Totton & Eling Town Council has struck a double blow

Totton Town Council Moves Against Fluoride Plans
Thursday, March 31, 2011, 11:05a.m
Totton & Eling Town Council has struck a double blow to defend the town against fluoridated tap water.

By a large majority, at a meeting of the full Town Council last night, members supported a proposal that the council no longer recognise the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) and that they mount a legal challenge on the basis that fluoride, when added to tap water, should be classed as a medicine and therefore subject to regulation and rules of consent.

The proposals were put forward by Town, District and County Councillor David Harrison, a long-term campaigner against the plans. He said “ The first part of the proposal is a slap in the face of the SHA, a token gesture to make them realise that the council holds them in contempt for the manner in which they have behaved, tryng to impose this upon the population without consent. The legal challenge may involve other councils. We seek to demonstrate, with a legal ruling, that adding fluoride to tap water to treat a disease is indeed medicating. With the SHA set to be abolished within 12 months, we are hoping that this will be enough to see off the threat of water fluoridation”.

Canada - Couple could face jail time; pet with new family

Maple Ridge dog’s dental woes net animal cruelty charges
Couple could face jail time; pet with new family
Pudding, a black terrier, had to have 14 of its teeth pulled after dental problems went untreated.Photograph by: Submitted, SPCAA Maple Ridge couple is facing animal cruelty charges after their dog’s untreated dental problems got so bad its teeth were rotting and 14 teeth had to be pulled....

Yet parents never get fined or gaoled for allowing their children to suffer.

Daily Echo letters

Your fluoride views
I WOULD like to comment on the front page of the Echo, dated March 23, headlined "Fluoride will go ahead". So the SHA seem determined to put this toxic waste into our water supply before they go in 2012.
I phoned the SHA and told them that you don't need to fluoridate our water now because, on the other page of the Echo, it said that 14,000 new NHS dentist places were now available around the Southampton area, so we will have enough dental care.
There was a very long pause on the phone and all the reply I got was "Oh, I haven't seen that report yet". Also, the question I would like to have answered is who will take responsibility for this fluoride if we get overdosed with it? If it does go in, that is.
Somebody has got to take full responsibility for this and the SHA won't be around to do that. How convenient. Also, I phoned the water company to ask questions, but they just said that I had to phone the health authorities. But I wanted to speak to someone at the water company; after all, I am their paying customer, but they would not talk to me. They have been given orders that all queries go to the health authorities.
Why? Are. they so governed by those people. I still don't see why the water companies can't say no as they are the ones who have the responsibility for keeping our water safe for us to drink, so they will not be doing their job. The water company is stall a private company so why not say no? Also, why are they keeping so quiet about all this. They have admitted only one response and that is that they don't want it really, so, again, why don't they stand with the people and refuse this stupid proposal.
We are their paying customers and many people don't want to pay for added fluoride. The water company should be listening to us as the SHA never has. We pay the company to keep our water pure. That is what we all request.
MRS KINCHINGTON,
Address supplied.

In my view
Amanda Roussos
complementary therapist from Whitenap near Romsey
Chemistry isn't right
I FIND the whole fluoride issue very scary on a number of levels, but mainly because it seems to me it is a simple choice. If the individual wants to fluoridate their water, that is up to them. It doesn't have to be done on a mass level.
We have been asked our opinion and made it clear we are against it. For any authority to go against that opinion is the action of a police state and, unfortunately, we are seeing this attitude increasingly from government.
The idea of a mass experiment on a random sector of the general public smacks of a war crime in peace time, especially in view of the fact that fluoride is poisonous.
Who are these people and how did they get into positions of authority? It is a non-starter, so what is going on?
It is difficult to find toothpaste without fluoride as it is. This being the case, if our dental health hasn't improved with the used of fluoridated toothpaste, why would it do so if it was put in the water?
It is generally accepted that most people in hospital die as a result of the effects of their medication rather than their health problem itself; do we not have the right to choose any more?
The Government wants us to take more responsibility for ourselves but keeps taking away our freedom of choice. Surely it is the responsibility of each individual to look after their teeth in the manner they see fit and if the food industry started to put fresh wholesome food on the supermarket shelves, grown and nurtured and presented for consumption in the way nature intended, maybe our teeth wouldn't be in the state they are. The common factor coming from this is the word "chemical". What a surprise!
The bottom line is that the Government is giving permission for the water companies to poison us, in the full knowledge of what they are doing, and then saying we can't sue.
Does the Government represent the people or the chemical companies, and who has power over whom?
The whole situation is so farcical, and illogical, that someone somewhere has to be making vast amounts of money or have ulterior motives.
We are at the top of a very slippery downward slope and I would like to see government start taking full responsibility for their actions.
I also find it interesting that the latest CAP rulings and the way they are being followed through, are equally illogical and also allegedly being done for the protection of the public and similarly have a link back to Pharmaceuticals. It is just a thought or am I not allowed to think anymore?
Who is kidding whom? There is something very wrong here.

I would like to know what authority the SHA have in contaminating my water supply, I purchase my water from the water board, uncontaminated.
I pay for it, not the SHA. Is it legal for them to be allowed to interfere with something which I have purchased without my permission?
What would they do if they went out for a meal and when it was served they found that it had been covered with a sauce which they didn't want? Would they pay for it? Of course not. If the SHA want to contaminate my drinking water then they should pay my water bill. BOB GRANT, Address supplied.
• I READ with dismay the disturbing and thought provoking letters from A wills and Mrs Henderson (Soapbox - Fluoride March 24), about tooth veneers and fluoridated water in catering establishment respectively. I wonder if someone could tell me whether the White Swan in Mansbridge will be affected by fluoridation it it goes ahead? If so, I shall not be going there in the future. I feel very disappointed at the thought as my family have enjoyed many happy times there over many years. Through no fault of their own, they will have lost our custom. I do hope the MP reads this letter. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED

• REFERENCE fluoridation - what does SHA expect children to do just because the water is fluoridated if they do not drink water now?
Are they going to stop drinking soft drinks and religiously clean their teeth just because you fluoridate our water. I don't think so, which defeats the object of fluoridation.
M LAST, Southampampton

