Inquiry will get to root of tooth decay problem
by Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail
Jul 30 2011
ShareAN INQUIRY will examine why so many children in Wales are suffering from tooth decay.
The investigation, by the National Assembly’s children and young people committee, will also assess whether a Welsh Government scheme to improve children’s oral health is having an effect.
Over the course of the past two years, thousands of children in some of the most deprived parts of Wales have been taught how to brush their teeth as part of the Designed to Smile initiative.
Children in Wales have the worst teeth in the UK – five-year-olds in Wales have an average of two to three missing, filled or decayed teeth
But in the most deprived communities this is much higher – in Merthyr Tydfil the average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth for every five-year-old is 3.9.
Christine Chapman, Labour AM for Cynon Valley and chair of the committee, said: “Research shows dental health of children in Wales is worse than many other parts of the UK and the problem is most prevalent in deprived areas.
“Given the level of investment the Welsh Government has dedicated to improving our children’s oral health, we feel it is time to examine how effective its efforts to improve standards have been.
“Therefore we will be assessing whether that extra investment has delivered improved standards, particularly among children who live in Wales’ more deprived areas. We will also ask what, if anything, can be done to ensure Welsh children are getting the best possible service consistently across the country.”...............
27 Jul 2011
Communities which have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990
Communities which have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990
"[I]n recent years, when towns and cities across the country have held voter referenda on fluoridation, its use has been rejected about half the time." - Chemical & Engineering News, September 4, 2006
“While city councils and water boards tend to fluoridate when they have the power, the electorate is far more divided. Over the past five years, the practice was voted down in 38 of 79 referendums, from Modesto, Calif., to Worcester, Mass.” - TIME Magazine, October 24, 2005
"In about 60% of 2000 referenda held in the U.S. since 1950, fluoridation has been voted down." - Chemical & Engineering News August 1, 1988
"The big cities in the United States were mostly fluoridated by executive action in such a way as to avoid public referenda." - James M. Dunning, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, 1984. (Quote from: Social Science & Medicine 1984, vol. 19, page 1245.)
"The fact that nearly 3 out of every 5 communities which vote on the issue have rejected fluoridation, year after year, does in all likelihood represent a collective judgment on the part of the public that, when all things are considered, fluoridation is not an acceptable public health measure." - Edward Groth III, PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, May 1973
"Avoid a referendum. The statistics are that 3 out of 4 fluoridation referenda fail."- Susan Allen, RDH, BS Fluoridation Coordinator, Public Health Dental Program, State Health Office, Florida. May 7, 1990. (See photocopy of letter)
Click to go to Fluoride Alert
"[I]n recent years, when towns and cities across the country have held voter referenda on fluoridation, its use has been rejected about half the time." - Chemical & Engineering News, September 4, 2006
“While city councils and water boards tend to fluoridate when they have the power, the electorate is far more divided. Over the past five years, the practice was voted down in 38 of 79 referendums, from Modesto, Calif., to Worcester, Mass.” - TIME Magazine, October 24, 2005
"In about 60% of 2000 referenda held in the U.S. since 1950, fluoridation has been voted down." - Chemical & Engineering News August 1, 1988
"The big cities in the United States were mostly fluoridated by executive action in such a way as to avoid public referenda." - James M. Dunning, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, 1984. (Quote from: Social Science & Medicine 1984, vol. 19, page 1245.)
"The fact that nearly 3 out of every 5 communities which vote on the issue have rejected fluoridation, year after year, does in all likelihood represent a collective judgment on the part of the public that, when all things are considered, fluoridation is not an acceptable public health measure." - Edward Groth III, PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, May 1973
"Avoid a referendum. The statistics are that 3 out of 4 fluoridation referenda fail."- Susan Allen, RDH, BS Fluoridation Coordinator, Public Health Dental Program, State Health Office, Florida. May 7, 1990. (See photocopy of letter)
Click to go to Fluoride Alert
25 Jul 2011
24 Jul 2011
USA - These Documents Virtually Force You to Destroy Your Health
Posted By Dr. Mercola | July 23 2011
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have completely controlled the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation. No CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position.
The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear at odds with current scientific knowledge.
According to the Fluoride Action Network:
"Law firms are now reviewing old and new documents believed to highlight a pattern of attempts to curtail discussions on fluoride toxicity and downplay the importance of professionals personally reviewing scientific reports about fluorides."
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have completely controlled the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation. No CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position.
The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear at odds with current scientific knowledge.
According to the Fluoride Action Network:
"Law firms are now reviewing old and new documents believed to highlight a pattern of attempts to curtail discussions on fluoride toxicity and downplay the importance of professionals personally reviewing scientific reports about fluorides."
22 Jul 2011
Baby Teething Remedies
11 tips for teething pain relief
by Abbey Westbury | July 21, 2011
Baby needs dental care
Give baby plenty of foods with high levels of calcium and vitamin D. These will help ensure a mouthful of strong teeth, eventually. And make sure you brush those teeth, however few, twice a day to keep them healthy! Use a very soft, rounded baby toothbrush, and water or fluoride-free “training toothpaste.” Take your baby to a dentist before age 2 to make sure everything’s doing what it should.....
by Abbey Westbury | July 21, 2011
Baby needs dental care
Give baby plenty of foods with high levels of calcium and vitamin D. These will help ensure a mouthful of strong teeth, eventually. And make sure you brush those teeth, however few, twice a day to keep them healthy! Use a very soft, rounded baby toothbrush, and water or fluoride-free “training toothpaste.” Take your baby to a dentist before age 2 to make sure everything’s doing what it should.....
Lymington Times - Axed health body gets more time to start water fluoridation
Axed health body gets more time to start water fluoridation
CAMPAIGNERS against fluoride being added to Totton's water supply have been dealt another blow after the health body in charge was given extra time to implement the scheme, despite it being axed by the government.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to Southampton's supply in 2009 after the local primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
The plan affects 190,000 people around the city, including 8,000 Totton residents because of the layout of the pipes.
A two-day legal challenge to the scheme was heard in the High Court earlier this year, but a final appeal for
a judicial review was rejected by the judge.
Anti-fluoride campaigners were left hoping that government plans to scrap regional health bodies next spring would mean the SHA could not get the framework in place before it lost its powers.
As part of government reforms of the NHS, powers over fluoride had been due to be handed to elected councils as part of the changes, leading to calls for the SHA to scrap its plans, and leaving uncertainty over whether fluoride could be stopped if it was already in place. But the government has now revised its proposals, giving SHAs a reprieve until spring 2013.
Chair of campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAP),
Stephen Peckham, told the 'A&T': "The SHA is hell-bent on pushing it through. It is an enormous waste of money on a scheme that is not wanted by local people or the councils.
"Levels of tooth decay have actually reduced in the city so the scheme is wrong. The SHA could still stop fluoridation if it wanted to."
Southampton councillors are set to debate fluoride in September after HAF forced the subject onto the agenda through a public petition calling for the authority to say it rejects the plans.
Mr Peckham added: "We would like the council to be clear that water fluoridation should not go ahead and take steps to reverse the SHA's decision."
