest potentially harmful amounts of fluoride when not supervised, there must be a moral imperative to respect the autonomy of individuals to choose not to consume it.
Calgary council wisely realized that forcing everyone to swallow fluoride, rather than applying it to their teeth, is wrong.
Council deserves praise for making this decision

House of Lords

House of Lords
Written answers and statements, 7 February 2011
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley (Crossbench)To ask Her Majesty's Government what effect the lowering in 2007 of the concentration of fluoride in the water supply in the Republic of Ireland from 1.0 to 0.7 parts per million, the recent similar lowering in Canada, the current proposals for a lowering to 0.7 in the United States, and the setting of an upper limit of 0.8 ppm under the European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulations 2007, has had on their stance on the suggestion by the York report on water fluoridation in 2000 that the concentration in the United Kingdom might be lowered to around 0.8 ppm.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in considering the concentration of fluoride in water supplies in the United Kingdom, they have assessed which other countries in the same geographical latitude as England continue to fluoridate their water supplies at a concentration of 1 part per million.

Hansard source (Citation: HL Deb, 7 February 2011, c18W)Earl Howe (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Quality), Health; Conservative)

The European Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption sets a maximum limit of 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre of water. In 2007, following a review of water fluoridation in Eire, the Government of the Republic of Ireland amended Irish regulations, entitled the European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulations 2007, to state:

"The amount of fluoride which may be added to public water supplies shall be such that the water, after the addition of the fluoride, shall contain not more than 0.8 milligrams of fluoride per litre of water, and not less than 0.6 milligrams of fluoride per litre (mg/l) of water".

We understand that in Canada, which like Ireland is on a similar latitude to the United Kingdom, the Government have adopted a maximum concentration of 0.7 milligrams per litre.

The Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation undertaken by the University of York recommended:

"Future studies should address the impact of using lower levels of water fluoride content, such as 0.8ppm in a formal way in conjunction with an efficacy study".

In this connection, we will be carefully considering the Department of Health and Human Services' proposals for the USA and the outcome of its consultation, to decide whether any changes should be made to the target concentration used in England.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley (Crossbench)
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 7 December 2010 (WA 34-5), in which subsection of Section 12 of the York report A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation can be found the statement appearing on the website of the National Fluoride Information Centre that areas of past concern about fluoridation no longer require further investigation.
...
Earl Howe (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Quality), Health; Conservative)

We accept that there is no reference in the York report to support this statement. We have written directly to the National Fluoride Information Centre to amend its website.

Diet, Injections and Injunctions - Sunday Update 2/06/11

USA - "I meet children who have no idea how to use a toothbrush," Johnson said.

........Last month at Boone Trail Elementary School in Harnett County, she coaxed shy children closer and shined a flashlight in their mouths to see whether they'd visited a dentist since she sent a note home to their parents. Last fall, she flagged major dental problems in 76 children, about 14 percent of the student body.

"I meet children who have no idea how to use a toothbrush," Johnson said.

In the last two years, she has noticed more cavities, more infections, all signs of poor oral hygiene and lack of dental care.

She knows the economy is the root. As families lost their jobs, they lost their insurance. When families struggle, Johnson said, dental care always falls to the bottom of the priority list.

The water is fluoridated in Lillington, NC where this school is located.NYSCOF

Daily Echo - Do we really matter?

Do we really matter?
TRYING to get away from the health benefits, or lack of them arid also the lack of acceptance of the local opinion, I wonder how much say the SHA has in their personal choices as they are a quango and will remain loyal to their paymasters. They had their dictats.
As the fluoride they intend to use is a poisonous by-product of industry which would be horrendously expensive to get rid of in any other way, did the previous Government decide to let us be contaminated by this poison as a profit making way of disposition?
They would NEVER be allowed to dump it into the sea, where the bulk of it will eventually end up so they would charge us for the privilege of helping them to dispose of it. I have read a lot of public opinion in this paper, but the politicians and water companies seem to prefer to keep their own council. Is that because we don't really matter?
KEVIN BARBER,
Bitterne, Southampton.

Cheshire fluoride controversy

UK - Cheshire fluoride controversy
Cheshire fluoride controversy

..........Water fluoridation is currently a hot topic after a denizen of Southampton began legal action in January challenging a 2009 move by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) to add fluoride to the water supply in Southampton.

A denizen - surely a citizen??

No Community Vote - Fluoride for Port Macquarie looks certain.

Listen to this - politicians for you.

Fluoride in Calgary water debate

Dentists call for free toothpaste and meet the dentist sessions for kids

Dentists call for free toothpaste and meet the dentist sessions for kids

Dentists are calling for free toothpaste, educational lessons and meet the dentist sessions to try and combat tooth decay amongst children.

Figures show that children are requiring complex, painful treatment from a very early age; some specialists have reported seeing children as young as two and three years old needing tooth extractions due to extensive decay.

Tooth decay is the most common preventable childhood illness; spending a few minutes each day cleaning and rinsing the teeth, visiting a dentist on a regular basis and avoiding sugary foods will help to protect the teeth and reduce the risk of decay and other dental health problems. The formula for keeping teeth healthy is simple; however, many young children are suffering from dental health conditions.

Dentists are attributing the high rates of decay to a lack of oral hygiene, a poor diet, containing lots of sweet, sugary foods and fizzy drinks and a lack of regular visits to the dentist. In order to combat dental health problems amongst young children, dentists are calling for free toothbrushes and toothpaste for families and urging nursery workers, parents and childminders to stop rewarding children with chocolate and sweets and to supervise them brushing their teeth; dentists are also keen to promote preventative dental treatments, such as fluoride varnish.

The recent calls come from Manchester dentists, Dr Gill Davies and Dr Collette Bridgeman; writing in the British Dental Journal, the dentists urge parents to take responsibility of their children’s oral hygiene routine as early as possible, encourage children to eat healthily and take them for regular dental check-ups. Parents must teach children about oral health from an early age and dentists are keen for primary school children to meet local dentists and learn about the importance of good oral health.

The article comes on the back of the successful Manchester Smiles campaign, which was launched last year. 6,000 children now have supervised teeth cleaning sessions, 200,000 families have received free toothpaste and toothbrushes and local dental practices have been working with primary schools in the area.