This next letter from Mr "Maldents" was printed so to be fair here it is even if his arguments are not.
« I WOULD like to add my voice to those opposing the introduction of fluoride to our water.
Seventy-two per cent of the one per cent who responded to the SHA consultation were against this so this means everybody is against it. If fluoride is heavily diluted in water it becomes as toxic as lead, but I will continue to use concentrated fluoride in toothpaste as I always avoid swallowing any toothpaste as it is harmless. In fact, instead of adding fluoride to the water supply to poison our children, we should encourage them to use it in concentrated form by brushing their teeth more often. The British Dental Association is in favour of adding fluoride to our water supply, but I have decided not to listen to them as I saw an obscure website on the internet which said it was dangerous. The vocal public demonstrations led by non-dentists and uninformed scaremongering members of the public are what we should be listening to.
The USA has had fluoride for many decades and, as we all know, thousands there die every year from fluoride poisoning. Furthermore, fluoride contains long-name-scary-sounding-oxide, so it must be dangerous. Fluoride is a chemical by-product and as this also sounds a bit scary, it makes me want to oppose it. We must all join together to stop this as fluoride is a bigger menace than Nick Clegg, nuclear weapons and Simon Cowell combined. MR D MALDENTS, Southampton.

Fluoride Calcifies Your Pineal Gland

Daily Echo - SHA has callously disregarded wishes of the people

SHA has callously disregarded wishes of the people ...
The SHA have no mandate to push ahead THE STRATEGIC Health Authority (SHA) has callously disregarded the wishes of the people. Virtually every elected body and MP representing 200,000 people condemn having fluoride added to the tap water.
They know that the law has been badly framed, evidenced by MPs and even Prime Ministers who have stated publicly that it is an issue that local people should decide upon. They have done so... by a 72 per cent majority against. The SHA won't exist beyond 12 months. Are they really serious?
In its dying moments, do they want to spend yet more public money trying to force through something that is so clearly not wanted?
I shall be doing everything I can to stop them,
COUNTY COUNCILLOR DAVID HARRISON, Totton.

Ralph Nader on Water Fluoridation

Same situation in the USA as here.

Dr. Cathie Lippman, MD: Remove Home-Based Poisons For Better Health

Daily Echo - Letters

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

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

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

USA - Hazmat crews were called to the Rock Island water treatment plant

ROCK ISLAND— It was just before one o'clock Thursday afternoon when hazmat crews were called to the Rock Island water treatment plant for a chemical spill coming from a tanker truck.
"It's a corrosive agent that the water treatment plant uses, overflow caused spillage out of the building onto driveway behind me" said Rock Island assistant fire chief Jeff Yerkey.
As plant employees evactuated, crews began suiting up, working quickly to stop the leak that had begun eating through concrete.
"They stopped the leak using some earthen berms, dirt, sand and commercial boom equipment. We had it pretty much contained to this facility within a short amount of time" said Yerkey.
The chemical, Hydrofluorosilicic acid is used to add fluoride to the plants water. Although it poses a burn risk to skin, those living nearby were in no immediate danger.
"There's no inhalation hazard at all so no need for us to evacuate the residences."
After several hours crews were able to clean up the leak, allowing operations to return to normal.
"Had to close off area but as far as treatment of water and amount being used by the public, no effect on it at all" said Yerkey.
No word on how much of the chemical actually spilled

Daily Echo - Fluoride: By gum it's complicated

Fluoride: By gum it's complicated
NEWS that health bosses are determined to go ahead with plans to add fluoride to the Southampton city regional water supply should not surprise us one drop.
The fact the South West Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has already fought and won one highly expensive legal battle at tax-payers' expense to stay on course with their controversial scheme is a good indicator that they mean business.
Only an appeal against the rejected private judicial review brought by local
mum Gerri Milner stands between the health authority and its highly unpopular plans to add the controversial chemical to tap water.
This week the Daily Echo reported that in an answer to Hampshire County Council it confirmed it was still making plans in readiness for the switch-on despite the fact the SHA itself will he abolished within the next 12 months. The admission was greeted with dismay from protesters and local politicians in Southampton and the wider county. But no one will surely have been surprised by the fact
An authority that has gone this far with its scheme is unlikely to do an
about-turn now, even if its dogged stance in the face of howling opposition is seen more as stubbornness if not fanaticism than a principled stand. The final outcome of the saga is difficult to call. The legal appeal may yet delay the introduction of fluoride long enough for the SHA to ride into oblivion. The appeal may well be upheld, in which the project is dead in the still untainted waters.
But what if the chemical is added shortly before the SHA is abolished?
With power passing into the hands of local authorities for such matters, and with Southampton City Council's Tory leadership now openly against the
scheme without a full public referendum (which will be lost), can't they just simply switch off the fluoride once they get their hands on the taps?
The answer is not a simple 'yes or no'. The exact detail of any new powers given to local authorities has yet to be decided by Parliament. And in a throwaway line the council's deputy leader Councillor Jeremy Moulton yesterday admitted that it "would not be very sensible" if the chemical was introduced at great expense and then had to be switched off at further great expense. For a seasoned council-watcher like myself I read that as a 'definite maybe', and 'we certainly want a referendum vote from the public to spend the cash'.
If the SHA does win the immediate race then we can look forward to several months, maybe as much as a year's worth of fluoridated water being pumped through the region's taps. The time to invest in shares in bottle water companies is rapidly approaching.