A spokeswoman for the SHA confirmed to the 'A&T' the supply would be fluoridated in 2013, although it did not yet have a specific implementation date.
She added: "The board remains confident that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve dental health.
"We are still working on the timetable [and] we are in discussions with Southern Water on developing an implementation plan which will specify the required stages, the exact times of which are still to be determined."
Before the SHA unanimously backed the scheme, 72% of the 10,000 respondents to a public consultation said they opposed fluoride.
Latest from SCSHA - timetable for water now 2013 and they promise to address all our questions 6 months beforehand.
CAMPAIGNERS against fluoride being added to Totton's water supply have been dealt another blow after the health body in charge was given extra time to implement the scheme, despite it being axed by the government.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to Southampton's supply in 2009 after the local primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
The plan affects 190,000 people around the city, including 8,000 Totton residents because of the layout of the pipes.
A two-day legal challenge to the scheme was heard in the High Court earlier this year, but a final appeal for
a judicial review was rejected by the judge.
Anti-fluoride campaigners were left hoping that government plans to scrap regional health bodies next spring would mean the SHA could not get the framework in place before it lost its powers.
As part of government reforms of the NHS, powers over fluoride had been due to be handed to elected councils as part of the changes, leading to calls for the SHA to scrap its plans, and leaving uncertainty over whether fluoride could be stopped if it was already in place. But the government has now revised its proposals, giving SHAs a reprieve until spring 2013.
Chair of campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAP),
Stephen Peckham, told the 'A&T': "The SHA is hell-bent on pushing it through. It is an enormous waste of money on a scheme that is not wanted by local people or the councils.
"Levels of tooth decay have actually reduced in the city so the scheme is wrong. The SHA could still stop fluoridation if it wanted to."
Southampton councillors are set to debate fluoride in September after HAF forced the subject onto the agenda through a public petition calling for the authority to say it rejects the plans.
Mr Peckham added: "We would like the council to be clear that water fluoridation should not go ahead and take steps to reverse the SHA's decision."
A spokeswoman for the SHA confirmed to the 'A&T' the supply would be fluoridated in 2013, although it did not yet have a specific implementation date.
She added: "The board remains confident that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve dental health.
"We are still working on the timetable [and] we are in discussions with Southern Water on developing an implementation plan which will specify the required stages, the exact times of which are still to be determined."
Before the SHA unanimously backed the scheme, 72% of the 10,000 respondents to a public consultation said they opposed fluoride.
Latest from SCSHA - timetable for water now 2013 and they promise to address all our questions 6 months beforehand.
20 Jul 2011
House of Lords Questions
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the extent of individual daily variations in water intake in populations targeted by water fluoridation schemes.[HL10813]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): Information from food and diet surveys suggests that in the United Kingdom the average consumption of drinking water, including beverages made up with drinking water, is between one and two litres per day. No specific information is held centrally on areas with fluoridated schemes.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 7 December 2010 (WA 34-5), 7 February (WA 17-8), 26 April (WA 48), and 17 May (WA 300), which concerned errors in information provided to the public by the National Fluoride Information Centre, whether they will commission an organisation without links to the dental profession to prepare and maintain future updates of the findings of the 2000 systematic review of water fluoridation by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York.[HL10814]
Earl Howe: We agree that a multidisciplinary approach is required to monitor and evaluate the effects of fluoridation, albeit with a substantial dental contribution in assessing the effects on oral health. We will take account of the noble Earl's views in commissioning future research.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the extent of individual daily variations in water intake in populations targeted by water fluoridation schemes.[HL10813]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): Information from food and diet surveys suggests that in the United Kingdom the average consumption of drinking water, including beverages made up with drinking water, is between one and two litres per day. No specific information is held centrally on areas with fluoridated schemes.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 7 December 2010 (WA 34-5), 7 February (WA 17-8), 26 April (WA 48), and 17 May (WA 300), which concerned errors in information provided to the public by the National Fluoride Information Centre, whether they will commission an organisation without links to the dental profession to prepare and maintain future updates of the findings of the 2000 systematic review of water fluoridation by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York.[HL10814]
Earl Howe: We agree that a multidisciplinary approach is required to monitor and evaluate the effects of fluoridation, albeit with a substantial dental contribution in assessing the effects on oral health. We will take account of the noble Earl's views in commissioning future research.
19 Jul 2011
USA admits fluoride is damaging teeth
Don't you think this is reason enough to say no to fluoridation.
18 Jul 2011
Daily Echo - In my view
By
Alan Kebbell, of Ventnor Court, Southampton
'Hangovers' linked to the water
AT the age of 60 years, I became quite ill after a short stay in Birmingham. I was diagnosed with coeliac disease.
At the time because another family member had been coeliac since soon after birth I accepted this diagnosis without question, although I did wonder how I had managed a rather strenuous lifestyle without the need for a special diet before.
Quite recently I attended a lecture at Southampton Solent : University where I learned that the drinking water in Birmingham had been fluoridated for a few years. This got me thinking about the coeliac diagnosis on my return from Birmingham and my suddenly starting to get "hangovers" in about 1970 from drinking just one pint of my favourite tipple, Newcastle Brown.
My father who also used to drink Newcastle Brown stopped drinking it at about the same time although he never said why. I have now learned that the drinking water in the Newcastle area has been fluoridated since 1968, so a correlation seems obvious to anyone not blinded by the SHA's overriding wish to mass medicate.
I have also noticed that some cans of beer produce similar results to the problem I used to have with Newcastle Brown, with the recent addition of a pain in both kidneys, and have learned to look at the label to ensure they are not brewed in the West Midlands.
Unfortunately the problem now appears to have moved away from alcoholic beverages to soft drinks as I recently bought some Tesco Value sugar-free cola.
I was amazed to wake next morning with a king sized "hangover" and wondered where the cola is bottled. Tesco declined to tell me so I can be reasonably sure it is produced in the West Midlands.
I remember being quite ill during an exercise in the Otterburn training area when I was a paratrooper and I suspect that the illness in 1974 was also due to fluoridated water.
I have asked my doctor to have a biopsy to confirm or dispel my suspicions, but he seems to think that would not be possible.
I would, therefore, suggest to any person diagnosed with coeliac late in life that they watch what they drink and get ready to sue the SHA should fluoridation make them ill.
Alan Kebbell, of Ventnor Court, Southampton
'Hangovers' linked to the water
AT the age of 60 years, I became quite ill after a short stay in Birmingham. I was diagnosed with coeliac disease.
At the time because another family member had been coeliac since soon after birth I accepted this diagnosis without question, although I did wonder how I had managed a rather strenuous lifestyle without the need for a special diet before.
Quite recently I attended a lecture at Southampton Solent : University where I learned that the drinking water in Birmingham had been fluoridated for a few years. This got me thinking about the coeliac diagnosis on my return from Birmingham and my suddenly starting to get "hangovers" in about 1970 from drinking just one pint of my favourite tipple, Newcastle Brown.