Lymington Times - NHS 'bound' to continue on fluoridation, says chief

NHS 'bound' to continue on fluoridation, says chief
THE NHS chief in charge of adding fluoride to the drinking water of 8,000 Totton residents has signalled the scheme will press ahead after a High Court bid failed to stop it.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave approval last year to add the controversial chemical to 190,000 people's supply around Southampton, which was put on hold until the judicial review in February.
Officially, the SHA said its board believed fluoride was safe and it was "considering its next steps" — but a letter from its chief executive, Andrea Young, to county councillors showed detailed planning was starting.
She wrote to Hampshire's health overview and scrutiny committee: "Our view is that this scheme has been consulted on in accordance with the current legislation and that we are bound to follow through on the results."
She said the SHA would be working on a plan and costs with Southern Water, and added: "The dental health of children in the Southampton area remains poor as it had been previously.
"Hundreds of children a year still require a general anaesthetic for the extraction of diseased teeth and we believe that there is still a need for water fluoridation."
The scheme was proposed by Southampton Primary Care Trust in 2009 but opponents resent "forced medication" and have lodged an
appeal against their loss in the High Court.
Last year opponents gathered a 15,000-name petition against fluoride and during consultation 72% of responses objected; although a Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38% against.
The chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Stephen Peckham, said: "I think the letter restates what the SHA's position has been all along—that come what may they will go ahead with this.
"It's a public health initiative that
is of dubious benefit and the arguments are extremely weak and it causes harm. If water fluoridation goes, in, we will get fluorosis and some children's teeth will be damaged — we know this.
"I think big questions about both the economic costs and feasibility of the scheme remain unanswered."
The SHA's next meeting will be on March 31st where the board is expected to discuss the outcome of the High Court case and its next move.

Daily Echo - We'd throw fluoridation out with the SHA

HEALTH chiefs are wasting time and money pressing ahead with plans to fluoridate water supplies - because council bosses would be able to simply switch it off again once they are handed public health powers, it was claimed last night.
South Central Strategic Health Authority has insisted it wants to go ahead with the scheme to add the chemical to tap water, saying it is needed to improve poor dental health in Southampton.
There are just months left before strategic health authorities are axed and their powers over public health are handed over to elected councillors.
The law is not yet in place, as the Health and Social Care Bill 2010-11, which includes the proposal to axe SHAs, is currently at the committee stage in Parliament. A Department of Health spokeswoman said the details would only be thrashed out once the bill has passed. She added that no decision has been made on how that secondary legislation process will be completed and whether councils will be given the chance to have their say in how their powers are shaped. But if the law
remains the same, even if the SHA is successful in getting fluoride into the water supply before it is scrapped, campaigners claim council bosses would be able to simply stop buying the chemical once they are in charge.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said: "It could be done simply, subject to their will to do it.
"If they don't think it is cost effective, they could cease water fluoridation, based on the law as it stands."
"Even if they have to go to consultation, if the law stays the same that consultation
would surely mean they just have to stand outside the Civic Centre and ask someone what they think and that would be enough."
Southampton's deputy leader Jeremy Moulton said last night the council is "looking into" its legal position before any decision on how to proceed can be made.
He said: "If they put it in at considerable expense and then the council takes it out again at great expense that would not be very sensible.
"I would be making the case to the SHA that it would be crazy to make the decision and have it reversed.

Daily Echo letters

Click to enlarge.

Daily Echo - In my view

Fight against fluoride will not go away
David Harrison
I attended a packed meeting organised by the campaign group “Hampshire Against Fluoride” in Southampton today.

From the constant stream of letters on the subject to The Daily Echo and attendance at these public meetings it is clear that the campaign to stop mass medication of our drinking water is not going to go away. I was particularly impressed that there were more people present from my home town of Totton than attended our Annual Town Council meeting in the week. A lot of people are very strongly motivated to fight these plans.

The body trying to impose this upon an unwilling population, the Strategic Health Authority, is due to be abolished within a year. It remains to be seen whether they will cotinue to press ahead, especially as any future decision making powers are likely to rest with local authorities who are against the plans or, in the case of Southampton City Council, won't go ahead without consent via a referendum.

The meeting heard from a dentist who is very strongly opposed to adding fluoride to the the tap water. He raised some interesting points that deserve consideration by a wider audience. The British Dentist Association, who support the plans, are sponsored by Colgate, producers of toothpaste with fluoride added to the product.

Fluoride is certainly a poisonous substance. It sits between Arsenic and Lead in terms of how toxic it is. The fact that it occurs naturally in some water does not in any way reduce the hazard. For example, in Bangladesh, arsenic occurs naturally in water and needs to be removed for public health reasons. Worryingly, it appears about 50% of fluoride we ingest is absorbed into the body and the dentist believes it impacts on the ability of the body to fight cancer.

A great many people attending the meeting could not understand how MP's have managed to frame the law in such a way as to leave the decision about putting fluoride in tap water with an unelected quango. They also felt that fluoride should be treated as a medicine, not simply an additive. It's planned to add it to the water to treat a disease, why then isn't it classed as a medicine and subject to all the usual licensing regulation and rules of consent?

Between 10% and 15% of the population have no teeth and use dentures. There is no benefit to them whatsoever from adding fluoride to tap water, why then should they be forced to accept risks to their health?

Adding fluoride to tap water also means there is no way of regulating exactly how much dosage of this industrial waste product each individual will get. There was huge suspicion, both about the true motivations of the industrialists keen to sell this material and complete bypassing of the democratic and regulatory systems.

If Southampton is seen is seen as a test area for fluoride, it's clear to me that the public won't swallow it!