My father who also used to drink Newcastle Brown stopped drinking it at about the same time although he never said why. I have now learned that the drinking water in the Newcastle area has been fluoridated since 1968, so a correlation seems obvious to anyone not blinded by the SHA's overriding wish to mass medicate.
I have also noticed that some cans of beer produce similar results to the problem I used to have with Newcastle Brown, with the recent addition of a pain in both kidneys, and have learned to look at the label to ensure they are not brewed in the West Midlands.
Unfortunately the problem now appears to have moved away from alcoholic beverages to soft drinks as I recently bought some Tesco Value sugar-free cola.
I was amazed to wake next morning with a king sized "hangover" and wondered where the cola is bottled. Tesco declined to tell me so I can be reasonably sure it is produced in the West Midlands.
I remember being quite ill during an exercise in the Otterburn training area when I was a paratrooper and I suspect that the illness in 1974 was also due to fluoridated water.
I have asked my doctor to have a biopsy to confirm or dispel my suspicions, but he seems to think that would not be possible.
I would, therefore, suggest to any person diagnosed with coeliac late in life that they watch what they drink and get ready to sue the SHA should fluoridation make them ill.
17 Jul 2011
India - A tale of grit and determination
A tale of grit and determination Mangalore, July 16, DHNS:
Shailiesh Nerlikar is different from other chess players in one aspect.
The 33-year-old, who hails from a small village near Kohlapur, Maharashtra, suffers from a chronic bone disease that has left him paralysed since six.
Diagnosed with skeletal flurosis due to the consumption of fluoride-laden water drived from borewells, Nerlikar can neither walk nor sit because of extremely fragile bones and joints locked.
Despite the handicap, Nerlikar never gave up and chose to take up chess. Self taught, Nerlikar competed in his first tournament in 2002 and won his first title in Pune three years later.
16 Jul 2011
Flouride claims will finally be reviewed after protests
Flouride claims will finally be reviewed after protests
Friday, July 15, 2011 Tamworth Herald
AFTER a long, hard-fought battle, claims that too much fluoride in Tamworth’s water supply is harmful to residents will finally be reviewed by councillors.
Protesters packed out the public gallery at Marmion House on Tuesday night offering a united front against councillors they felt had previously ignored the issue.
But a petition, signed by more than 1,000 people, forced members to reconsider their position, with councillors voting unanimously in favour of referring the town’s fluoride levels for scrutiny.
“It was a well deserved victory,” said Councillor Chris Cooke, who has lobbied the authority on the issue for the last 12 month.
“Very much a show of what people power can do.
“Hundreds of people signed the petition forcing fluoride onto Tamworth council’s agenda. Many other people emailed, phoned and otherwise lobbied their local councillors.
“When they saw the public gallery packed with people, councillors realised they had been brow-beaten by this wave of public support. They had to give in.
“It’s been hard work,” he added. “But it proves people power works.”
Tuesday night’s meeting saw councillors across the chamber back Chris Cooke’s motion for the matter to be added to the community and wellbeing scrutiny committee’s agenda.
Cllr Lee Bates said: “It should go back for scrutiny because that’s what the people want.”
Cllr Simon Peaple agreed: “It deserves to be looked at. My view is that where we’ve got petitions like this we should refer them to the relevant committee.”
Opposition Leader Cllr John Faulkner said: “The question is not whether or not we’re in favour of fluoride being added to our water, it’s whether or not it should be debated at the community wellbeing and scrutiny committee.”
Despite offering his support, council Leader Danny Cook said “there are bigger issues in Tamworth”. While Cllr Andrew James disputed many of the claims made by Cllr Cook about the dangers of fluoridation.
The matter will now be added onto the wellbeing and scrutiny committee’s agenda.
Friday, July 15, 2011 Tamworth Herald
AFTER a long, hard-fought battle, claims that too much fluoride in Tamworth’s water supply is harmful to residents will finally be reviewed by councillors.
Protesters packed out the public gallery at Marmion House on Tuesday night offering a united front against councillors they felt had previously ignored the issue.
But a petition, signed by more than 1,000 people, forced members to reconsider their position, with councillors voting unanimously in favour of referring the town’s fluoride levels for scrutiny.
“It was a well deserved victory,” said Councillor Chris Cooke, who has lobbied the authority on the issue for the last 12 month.
“Very much a show of what people power can do.
“Hundreds of people signed the petition forcing fluoride onto Tamworth council’s agenda. Many other people emailed, phoned and otherwise lobbied their local councillors.
“When they saw the public gallery packed with people, councillors realised they had been brow-beaten by this wave of public support. They had to give in.
“It’s been hard work,” he added. “But it proves people power works.”
Tuesday night’s meeting saw councillors across the chamber back Chris Cooke’s motion for the matter to be added to the community and wellbeing scrutiny committee’s agenda.
Cllr Lee Bates said: “It should go back for scrutiny because that’s what the people want.”
Cllr Simon Peaple agreed: “It deserves to be looked at. My view is that where we’ve got petitions like this we should refer them to the relevant committee.”
Opposition Leader Cllr John Faulkner said: “The question is not whether or not we’re in favour of fluoride being added to our water, it’s whether or not it should be debated at the community wellbeing and scrutiny committee.”
Despite offering his support, council Leader Danny Cook said “there are bigger issues in Tamworth”. While Cllr Andrew James disputed many of the claims made by Cllr Cook about the dangers of fluoridation.
The matter will now be added onto the wellbeing and scrutiny committee’s agenda.
Daily Echo - HAMPSHIRE: Campaigners call on authorities to help halt process
HAMPSHIRE: Campaigners call on authorities to help halt process
Call on councils to pull plug on fluoride
By Matt Smith
ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigners have called on councils to confirm they will pull the plug on a scheme to put fluoride in Hampshire's tap water supplies when they get powers to do so.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has been given time to implement the fluoridation scheme through a 12-month stay of execution caused by delays in Government health reforms.
But Stephen Peckham, the chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, has called on Hampshire and Southampton councils to put pressure on the SHA and the Department of Health to halt the process by declaring they would use proposed new powers to scrap the plans - even if fluoride was introduced.
"We want a clear statement that once the powers are invested in them their intention will be to reverse the decision," he said.
Mr Peckham said: "If they don't even know how much it will cost or whether it's feasible why are they ploughing ahead with it?"
The SHA is aiming to add the chemical to tap water supplies delivered to 200,000 residents in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams by 2013.
Government reforms to the NHS going through Parliament would hand powers to local authorities to propose, vary or terminate fluoridation schemes.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said last year that with the abolition of SHAs, local authorities will assume responsibility for fluoridation.
The leader of Hampshire County Council was unavailable for comment last night.
But a spokeswoman said the council would continue to defend the right of local people to say no to the imposition of fluoridation and, if necessary, appeal again directly to the Secretary of State to prevent this happening
Mr Peckham added: "It's so important that in future fluoridation decisions should be the responsibility for local authorities because it brings democratic and local accountability."
Shortened version due to copyright.
Call on councils to pull plug on fluoride
By Matt Smith
ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigners have called on councils to confirm they will pull the plug on a scheme to put fluoride in Hampshire's tap water supplies when they get powers to do so.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has been given time to implement the fluoridation scheme through a 12-month stay of execution caused by delays in Government health reforms.