To print off form go to URL below

City Council Petition Form - on Scribd


City Council Petition Form for those at Eastleigh and Totton - on Scribd

Daily Echo - Pure Arrogance

It's pure arrogance.
By Jon Reeve and Matt Smith
newsdesk@dailyecho.co.uk
HEALTH bosses were last night accused of arrogance after revealing they are ploughing ahead with controversial plans to add fluoride to water supplies.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) wants to bring in the scheme that will affect 200,000 people in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams as soon as possible even though it is still subject to a legal appeal.
Campaigners and politicians last night said they were outraged at the unelected body's move, which comes just a year before it is due to be scrapped by the Government and powers over fluoridation are passed to local councils.
The decision to press ahead with fluoridation emerged in a letter from SHA chief executive Andrea Young to Hampshire County Council. She wrote that the authority "will put a project in place that will specify the stages required in the next few months," including work with Southern Water to discover how much the scheme will cost.
Ms Young said the SHA still believes fluoridation is needed because "the dental health of children in the Southampton area remains as poor. She went on: "Our view is that this scheme has been consulted on in accordance with the current legislation and that we are bound to follow through on the results."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said there was absolutely no justification for fluoridation to go ahead.
He said Southampton's dental health figures were no longer below national average, adding: "If they go ahead now it's absolutely appalling. Any justification they had has gone, all the councils, the MPs and the majority of local people are against it and they're acting in defiance."
Southampton mum Gerri Milner last month lost her judicial review case arguing the SHA should not have ignored public opinion in making its decision to go ahead with the plans. But she has appealed against the High Court judge's decision not to allow her legal challenge that the authority board members failed to properly consider all the evidence. That appeal has not yet been heard.
When the judicial review decision was made the SHA said it would consider its next steps, but consistently refused to answer any further questions.
Southampton City Council leader Royston Smith said: "It is perverse for a quango in its death throes to be carrying out anything as controversial and significant as adding fluoride to our water when it has caused so much controversy and opposition."
He slammed the secret planning which had prompted his deputy Jeremy Moulton to pen a letter this week demanding to know what was happening.
Cllr Moulton, who was last night waiting for a response, accused authority chiefs of being "extremely arrogant and undemocratic". "We are furious they did not tell us about this directly, that we had to hear about it second hand and it had to be dragged out of them," he said.
He vowed: "We will object in the strongest possible terms. We will do everything we can to get them to change their position."
Cllr Pat West, chairman of the county council's health scrutiny committee, said everyone at the authority would be "very disappointed" by the SHA's decision, adding: "I would really like clarification over how and when it is going to be done. They've made a stand and they've stuck to it, but they don't seem to have listened to the other aspects that people want to have the choice."

Hampshire Against Fluoridation Part 4

Hampshire Against Fluoridation Part 3

Daily Echo Comment

Fluoride: Another fundamental twist
IT is a strange state of affairs. The weekend saw a public meeting called by those objecting to proposals to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply which launched a petition demanding the city council takes action.
If the petition manages to obtain the signatures of a one per cent of the city's population - some 2,367 people - then the council will be forced to hold a 15-minute debate on the subject.
At this debate objectors would be allowed to present their case in the hope of obtaining a firm commitment from the council to block the fluoride plan.
However, attending this weekend's meeting was the council's deputy leader Jeremy Moulton, who gave assurances that the council would indeed block the introduction of the chemical if the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) had ceased to exist before implementing the scheme.
With power over the proposals passing to the city council when the SHA is abolished, this would seem to be a fairly watertight pledge to shut the project down before it gets started.
The question, however, is what will anyone be able to do if the scheme has begun before the SHA fades into history?
Will the city council be able to pull the plug then, and at what cost?
Once started, can the fluoride taps be turned off? So far this remains unclear, but what is crystal is that this whole debate is set to take yet another fundamental twist.

Daily Echo - 'Sign up for new fluoride debate'

'Sign up for new fluoride debate'
By Julian Robinson
CAMPAIGNERS have launched the latest weapon in their battle against plans to add fluoride to Southampton's tap water.
They have started a petition that would force city councillors to hold a fresh debate on the issue having previously voted in favour of the controversial proposal.
Anti-fluoride protesters now need one per cent of Southampton's population of 236,700 to sign up.
By law, the council would then have to debate fluoridation for at least 15 minutes and campaigners would have the right to give a five-minute presentation.
The petition was unveiled at a public meeting of Hampshire Against
Fluoridation ,(HAF) in Southampton. HAF has been at the forefront of the fight against plans approved by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to add fluoride to water delivered to nearly 200,000 residents in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
More than 100 people were at St Andrew's Church Hall in The Avenue for the public meeting on Saturday.
Local dentist Zac Cox - an opponent of the scheme -was a guest speaker at the free event.
HAF chairman Stephen Peckham said: "Our battle is now political. The law is so heavily weighted in favour of the people making the decision they don't have to pay attention to local views. We would like to see that changed, we don't think it is fair."
He described the turnout at the meeting as "brilliant" and said it showed people were still angry over the issue.
As reported, a legal challenge is still being fought against fluoridation, which health chiefs want to bring in to improve children's teeth across the area.
Southampton mum Gerri Milner last month lost a judicial review over whether the SHA should have been able to ignore widespread public opposition to the plans when its board approved it.
But she has lodged an appeal against the High Court judge's decision that the authority fully assessed all the evidence that was submitted during a public consultation.
The plans have been on hold for nearly two years while the legal challenge has gone through the courts.
The SHA, which is due to be scrapped by the Government as soon as next spring, has said it still believes fluoridation is beneficial, but is currently considering its next steps over the plans. When it is abolished the city council will become responsible for public health schemes such as fluoridation.
City councillors backed fluoridation in 2008 but more recently said they would hold a referendum before the scheme was implemented.
The petition can be signed online at southampton.gov.uk. Paper copies are available from Hampshire Against Fluoridation by ringing 023 8049 3776.

Hampshire Against Fluoridation Part 2

Hampshire Against Fluoridation Part 1

People Say No to Fluoride in Water Study

People Say No to Fluoride in Water Study
March 19th, 2011, posted by Dental Health Magazine staff
The Hampshire Health Department decided to conduct a health study, which made citizens get raged.
The test supposes to add fluoride to tap water, in order to see its effects on people’s health.
Fluoridated water is known to have very negative effects on health, especially on the teeth.
The general feeling of the Hampshire residents is that they do not want to become the guinea pigs of the DoH.
They also believe that consuming water with high fluoride content will result in devastating health problems in the long run.
Furthermore, people do not want their children exposed to health risks for the sake of a study.
The teeth of smaller children are extremely sensitive as it is, and fluoride water would only make it worse for them.
Further medical studies show that the ingestion of fluoride has very harmful effects on the internal organs of both children and adults.
Currently, the action of the DoH is put on hold, since the news has generated a tough judicial battle between residents and the state.
The tests would have been run in the following regions: Totton, Natley, Southampton and Easleigh.
Health authorities should never disregard the public opinion, especially when it comes to “testing” their health.
Fluoride has harmful effects on the human system and oral health especially.
Pitting and mottling are only two such effects of fluoride on teeth.
Some people may show hypersensitivity to this kind of compounds, thing which may bring about untold harm to their general health.

Glasgow given "all-clear" over tap water

19 March 2011
Glasgow given "all-clear" over tap water
Scottish Water vans are touring affected areas broadcasting warnings.
Householders to the north of Glasgow who had problems with their water supplies on Friday have now been told its safe to drink.
About 12,000 householders were told not to drink tap water after high aluminium levels were detected.
Scottish Water said aluminium compounds were not removed because of an "operational issue".....

Wales - Dentist says 'fluoridation' will help deprived kids

New research released this week indicates children's dental health in Wales suffers as a result of their deprived background.
The study revealed only half of the Welsh population has access to an NHS dentist.
It also showed more than three quarters of children under the age of 15 in the least deprived areas of Wales paid a visit to their NHS dentist compared to only 62% in the most deprived areas, pointing to a clear trend in attendance related to income deprivation.
While the results did not show any trends in adults, the overall level of dental health in Wales has raised concerns within the profession.
Dentists in Wales have already called on the Welsh Assembly to address the growing inequalities that exist, particularly at a time of increased financial constraint.
The calls come after the Adult Dental Health Survey, released in December last year, showed a significant gap between standards of oral health in Wales, Northern Ireland and England; England and Northern Ireland had lower rates of decay and the number of people without any natural teeth was much higher in Wales.
In Wales, 10% of the survey participants had no natural teeth; this was considerably higher than in England, where the figure was 6%.
Chief executive of the British Dental Health Foundation, Dr Nigel Carter, believes the study shows more urgent action is required.
Dr Carter said: 'Although Wales has frozen its dental prices for the forthcoming year, the notion that people aren't visiting their dentist due to the fees incurred is having a detrimental impact on the overall oral health of the nation. It is particularly alarming to see children under the age of 15 suffering with poor oral health.'
With the Welsh Assembly yet to discuss plans to fluoridate their water supply, Dr Carter thinks this could significantly improve the oral health across the country.
'Fluoridation is the most important single measure that the UK Government and Welsh Assembly can take to bring a substantial change in the nation's dental health.
'The Foundation is calling for the Assembly to facilitate the rapid introduction of fluoride into the nation's water supplies, particularly in areas of social and economic deprivation.'

Dr Nigel Carter knows best - Fluoridation is like the many headed Greek serpent as fast as you cut off one head there is another to replace it.




This an annual statement of the British Dental Health

Daily Echo - The facts about fluoride

The facts about fluoride
I am a retired community pharmacist and will give my opinion based on fact. After fluoride toothpaste was first introduced, not every make contained sodium fluoride, but eventually they all did, bar one.
It was discovered, after a certain time lapse, that the amount of dental care was showing a reduction, which I am sure any dentist would confirm. American soldiers at war in Vietnam were given
a fluoride compound to paint on their teeth to protect them.
By applying fluoride, typically, very little is absorbed into the system and, consequently, it does not enter the growth cycle, affecting composition of teeth and bones, especially in young developing infants. However, parents do have a choice. They can walk into a pharmacy, and ask for fluoride tablets. My Portchester pharmacy used to stock them. The packs are small tubs of 200 very low-strength tablets for infants, with directions on dosage for different ages, for use in areas where the water is known not to be fluoridated. It is then the decision of the parents: they have control.
If fluoride is taken in drinking water, it may be calcium fluoride, or a compound which will link with calcium. It is not only deposited in teeth, but in bones, which will lessen the strength of bone material.
For healthy teeth and bones, children should be given milk every day, a rich source of calcium. Schoolchildren used to be given milk at school every day, but that was stopped in the 1980s.
My grandchildren, now aged three, five and seven, were started using a soft toothbrush and children's fluoride toothpaste, twice a day, as soon as they had teeth. The problem is educating the parents who don't do this. Instead of spending money on a risky experiment, it could be used to send information leaflets, through schools, to the parents.
MR R UNDERHILL PhC,
Retired community pharmacist.

Lymington Times - Anti-fluoride group campaign meeting

Anti-fluoride group campaign meeting
CAMPAIGNERS against adding fluoride to the water supply of 190,000 residents, including 8,000 in Totton, are holding a meeting today (Saturday). Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAP) has arranged the event at St Andrew's church hall on The Avenue in Southampton between 2pm and 4pm.
The meeting will include a talk by local dentist Zac Cox who has spoken out against fluoridation, and HAF chairman Stephen Peckham.
Mr Peckham said: "While local people have no say over water fluoridation, Hampshire Against Fluoridation has vowed to continue its campaign.
"The current legislation effectively gives the strategic health authority carte blanche to ignore local people, councils, MPs and the latest scientific evidence and this is entirely unacceptable in a democratic society."

US Admits Fluoride is Damaging Society and Has Been A Big Experiment

Daily Echo letters

Where is the research?
THE West Midlands, Newcastle-on-Tyne and West Cumbria have been fluoridated since the 1960s. Why has no research has been carried out in these areas and why treat the children of Southampton as 'guinea pigs'?
No records have been kept of children in fluoridated areas with dental fluorosis. In fact, the BASCD who carry out dental surveys for their league tables instruct the dentists examining teeth "to count fluorosed teeth as sound".
Alan Johnson, when he was Secretary of State for Health, said he wanted to reduce social inequalities in dental health and give poor kids rich kids' teeth.
Fluoridation actually increases inequalities, the York Review said one in eight children in fluoridated areas will develop fluorosis of "aesthetic concern". In other words, they will need expensive cosmetic dentistry to hide the damage to their teeth.
Poor people will not be able to afford to pay for this treatment, the current costs for veneers is £600 to £1,000 per tooth and will last for about seven years. Our dental adviser says he would not veneer teeth until the child reaches 20 and their teeth are fully formed and they, not the NHS, will have to pay full costs of expensive treatment for the rest of their lives.
It is ironic that many of the 'fluoride pushers' who cause the unsightly dental fluorosis are actually dentists. They are also the only people licensed to hide the damage by veneering the teeth - a 'nice little earner'.
LIZ VAUGHAN, director, UK Councils Against Fluoridation.