But Stephen Peckham, the chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, has called on Hampshire and Southampton councils to put pressure on the SHA and the Department of Health to halt the process by declaring they would use proposed new powers to scrap the plans - even if fluoride was introduced.
"We want a clear statement that once the powers are invested in them their intention will be to reverse the decision," he said.
Mr Peckham said: "If they don't even know how much it will cost or whether it's feasible why are they ploughing ahead with it?"
The SHA is aiming to add the chemical to tap water supplies delivered to 200,000 residents in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams by 2013.
Government reforms to the NHS going through Parliament would hand powers to local authorities to propose, vary or terminate fluoridation schemes.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said last year that with the abolition of SHAs, local authorities will assume responsibility for fluoridation.
The leader of Hampshire County Council was unavailable for comment last night.
But a spokeswoman said the council would continue to defend the right of local people to say no to the imposition of fluoridation and, if necessary, appeal again directly to the Secretary of State to prevent this happening
Mr Peckham added: "It's so important that in future fluoridation decisions should be the responsibility for local authorities because it brings democratic and local accountability."
Shortened version due to copyright.
15 Jul 2011
HAMPSHIRE: SHA given 12-month stay of execution
HAMPSHIRE: SHA given 12-month stay of execution
SHA fluoridation can still go ahead
HEALTH chiefs will have the time they need to put fluoride in Hampshire's tap water supplies before their organisation is axed, the Daily Echo can reveal.
By Jon Reeve
Anti-fluoride campaigners had hoped Government plans to scrap regional health bodies next spring would mean the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) couldn't get the framework in place before it lost its powers.
The SHA had been facing a race against time to put the controversial plan
into practice. But now the body looks to have been given a 12-month reprieve - giving it long enough to implement the fluoride scheme. Earlier this year, the SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop fluoridation, and work on the scheme, which had been on hold for virtually two years, was restarted.
The authority said last night it was now confident fluoride could be in the
water within as little as 18 months.And even once the SHAs are axed, it now looks likely their powers over new schemes will be handed to the new national body Public Health England.
The SHA said last night it is working with Southern Water towards starting
delivering fluoridated water to nearly 200,000 residents.
Edited version because of copyright.
SHA fluoridation can still go ahead
HEALTH chiefs will have the time they need to put fluoride in Hampshire's tap water supplies before their organisation is axed, the Daily Echo can reveal.
By Jon Reeve
Anti-fluoride campaigners had hoped Government plans to scrap regional health bodies next spring would mean the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) couldn't get the framework in place before it lost its powers.
The SHA had been facing a race against time to put the controversial plan
into practice. But now the body looks to have been given a 12-month reprieve - giving it long enough to implement the fluoride scheme. Earlier this year, the SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop fluoridation, and work on the scheme, which had been on hold for virtually two years, was restarted.
The authority said last night it was now confident fluoride could be in the
water within as little as 18 months.And even once the SHAs are axed, it now looks likely their powers over new schemes will be handed to the new national body Public Health England.
The SHA said last night it is working with Southern Water towards starting
delivering fluoridated water to nearly 200,000 residents.
Edited version because of copyright.
14 Jul 2011
CHILDREN in Barrow and South Lakeland have the worst rates of tooth decay in the country.
North West Evening MailNews
The root of the problem
Last updated at 13:44, Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Figures reveal Barrow and South Lakeland are the worst areas in the country for tooth decay
CHILDREN in Barrow and South Lakeland have the worst rates of tooth decay in the country.
Figures from the Department of Health have revealed that the rate of children’s tooth decay in both areas sits right at the bottom of national tables.
The average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth in 12-year-olds was 1.6, compared with a national average of 0.8 per cent.
Other areas of Cumbria are level with, or below, the national average.
In Copeland, the average is 0.7 per cent, in Eden, the rate is 0.8 per cent and it is 0.6 per cent for children in Allerdale.
The data was collected during 2008 and 2009, but was only released this month following the publication of health profiles for boroughs across the country.
Oral and public health say the problem is not specific to 12-year-olds, but all children, although rates of decay are slightly better for five-year-olds.
They have linked tooth decay to high levels of deprivation in the area.
Eric Rooney, consultant in dental public health for primary care trust NHS Cumbria, said: “There is an association between living in deprived areas and poor oral and dental health, where levels of healthy eating and smoking are all below average. That might be in adults, but it is all linked.
“There are issues about the amount of money people have to be able to have a reasonable diet. There are sometimes barriers.
“Tooth decay is caused by eating lots of foods with sugar in them, or a high-sugar diet with a lot of snacking in between meals, not having regular meal times.
“Once people get decay, all we can do is repair it, so we need to ensure we are getting to children before decay starts by encouraging healthy eating.
“Some part of it is education, but just because you know something is the right thing to do, it doesn’t mean you do it. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you but people still do it.”
Mr Rooney said that despite the figures, the problem in the area is not getting worse year-on-year.
He said that he is working with a number of dental practices in Barrow and Ulverston to deliver a preventative programme called Smile 4 Life.
He said: “We’re targeting nurseries and children’s centres, making sure the centres themselves don’t have biscuits and cakes at snack time, ensuring children can get access to preventative care, encouraging them to brush with a fluoride toothpaste and have a healthy diet.”
25 Sep 2008 – HEALTH bosses have voted for a move which could lead to fluoride being added to South Lakeland's drinking water.
The root of the problem
Last updated at 13:44, Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Figures reveal Barrow and South Lakeland are the worst areas in the country for tooth decay
CHILDREN in Barrow and South Lakeland have the worst rates of tooth decay in the country.
Figures from the Department of Health have revealed that the rate of children’s tooth decay in both areas sits right at the bottom of national tables.
The average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth in 12-year-olds was 1.6, compared with a national average of 0.8 per cent.
Other areas of Cumbria are level with, or below, the national average.
In Copeland, the average is 0.7 per cent, in Eden, the rate is 0.8 per cent and it is 0.6 per cent for children in Allerdale.
The data was collected during 2008 and 2009, but was only released this month following the publication of health profiles for boroughs across the country.
Oral and public health say the problem is not specific to 12-year-olds, but all children, although rates of decay are slightly better for five-year-olds.
They have linked tooth decay to high levels of deprivation in the area.
Eric Rooney, consultant in dental public health for primary care trust NHS Cumbria, said: “There is an association between living in deprived areas and poor oral and dental health, where levels of healthy eating and smoking are all below average. That might be in adults, but it is all linked.
“There are issues about the amount of money people have to be able to have a reasonable diet. There are sometimes barriers.
“Tooth decay is caused by eating lots of foods with sugar in them, or a high-sugar diet with a lot of snacking in between meals, not having regular meal times.
“Once people get decay, all we can do is repair it, so we need to ensure we are getting to children before decay starts by encouraging healthy eating.
“Some part of it is education, but just because you know something is the right thing to do, it doesn’t mean you do it. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you but people still do it.”
Mr Rooney said that despite the figures, the problem in the area is not getting worse year-on-year.