Daily Echo - HAMPSHIRE: Protesters hold meeting to discuss latest moves in campaign against water fluoridation

HAMPSHIRE: Protesters hold meeting to discuss latest moves in campaign against water fluoridation
Where next in the fluoride fight?
EXCLUSIVE
By Jon Reeve
OPPONENTS of the controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water are holding a public meeting this weekend to discuss the next moves in their campaign.
Members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) are urging anyone angered by the scheme to join them at St Andrew's Church Hall, The Avenue, Southampton, from 2pm to 4pm tomorrow.
The group has been at the forefront of the fight against plans approved by South Central Strategic Health
Authority (SHA) to add fluoride to water delivered to nearly 200,000 residents in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
The free meeting will feature campaign news and information about how residents can help, and a talk from Zac Cox, a local dentist opposed to fluoridation. HAF chairman Stephen Peckham said: "While local people have no say over water fluoridation, Hampshire Against Fluoridation has vowed to continue its campaign. "The current legislation effectively gives the SHA carte blanche to ignore local people, councils, MPs and the latest scientific evidence, and this is entirely unacceptable in a democratic society."
As reported, a legal challenge is still being fought against the scheme, which health chiefs want to bring in to improve dental health in children.
Southampton mum Gerri Milner last month lost a judicial review over whether the SHA should have been able to ignore widespread public opposition to the plans when its board approved it.But she has lodged an appeal against the High Court judge's decision that the authority fully assessed all the evidence for and against it that was submitted during a public consultation. The plans have been on hold for nearly two years while the legal bid has gone through the courts. The SHA, which is due to be scrapped by the Government as soon as next spring, has said it still believes fluoridation is beneficial, but is currently considering its next steps over the plans.
Last week the Daily Echo revealed that the Department of Health is hoping the scheme could provide an opportunity to carry out research into dental fluorosis.
Campaigners say children will be affected by the problem, which is caused by ingesting too much fluoride and can range from white specks appearing on teeth to them being stained, mottled and pitted. • For information on Hampshire Against Fluoridation and the meeting, call 023 8049 3776.

House of Lords 16th March

Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in proposing that local authorities should in future be the lead commissioners for water fluoridation schemes in line with section 3.9 of the public consultation on the White Paper Healthy Lives, Healthy People, they will also provide that no new scheme should be introduced unless it can be shown that the local population is in favour.[HL7428]
16 Mar 2011 : Column WA67
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We will publish our proposals in due course. We have already indicated that we will be considering how account can be taken of the views of the people that would be affected by any proposed new fluoridation scheme.

Daily Echo - Fluoride forced on us

Fluoride forced on us
I DO not live in the area where they are planning to contaminate the water supply, a commodity you have got to use, but some of my family, including my little great grandson, are and are with the majority strongly opposed to it.
But now they are going ahead with it with the help of a judge.
How in God's name does an unelected bunch of people (SHA) have the right to force a medication down thousands of people when they don't need it or want it? Haven't they got any rights, including their human rights?
As I am well into my 80s I clearly remember the last war. I understood we were fighting for our freedom and democracy but after seeing the farce of this case and the direction our MPs are taking this once great country, I can honestly say I don't know why we even bothered.
MRS J SMITH, Fair Oak.

Infant formulas with fluoridated water increase risk of discolored teeth

Infant formulas with fluoridated water increase risk of discolored teeth
Written By: Nadia on March 13, 2011 0
All infant formulas, either concentrated or ready-to-feed, already contain some fluoride and, when routinely mixed with fluoridated water, increase the risk of dental fluorosis (discolored teeth), according to Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in a video commentary published on Medscape.com, March 8, 2011.

Fluoride, added to water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay, is also in food, beverages, dental products, medicines, and anesthesia and inhaled from ocean mist and air pollution. As a result, more than 41% of adolescents are fluoride-overdosed and afflicted with dental fluorosis – over 3% of it is moderate to severe (brown stains and pitting), according to the Centers for Disease Control.

The Environmental Protection Agency says, “Exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness.”

“However, no one is studying U.S. children with dental fluorosis to learn whether they also have fluoride-damaged bones or any other fluoride-induced health problems,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. “Absence of evidence shouldn’t be misinterpreted as absence of harm.”

According to a Journal of the American Dental Association study, “Most infants from birth to age 12 months who consume predominantly powdered and liquid concentrate formula are likely to exceed the upper tolerable limit [of fluoride] if the formula is reconstituted with optimally fluoridated water (0.7 – 1.2 ppm).” (October 2009)......

Southampton residents angry over fluoride decision

Southampton residents angry over fluoride decision
Local residents in Southampton are angry after a judge gave a water fluoridation scheme the green light.

Residents campaigned against the decision to add fluoride to local water supplies and took their case to court; however, a judge turned down their appeal, stating that the local authority had the power to decide whether or not fluoride should be added to municipal water supplies.

Now, residents feel like they are being treated as guinea pigs by the Department of Health, as heath chiefs are keen to conduct studies on dental fluorosis, a condition which can cause the teeth to appear mottled as a result of overexposure to fluoride. Local people say that it is not fair that children’s dental health will be risked in the name of research.

The plans will mean that 200,000 households in the Southampton area will receive fluoridated water. The Department of Health has confirmed that a major research project into fluorosis is currently underway and the new scheme in Southampton will provide valuable research opportunities. Doug Cross, from the UK Councils Against Fluoridation, said that it was illogical and potentially harmful for research to be carried out after the plan to fluoridate water supplies had already been given the green light; he believes that research should have been carried out before the plans were given the green light.

Daily Echo

Daily Echo
AT THE HEART OF THE SOUTH
This fluoride saga goes on and on
AS the debate over the plans to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply gushes on, a new and perhaps more disturbing question has arisen. Are the people of the city and the surrounding region about to be used as guinea pigs in a study Into the side effects of adding the chemical to a new population?
The Department of Health has admitted to this paper that it plans to use the addition of fluoride to survey incidence of dental fluorosis, side effects of adding the chemical to water supplies that can in extreme cases cause mottling and pitting of teeth.
The news will not bring comfort to a population that is already extremely sceptical over the benefits and indeed even the need for the measures being taken in their name. So far this whole saga has done little to progress the cause of dental care, nor the relationship that medical authorities and In some cases politicians have with the public at large.
Promises to block the addition of fluoride and consultation campaigns that have badly misfired have brought to an all-time low the public's faith in those who are making decisions over what amounts to mass medication.
It is time these proposals were hatted and a full and transparent debate allowed to take place.