He said that he is working with a number of dental practices in Barrow and Ulverston to deliver a preventative programme called Smile 4 Life.
He said: “We’re targeting nurseries and children’s centres, making sure the centres themselves don’t have biscuits and cakes at snack time, ensuring children can get access to preventative care, encouraging them to brush with a fluoride toothpaste and have a healthy diet.”
25 Sep 2008 – HEALTH bosses have voted for a move which could lead to fluoride being added to South Lakeland's drinking water.
13 Jul 2011
Daily Echo letters
Take responsibility for own oral health
FIRSTLY let me say that living in Hamble my family would not be directly affected by the proposed introduction of fluoride to Southampton's water supply.
That aside I have been following the debate through the pages of the Daily Echo. My view is that indiscriminate, enforced mass medication through the water supply is fundamentally wrong - however well intended.
Two letters in Friday's Daily Echo, Dental Care Visits to Schools and What About the Cost of All This? sum up the argument for fluoridating tap water - cost.
It's cheaper to medicate everyone than providing selective dental care and support.
Michael Fielding points out that the dental deterioration is largely due to the consumption of sugary foods coupled with poor dental hygiene. So where does parental responsibility figure in this debate?
My particular concern is for the long-term. Who is to be held accountable in the decades ahead when the unforeseen consequences of this mass medication arise?
Will the dozen or so South Central SHA Board members be held to account for their decisions? (Come to think of it, how many of them will be affected by the fluoride in their tap water, I wonder?)
BRIAN PARKINS, Hamble, Southampton.
Leaves bad taste
IN his letter (Echo, June 24) Mr Bryan Spinner asks about the cost of fluoridation.
In information just supplied by the Consumer Council for Water there appears this interesting note: 'The cost of fluoridating the water supply is borne by the health service'. Would this, by any chance, be the same health service which has no spare money, is restricting vital drugs and closing invaluable hospital wards?
G PAYNE, Southampton.
FIRSTLY let me say that living in Hamble my family would not be directly affected by the proposed introduction of fluoride to Southampton's water supply.
That aside I have been following the debate through the pages of the Daily Echo. My view is that indiscriminate, enforced mass medication through the water supply is fundamentally wrong - however well intended.
Two letters in Friday's Daily Echo, Dental Care Visits to Schools and What About the Cost of All This? sum up the argument for fluoridating tap water - cost.
It's cheaper to medicate everyone than providing selective dental care and support.
Michael Fielding points out that the dental deterioration is largely due to the consumption of sugary foods coupled with poor dental hygiene. So where does parental responsibility figure in this debate?
My particular concern is for the long-term. Who is to be held accountable in the decades ahead when the unforeseen consequences of this mass medication arise?
Will the dozen or so South Central SHA Board members be held to account for their decisions? (Come to think of it, how many of them will be affected by the fluoride in their tap water, I wonder?)
BRIAN PARKINS, Hamble, Southampton.
Leaves bad taste
IN his letter (Echo, June 24) Mr Bryan Spinner asks about the cost of fluoridation.
In information just supplied by the Consumer Council for Water there appears this interesting note: 'The cost of fluoridating the water supply is borne by the health service'. Would this, by any chance, be the same health service which has no spare money, is restricting vital drugs and closing invaluable hospital wards?
G PAYNE, Southampton.
12 Jul 2011
Daily Echo
In my view..
An end to fluoridation
KEN Clarke, our Justice Secretary stales that we In England have the world's largest Legal Aid costs, and that his department is looking for ways to cut £100 million from its budget. The most straightforward way to avoid future Legal Aid and compensation costs will be achieved simply by stopping the fluoridation of areas that already receive fluoride and at the same time, with the impending demise of Strategic Health Authorities, repeal the 2005
Nos 920 and 921 Statutory Instruments that are currently attached to the 2003 Water Act, thus disabling the transfer of these Statutory Instruments Into Local Councillors' hands.
One must ask oneself that as fluoride is so beneficial to dental health and children's teeth in particular, why is it our Government makes taxpayers' money so freely available to be used to fight and pay for all claims against a water company? £400,000 plus of our taxpayers' money has just been spent on two judicial reviews brought by one local individual. Is It just that the financial pot bottomless to protect the Interests of those who wish to cheaply dump fluoride into our water supplies?
A representative of our local Strategic Health Authority once stated that phone surveys give a better indication of opinion than a written response to a consultation. Why was it then that the responses to the two main questions were unreported? These are that only 12 per cent of those surveyed strongly , supported the fluoridation of Southampton's Water and that 27 per cent, yes, 27 per cent strongly opposed this fluoridation. I feel the I answer to my question is clear for all to see.
Currently our council is having a fight with local unions - both are being controlled by outside forces, so that they do not give an Inch to either side, where that inch can then be used nationally by others much in the same way where fluoride can be introduced into any public water supply. This being controlled approach was taken by the SHA Board when they an voted as one in favour of fluoridating Southampton's water supply. Even the Chairman
had to impress someone else higher up the tree, when he stated that he would have voted In favour of fluoridation had there been a split vote. You see, someone else is always 'pulling the strings'. So much for a different subject, up steps one brave MP Mr Mark Pritchard and his supporters, who recently put forward a motion to direct the Government to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The motion was discussed by the House of Commons and approved, much against the wishes of all the 'string pullers'.
Are there any MPs who could do the same to ban Statutory ' instruments 2005 Nos. 920 and 921? If you are out there, please make yourselves known.
Simply because these two , Statutory Instruments have to go!
An end to fluoridation
KEN Clarke, our Justice Secretary stales that we In England have the world's largest Legal Aid costs, and that his department is looking for ways to cut £100 million from its budget. The most straightforward way to avoid future Legal Aid and compensation costs will be achieved simply by stopping the fluoridation of areas that already receive fluoride and at the same time, with the impending demise of Strategic Health Authorities, repeal the 2005
Nos 920 and 921 Statutory Instruments that are currently attached to the 2003 Water Act, thus disabling the transfer of these Statutory Instruments Into Local Councillors' hands.
One must ask oneself that as fluoride is so beneficial to dental health and children's teeth in particular, why is it our Government makes taxpayers' money so freely available to be used to fight and pay for all claims against a water company? £400,000 plus of our taxpayers' money has just been spent on two judicial reviews brought by one local individual. Is It just that the financial pot bottomless to protect the Interests of those who wish to cheaply dump fluoride into our water supplies?
A representative of our local Strategic Health Authority once stated that phone surveys give a better indication of opinion than a written response to a consultation. Why was it then that the responses to the two main questions were unreported? These are that only 12 per cent of those surveyed strongly , supported the fluoridation of Southampton's Water and that 27 per cent, yes, 27 per cent strongly opposed this fluoridation. I feel the I answer to my question is clear for all to see.
Currently our council is having a fight with local unions - both are being controlled by outside forces, so that they do not give an Inch to either side, where that inch can then be used nationally by others much in the same way where fluoride can be introduced into any public water supply. This being controlled approach was taken by the SHA Board when they an voted as one in favour of fluoridating Southampton's water supply. Even the Chairman
had to impress someone else higher up the tree, when he stated that he would have voted In favour of fluoridation had there been a split vote. You see, someone else is always 'pulling the strings'. So much for a different subject, up steps one brave MP Mr Mark Pritchard and his supporters, who recently put forward a motion to direct the Government to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The motion was discussed by the House of Commons and approved, much against the wishes of all the 'string pullers'.
Are there any MPs who could do the same to ban Statutory ' instruments 2005 Nos. 920 and 921? If you are out there, please make yourselves known.
Simply because these two , Statutory Instruments have to go!
10 Jul 2011
Obese but good teeth in fluoridated Tamworth
Water passes hygiene testFriday, July 08, 2011 Tamworth Herald
Follow.I WAS interested in your article in the Tamworth Herald dated June 30, 2011 page 5 in which you stated dental hygiene among children in Tamworth was said to be the best in the country. This I believe is due to the fluoridation of our water.
I was also interested in the article in a recent edition of your newspaper in which it was claimed that fluoride created mental instability, but having spoken to Professor Hawkes, a locum neurologist, and Professor Michael Lennon, I was told this is not true.
Tamworth has more obese people than anywhere in the country, but its children have comparatively healthy teeth.
The petition which was carried out by Councillor Chis Cooke referred to the poisoning of Tamworth's water supplies.
Again, this is a wholly misinformed claim.
Furthermore, it is unthinkable that Parliament, in a free vote, would have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a law that would allow anyone to be 'poisoned', including our MP who lives in a fluoridation area.
As you stated in your editorial, 30 per cent of adults in Tamworth are obese compared with 21.4 per cent in Warwickshire.
We in Tamworth have the second-highest rate or cardio vascular disease in the county, Cannock being the highest.
As chairman of the Community/Well Being Scrutiny Committee, I feel our efforts should be directed to reducing obesity and cardio vascular disease in the community rather than discussing fluoridation of water over which my committee and I have no remit – it is the Primary Care Trust and South Staffordshire Water who dictate the amount which is in our water system.
Councillor Ken Gant
Prof Lennon chairman of the British Fluoride Society assured him fluoride was safe. That's OK then.
I wonder how many dentists per population they have? In Southampton where they are trying to bring in fluoridation we seem to be getting more and more dentists come into the city and setting up practice
9 Jul 2011
New York wants to put warning labels on sippy cups.
New York wants to put warning labels on sippy cups. Seriously? Wency Leung
Caution: Parents, before you give your child that sippy cup, there’s something New York lawmakers want you to know.
Like cigarettes and alcohol, sippy cups may soon be required to carry a warning label in New York state. The danger? Childhood tooth decay.
The New York legislature has voted in favour of tooth-decay warning labels, Time magazine reports. The measure, however, is still under review and awaiting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s approval.
“I can show you photos of children who go to bed with sippy cups,” he told the Daily News. “All you see is little black stumps that is all that is left of the teeth.”....
8 Jul 2011
Daily Echo letter
Stop this scandal of enforced fluorideI AM writing yet again about the fluoride debate.
The SHA say that they went by the law when they made the decision to want to put fluoride into our drinking water. But isn't there a law that says things should not be forced upon us?
If our water does get fluoridated it will be one of the most scandalous things to go ahead. We have had more than enough people against this scheme and most don't want fluoride in their water. It seems that the SHA can do what they like regardless of strong opposition from the public.
Can the SHA answer this: if other countries are taking fluoride out because of health concerns then why are they not taking any notice of those concerns?
I also agree with the letter from Steve Matthews (Echo July 2), when he states that fluoride cannot be dumped at sea yet it might end up in Southampton Water, and if he were to dump just one drum per day off dockhead he would be arrested and charged with poisoning our water.
Yes he would be arrested, yet the SHA will probably get away with it. Is that democratic?
It is all scandalous and undemocratic for the public not to have been listened to. If we don't want it then it shouldn't ever go in.
MRS KINCHINGTON.
6 Jul 2011
Daily Echo letter
Actions speak louder than wordsI WAS very pleased to read the assurances from Olga Senior (Daily Echo, Letters, June 25) that the SHA would not be "arrogant enough to insult the intelligence of more than 10,000 individuals, who contributed to the fluoride consultation".
For they have already done just that when they dismissed the great wisdom of the people by overruling public opinion with their "we know best" attitude.
It is time now to put this renewed pledge into action by honouring the result of the public consultation in which the local population overwhelming rejected fluoridation.
When that day comes I shall hold out the olive branch to the SHA with my heartfelt and sincere apologies for having misconstrued their empathy as arrogance.
Until such time when we are no longer faced with the threat of poison on tap I remain convinced that their words and actions betray their extreme arrogance and lack of empathy with the people.
CAROL SCARBOROUGH,
Southampton.
5 Jul 2011
Daily Echo SOAPBOX
SOAPBOX: Fluoride
The public has a right to know
PROFESSOR John Newton, Regional Director of Public Health, was the SHA's principle adviser on fluoridation.
His remit demands that he keep up with the latest evidence in order to protect communities from known and avoidable health risks.
He must not approve measures known to cause potential harm or disadvantage to significant vulnerable subsections of the community. Nor must he subject people to enforced treatment linked to chronic and even life-threatening diseases. Despite this imperative, he chose to ignore the precautionary principle and advised the SHA to implement fluoridation - a policy of indiscriminate and uncontrolled mass medication using a medically unlicensed product.
The Risk / Benefit Equation does not apply where the recipient has no choice, ie where medication comes through the tap. He was fully informed, but clearly ignored the adverse findings of the York Review, and the peer reviewed evidence of world experts. Many consider John Newton to be personally accountable as the power behind fluoridation. They blame him for not instructing the SHA adequately regarding much significant research, including links with thyroid and kidney disease, brittle bone disease, a lowering of IQ in children in fluoridated areas, and a five to seven-fold increase in bone cancer in young boys.
Did he present this evidence to the SHA as he was clearly required to do? If so, why did they ignore it?
At the Decision Hearing, Professor Newton was asked: "Given the official advice that infants should not drink fluoridated water or have formula mixed with it, what arrangements have you made for delivering fluoride free water to young families and other vulnerable groups?" The Professor replied: "We advise young mothers to breastfeed." The audience was outraged. At a stroke, he had discriminated against women unable to breastfeed through illness or circumstance - and by implication - had admitted it was harmful to give infants fluoridated water. With the demise of Breastfeeding Awareness Week, what is his position now? The question he refused to answer then, still remains. Does he advise women who can't breastfeed to risk their children's health by giving them fluoridated water? Or should they follow official advice and use unfluoridated water? If the latter, he needs to instruct Southern Water accordingly.
The public has a right to know his plan before this toxic waste starts coming through our taps.
JENNIFER ODSCHALL JOHNSON, Upper Clatford.
'An insult to people who deserve better'
OLGA Senior should certainly know that the people do not want fluoride in their drinking water coming out of their taps.
Is she really so interested in the children of this area? Or maybe as Mr Spinner of Calmore has brought to light: 'we are faced with costs because of this hexafluorosilicic acid coming from a chemical waste from factories who are no doubt thrilled to think they can be paid for this danger to our drinking water.'