Fluorisilicic acid for water fluoridation. What is it really?

Lymington Times

Daily Echo

Fluoridation By Jon Reeves
HEALTH bosses have been accused of wanting to use Hampshire residents as "guinea pigs" to test if putting fluoride in tap water causes damage to teeth, the Daily Echo can reveal.
The Department of Health hopes the controversial scheme in Southampton and the surrounding areas will help with studies into a condition called dental fluorosis. Angry opponents have described it as an "obscene experiment" that means young children could suffer problems with their teeth for the sake of research.
The plans to put fluoride into tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes are currently on hold because of a legal challenge.
CAMPAIGNERS have accused health bosses of wanting to use Hampshire residents as "guinea pigs" to test if fluoridating water causes damage to teeth, the Daily Echo can reveal.
The Department of Health (DoH) hopes the controversial scheme to add the chemical to tap water in and around Southampton will help with studies into dental fluorosis -which in extreme cases can cause mottling and pitting of teeth.
Angry opponents say it means children will be subjected to problems with their teeth for the sake of research.
As reported, the plans to put fluoride in tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams are currently on hold because of a legal challenge.
Southampton mum Gerri Milner last month lost a judicial review against South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) decision to approve the scheme despite widespread public opposition.
But she has since lodged an appeal against the High Court judge's ruling the authority's board members properly assessed all the evidence for and against fluoridation.
The SHA approved the scheme after "m
Southampton City Primary Care Trust asked it to consider introducing ' it in a bid to improve children's dental health. But opponents argue too much fluoride can lead to side effects, including fluorosis, which can range from slight discoloration of teeth to the cracking of enamel.
In a freedom of information request, the DoH was asked about the research that has been carried out into fluorosis since the Medical Research Council recommended in a 2002 study on fluoridation that more work be done looking at the problem.
The response said a "major current research project into the extent and severity of dental fluorosis" is currently being supported, which it is thought will cost £700,000.
It added: "As the Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation indicated, a new fluoridation scheme would provide an excellent opportunity to undertake prospective research and we are keeping closely in touch with developments on the proposed scheme for Southampton." Doug Cross, from UK Councils Against Fluoridation said research should have been done before a new scheme, not once it is in place.
He said: "Clearly the intent is to monitor the effects of this proposed new fluoridation project on the population of Southampton. "In real terms, this means it will concentrate principally on children, since older people already either have or do not have fluorosis -it's contracted either in the womb or during the first five or so years of childhood.
"So the children will be the guinea pigs in this obscene experiment."
New Forest East MP Julian Lewis, who has campaigned against the fluoridation scheme, said he could now raise the issue with ministers. He said: "Are they suggesting this scheme should go ahead to help them carry out research? If that's the case, it's outrageously arrogant.
"I'll be examining the response in detail, with a view to raising questions about it in Parliament."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said research already shows that increased fluoride in water leads to more cases of fluorosis. He said: "We know that water fluoridation substantially increases levels of dental fluorosis. Existing studies in other countries and the UK demonstrate that unequivocally.
"Some children are going to get fluorosis that will damage their teeth, and the whole scheme, from that point of view, is wrong. "We shouldn't be pursuing a scheme on the basis of doing research."

Dail Echo letter

Fluoride Deception video
I FEEL that the residents of Southampton have a right to know the following information, before Southampton City Council make the big mistake of allowing the hazardous toxic chemical fluoride into our drinking water. The fluoride they want to add to our water is actually a combination of hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride. They're chemicals which are classified as hazardous waste and when packaged for transportation, they must be labelled as poison and handled by workers wearing industrial safety gear! The Fluoride Deception is the latest mini documentary from Mike Adams, executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center. Through the use of animation and motion graphics, it exposes the truth about where fluoride really comes from: the toxic byproducts of the phosphate mining industry! The video itself can be found at: naturalnews. tv/v.asp?v. SALLY PHILLIPS, Southampton.

NHF Ireland presents Walter Graham on Fluoride Part 1 of 2

Sovereign Independent Presents The Truth Agenda DVD - Coming Soon

Daily Echo - Letter

THE River Itchen qualifies as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), in addition it is already designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Itchen is also renowned for its chalk stream and salmon fishing qualities worldwide.
We should therefore be treating this river with lots of tender love and care.
Can expert guidance be given to any of the three questions listed below.
1) Should the fluoridation of
Eastleigh's water system take place, will this then produce a constant flow of chemically fluoridated water into the River Itchen via Southern Water's Eastleigh Chickenhall Wastewater Treatment Works?
2) Has an assessment been taken as to what effects a possible flow of chemically fluoridated water may have upon all animal life within the lower reaches of the Itchen?
3) Downstream from Eastleigh, Portsmouth Water
can extract a maximum capacity of 45 million litres of water per day for treatment via its River Itchen waterworks. This waterworks produces on average 15 per cent of the water being supplied by Portsmouth Water to a domestic population, exceeding '650,000'. Should the fluoridation of Eastleigh's water supply take place, will this company's extracted water contain chemical fluoride? JOHN POPE, Southampton.

Notice of meeting in Southampton

Poster 19th March

Calls for fluoridated water in Wales

Calls for fluoridated water in Wales
Stuart Geddes, chairman of the British Dental Association in Wales has called for fluoridated water supplies in Wales to try and reduce rates of tooth decay.