Imagine, people of this area, you are exposed now to WASTE being put into your water. This is outright preposterous.
Our councillors should probably better protect us against folly, not act as if the SHA can dictate its desires. I think it is quite evident from the press and mass media in general that this fluoride is not wanted in our water.
So, able councillors, protect us, fight for us. We pay enough taxes to be better treated!
I consider this whole matter an insult to the people who deserve better.
Those "children" can surely get supplies of fluoride elsewhere rather than in everyone's drinking water. OK, Mrs Senior, improve dental health, don't ruin our pure water supply
ALBERT-LAURITZ RASMUSSEN, Totton.
The public has a right to know
PROFESSOR John Newton, Regional Director of Public Health, was the SHA's principle adviser on fluoridation.
His remit demands that he keep up with the latest evidence in order to protect communities from known and avoidable health risks.
He must not approve measures known to cause potential harm or disadvantage to significant vulnerable subsections of the community. Nor must he subject people to enforced treatment linked to chronic and even life-threatening diseases. Despite this imperative, he chose to ignore the precautionary principle and advised the SHA to implement fluoridation - a policy of indiscriminate and uncontrolled mass medication using a medically unlicensed product.
The Risk / Benefit Equation does not apply where the recipient has no choice, ie where medication comes through the tap. He was fully informed, but clearly ignored the adverse findings of the York Review, and the peer reviewed evidence of world experts. Many consider John Newton to be personally accountable as the power behind fluoridation. They blame him for not instructing the SHA adequately regarding much significant research, including links with thyroid and kidney disease, brittle bone disease, a lowering of IQ in children in fluoridated areas, and a five to seven-fold increase in bone cancer in young boys.
Did he present this evidence to the SHA as he was clearly required to do? If so, why did they ignore it?
At the Decision Hearing, Professor Newton was asked: "Given the official advice that infants should not drink fluoridated water or have formula mixed with it, what arrangements have you made for delivering fluoride free water to young families and other vulnerable groups?" The Professor replied: "We advise young mothers to breastfeed." The audience was outraged. At a stroke, he had discriminated against women unable to breastfeed through illness or circumstance - and by implication - had admitted it was harmful to give infants fluoridated water. With the demise of Breastfeeding Awareness Week, what is his position now? The question he refused to answer then, still remains. Does he advise women who can't breastfeed to risk their children's health by giving them fluoridated water? Or should they follow official advice and use unfluoridated water? If the latter, he needs to instruct Southern Water accordingly.
The public has a right to know his plan before this toxic waste starts coming through our taps.
JENNIFER ODSCHALL JOHNSON, Upper Clatford.
'An insult to people who deserve better'
OLGA Senior should certainly know that the people do not want fluoride in their drinking water coming out of their taps.
Is she really so interested in the children of this area? Or maybe as Mr Spinner of Calmore has brought to light: 'we are faced with costs because of this hexafluorosilicic acid coming from a chemical waste from factories who are no doubt thrilled to think they can be paid for this danger to our drinking water.'
Imagine, people of this area, you are exposed now to WASTE being put into your water. This is outright preposterous.
Our councillors should probably better protect us against folly, not act as if the SHA can dictate its desires. I think it is quite evident from the press and mass media in general that this fluoride is not wanted in our water.
So, able councillors, protect us, fight for us. We pay enough taxes to be better treated!
I consider this whole matter an insult to the people who deserve better.
Those "children" can surely get supplies of fluoride elsewhere rather than in everyone's drinking water. OK, Mrs Senior, improve dental health, don't ruin our pure water supply
ALBERT-LAURITZ RASMUSSEN, Totton.
David Harrison - County, District and Town Councillor
In my day job, I'm very proud to work for the NHS. I'm involved in helping people overcome mental illness. I'm just a small part of a large team that helps our service users manage their illness. We work with them to assist them re-build their lives and cope with the stigma associated with mental health problems. Ideally, they will eventually live independent, fulfilling, lives out in the community.
Many of the people I have helped over the years have developed mental health problems through abuse of alcohol or have become unwell through the use of taking recreational drugs. As with so many health related issues, the old saying “prevention is so much better than cure”. Perhaps, there are people reading this now who are travelling down the same path. The answer is simply to seek out help now rather than to let things get worse.
Many of the people I now care for had allowed things to deteriorate to the point where they committted a serious criminal offence, resulting in a tragedy, causing utter misery for others and particularly themselves. Once in the mental health system it is sometimes a long time getting out again.
There have been many news stories about proposed changes to the NHS and it is still far from clear exactly what kind of service we will have in a few years time when all the dust settles. However, one thing that has not changed is the importance of the local GP (General Practioner).
In these days of economic hardship, people struggling to pay bills, wage cuts, job losses, lack of security and the like, I fully expect the numbers of people suffering from stress and depression to increase. The temptation to take refuge in the use of alcohol or recreational drugs will never be greater. For most people who find themselves developing problems, the GP will be the first port of call. He or she will be able to refer you on to specialist advice or treatment.
I have just taken a stress test which is available on the BBC website. After answering all the questions, I wasn't unduly surprised to learn that I am moderately stressed, (no doubt due to my very busy lifestyle). My own favorite therapy is taking time out for a walk or bird watching in the New Forest. Different things work for different folks.
In the past 50 years, society in this part of the world has changed to a remarkable extent. Some things for the better, some not so good. It is certainly a lot easier to get stressed out than it ever used to be and it isn't the high flying executives and business people who suffer the worst health problems as a result. It's those of us who have limited control over how we lead our lives. I bet that's something that the health professionals who insist we must have fluoride in our tap water haven't even considered.
Many of the people I have helped over the years have developed mental health problems through abuse of alcohol or have become unwell through the use of taking recreational drugs. As with so many health related issues, the old saying “prevention is so much better than cure”. Perhaps, there are people reading this now who are travelling down the same path. The answer is simply to seek out help now rather than to let things get worse.
Many of the people I now care for had allowed things to deteriorate to the point where they committted a serious criminal offence, resulting in a tragedy, causing utter misery for others and particularly themselves. Once in the mental health system it is sometimes a long time getting out again.
There have been many news stories about proposed changes to the NHS and it is still far from clear exactly what kind of service we will have in a few years time when all the dust settles. However, one thing that has not changed is the importance of the local GP (General Practioner).
In these days of economic hardship, people struggling to pay bills, wage cuts, job losses, lack of security and the like, I fully expect the numbers of people suffering from stress and depression to increase. The temptation to take refuge in the use of alcohol or recreational drugs will never be greater. For most people who find themselves developing problems, the GP will be the first port of call. He or she will be able to refer you on to specialist advice or treatment.
I have just taken a stress test which is available on the BBC website. After answering all the questions, I wasn't unduly surprised to learn that I am moderately stressed, (no doubt due to my very busy lifestyle). My own favorite therapy is taking time out for a walk or bird watching in the New Forest. Different things work for different folks.