The calls come after the Adult Oral Health Survey showed a significant gap between standards of oral health in Wales, Northern Ireland and England; England and Northern Ireland had lower rates of decay and the number of people without any natural teeth was much higher in Wales. In Wales, 10 percent of the survey participants had no natural teeth; this was considerably higher than in England, where the figure was six percent.
Mr Geddes said that he recognised that standards of oral health were improving in Wales, but said that progress was too slow and more needed to be done to promote good oral health and reduce rates of decay. Mr Geddes, along with many other dental professionals, believes that adding fluoride to the country’s water supplies will help to tackle the problem of poor oral health. Mr Geddes said that adding fluoride to the water was a “tried and tested” method of improving oral health.

Adding fluoride to the water is likely to provoke an angry reaction from some residents; anti-fluoride campaigning has become more fervent in recent years and recently, a mother from Southampton took the local health authority to court for approving plans to add fluoride to the water. Many people believe that fluoride has potential health risks; however, dentists support the use and claim that it is completely safe and highly beneficial for oral health.

USA - Open wide and swallow

Editorial: Open wide and swallow
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Lovely County Citizen
The Arkansas Department of Health has apparently abandoned one of four "Strategies for Arkansas' Future" outlined in the department's "Community Water Fluoridation" brochure. Now, rather than "educate and empower the public regarding the benefits of fluoridation," ADH has taken a different approach: forget education and empowerment, and instead force fluoridation on the people whether they want it or not; and do so by rushing legislation through the legislature before anyone has a chance to protest............................

A bit like the SCSHA

Daily Echo - letter

Fluoride fight will go on - SHA should give up now!
I HAVE written a few times about the fluoride issue and would just like to say that it is really getting me down, knowing that the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) still want to put fluoride in our water supply.
Why, why, why can't they get the message and do us all a favour and just go now and leave us alone? We all have to cope with a very difficult world as it is.
None of us wants this added pressure of our water supply being contaminated, but if they are going to insist on being difficult then the people of Southampton and surrounding areas can be just as difficult in trying to keep this toxic fluoride out.
Is it really worth all the hassle and fighting for the SHA, when they know the majority of people don't want it? The SHA have already caused a lot of ill health to the people that want their water left alone.
This is a message to the SHA - step down now on this issue and let us not have to hear of you all again. The only SHA I would like to hear of is Sheer Harmony Again, which we could have if it wasn't for you lot.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED

The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry

House of Lords

Questions
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to follow the recommendations by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in its 2007 report Public Health: Ethical Issues that "Water fluoridation policy should be objectively reviewed by the UK health departments on a regular basis in light of the findings of ongoing monitoring and further research studies. Furthermore, the conclusions and their basis should routinely be published" [7.42]; and, if so, what mechanisms have been or are being set up to achieve those aims. [HL6998]

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 30 January 2001 (WA 55) and in respect of the guidance letter about water fluoridation from the Chief Dental Officer to Strategic Health Authorities and others (Gateway 9361) in February 2008, why (a) no reference was made under "Benefits of fluoridation" or in Appendix 1 to the York report's explicit criticisms of the quality of evidence relating to all aspects of fluoridation, and (b) there was no corresponding section "Harms of fluoridation" to address the incidence of dental fluorosis in children found by York.[HL6999]



28 Feb 2011 : Column WA229


The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We will be reviewing policy in the light of the recent High Court judgment, which upheld the decision of the South Central Strategic Health Authority to fluoridate Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire. In our review we will also consider any relevant research published since the letter that the Chief Dental Officer published in February 2008 and the comments that the noble Earl has made on the letter.

Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the statements on the website of the National Fluoride Information Centre that naturally and artificially fluoridated water have "exactly the same" effect upon the teeth and body, and in the February 2008 letter about water fluoridation from the Chief Dental Officer to Strategic Health Authorities and others (Gateway 9361) that "no evidence for any differences" in effect were found, take account of the article Bioavailability of Fluoride in Drinking Water: a Human Experimental Study by Maguire et al in the Journal of Dental Research (84 (11): 989-993, 2005), and the criticisms of that study by Professors Sheldon and Holgate in the same journal in January 2008 (87(1):8).[HL7000]

Earl Howe: This a complex area of research on which all well informed contributions are welcome, but we accept the conclusion reached by Dr Maguire and colleagues that "there was no statistically significant difference between artificially fluoridated and naturally fluoridated water".

They would accept Dr Maguire's conclusion when anybody looking at can see it's based on a few short months with a few students and even then they had one student with such a different result they ignored it.

Daily Echo Letter

Such breathtaking arrogance
IN reply to your correspondent. J Dunford, (Echo Letters February 21) regarding the faceless and unelected members of the Strategic Health Authority, I would refer to the very detailed account published in the Daily Echo on 21 February 2009. In that article the names of the SHA board were given and I list them as follows:
1. Mrs Olga Senior; Director of communications and corporate affairs.
2. Professor John Newton; Regional Director of public health.
3. Terrence Butter; Ex Director of the HCC social services.
4. Christopher Le Fevre; 30 years experience with the energy and transport sectors of industry.
5. Dr. Geoffry Harris; various non-executive directorships with several NHS trusts.
6. James Easton; Chief executive, worked within the NHS for 20 years
7. Christopher Evennett; Director of strategy and reform. Former NHS management trainee.
8. Katherine Fenton; Director of clinical standards. 30 years nursing career.
9. Benjamin Lloyd; Director of finance and investment.
10. Alyson Coates; Research
biochemist. Worked in international marketing for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries.
11. Joseph Mcloone; worked in information technology business and mobile communication systems.
12. Martin Howell; High level management experience in the steel and construction industry.
The Echo published the photographs of the first nine members but the last three, for reasons unknown, just had picture outlines. I would also mention a Mr Keith McNamara, the SHA "campaigns manager". This particular man is on record as saying that "whatever the outcome of the public vote on the issues of introducing fluoride into the water supply of Southampton, if not in favour, the NHS would over-ride it and proceed with its introduction"! If that is not breathtaking arrogance, what is? I and countless others who have been against this proposal since its inception have been privileged that the Daily Echo, in its formative and unbiased way over this issue has published our concerns. It is to be hoped that the appeal against the judicial review which bizzarely went in favour of the NHS will eventually succeed.
MICHAEL CLEMENTS, 1 Mill Road Southampton S015 4JB.