In the past 50 years, society in this part of the world has changed to a remarkable extent. Some things for the better, some not so good. It is certainly a lot easier to get stressed out than it ever used to be and it isn't the high flying executives and business people who suffer the worst health problems as a result. It's those of us who have limited control over how we lead our lives. I bet that's something that the health professionals who insist we must have fluoride in our tap water haven't even considered.
2 Jul 2011
More signatures
We now have 6000 responses from people living in Southampton more than enough to bring about a Southampton City Council debate. The time is now extended to September so if you haven't signed as you were outside of the area affected you now can do so. We want to present as many signatures as possible to emphasize the strength of the feeling against fluoridation.
City Council Petition - 10-Sept
City Council Petition - 10-Sept
Daily Echo - What about fluoride threat to our fish?
What about fluoride threat to our fish?
I AM pleased to hear that Hampshire Against Fluoridation will be able to force a debate with Southampton city councillors over the pending fluoridation scheme (Daily Echo, June 18). I for one hope that those pro-fluoride will change their minds.
There are enough questions still unanswered about the safety of fluoride in the long-term to put a case of 'reasonable doubt'.
Pro-fluoride councillors and those at the SHA who have not listened to the views of Southampton residents should take heed of the case in Canada of Dr Hardy Limebeck, head of the Dept of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, and until recently, Canada's leading promoter of fluoridation.
He has now completely withdrawn his support for the additive. Clearly, Dr. Limebeck had a cause for reasonable doubt too. As have others in Finland (kidney health), Japan and even USA who are proposing to lower the level to O.Tppm (In My View
- Stephen Peckham, Daily Echo, June 18).
Hard-headed councillors who cite that no health problems have arisen in 40 years of fluoridation should do some wider research and not just read the SHA report.
In 2009, my own reasonable doubt centred on the concern for
increased fluoride ending up in Southampton Water, ie the confluence of the rivers Test, Itchen, Hamble. (Echo, Nov 23, 2009; 'Oystermen express fears over fluoride effluent').
As yet, there are still unanswered questions over exactly what the effluents will hold in terms of fluoride concentration. Fluoride at 0.2ppm can affect migrating salmon. How can we be sure if the fluoride in the effluent plumes will affect the Test/Itchen salmon run, sea trout, bass or mullet until somebody has evaluated it properly, not just guessed the outcome?
As I pointed out to councillors at the City Court Leet in 2009 there will be more than 450 drums (100 tonnes) going into the water per annum. This is for a material that cannot be dumped at sea! OK for it to end up in Southampton Water though, no questions asked! If I were to dump just one drum per day off dockhead, I would be arrested and charged with a 'significant act of watercourse poisoning'. Maybe I should do that
- just to prove the point! STEVE MATTHEWS, Warsash.
I AM pleased to hear that Hampshire Against Fluoridation will be able to force a debate with Southampton city councillors over the pending fluoridation scheme (Daily Echo, June 18). I for one hope that those pro-fluoride will change their minds.
There are enough questions still unanswered about the safety of fluoride in the long-term to put a case of 'reasonable doubt'.
Pro-fluoride councillors and those at the SHA who have not listened to the views of Southampton residents should take heed of the case in Canada of Dr Hardy Limebeck, head of the Dept of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, and until recently, Canada's leading promoter of fluoridation.
He has now completely withdrawn his support for the additive. Clearly, Dr. Limebeck had a cause for reasonable doubt too. As have others in Finland (kidney health), Japan and even USA who are proposing to lower the level to O.Tppm (In My View
- Stephen Peckham, Daily Echo, June 18).
Hard-headed councillors who cite that no health problems have arisen in 40 years of fluoridation should do some wider research and not just read the SHA report.
In 2009, my own reasonable doubt centred on the concern for
increased fluoride ending up in Southampton Water, ie the confluence of the rivers Test, Itchen, Hamble. (Echo, Nov 23, 2009; 'Oystermen express fears over fluoride effluent').
As yet, there are still unanswered questions over exactly what the effluents will hold in terms of fluoride concentration. Fluoride at 0.2ppm can affect migrating salmon. How can we be sure if the fluoride in the effluent plumes will affect the Test/Itchen salmon run, sea trout, bass or mullet until somebody has evaluated it properly, not just guessed the outcome?
As I pointed out to councillors at the City Court Leet in 2009 there will be more than 450 drums (100 tonnes) going into the water per annum. This is for a material that cannot be dumped at sea! OK for it to end up in Southampton Water though, no questions asked! If I were to dump just one drum per day off dockhead, I would be arrested and charged with a 'significant act of watercourse poisoning'. Maybe I should do that
- just to prove the point! STEVE MATTHEWS, Warsash.
1 Jul 2011
House of Lords
Fluoridation
Question
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 23 May (WA 379), whether in view of the many uncertainties about the evidence expressed in the York review a more accurate summation of what it reported would be the statement from the executive summary that "the best available evidence suggests", rather than "it found", that fluoridation protected children's teeth.[HL10345]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The conclusions section of the York review includes the statement:
"The best available evidence (level B) from studies on the initiation and discontinuation of water fluoridation suggests that fluoridation does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries-free and by the mean dmft/DMFT score".
We continue to seek to ensure that we reflect the findings of the review in an accurate and meaningful manner.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 6 June (WA 40-1), whether a period of 11 years between the institution of a legal requirement to monitor the effects of water fluoridation schemes in the United Kingdom and the publication of the first reports on existing schemes represents a satisfactory response to potential health concerns.[HL10346]
Earl Howe: As my previous reply indicated, we will meet the statutory requirements to monitor the effects of water fluoridation schemes. The monitoring will complement that already undertaken by the public health observatories which we are confident would have already identified any major differences in morbidity or mortality between the health of the populations of fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on 30 January 2008 (WA 124) and Earl Howe on
30 Jun 2011 : Column WA465
24 May 2011 (WA 409-10), why they cannot make progress by examining the risks, benefits and costs of existing fluoridation schemes as referred to by Lord Darzi of Denham.[HL10347]
Earl Howe: The research on dental fluorosis, which is the only proven side effect of fluoridation, is being conducted on a sample population of Newcastle where there is an existing fluoridation scheme. The benefits of fluoridation are illustrated by epidemiological surveys which show that levels of dental decay in fluoridated areas like the West Midlands are lower than those in areas like Greater Manchester where no adjustment is made to the level of fluoridation in the water supply. A new scheme would provide baseline information on oral health and cost of implementation which are not available from existing schemes.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 6 June (WA 41), (a) whether the British Dental Association remains a signatory to the campaign by the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health to promote water fluoridation; and if so (b) whether a school of dentistry is well placed to conduct an impartial study into the prevalence and severity of any adverse effects of fluoridation.[HL10348]
Earl Howe: The British Dental Association is an independent organisation and we have no recent information about its association with the campaign. Only dental care professionals have the expertise to identify dental fluorosis but the interpretive element of the research is based on a sample of lay people giving their views on the aesthetic impact of fluorosis. We are satisfied that these findings are being objectively recorded.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Thornton on 18 January 2010 (WA 102) and 23 February 2010 (WA 282-3), whether the findings by Professor Chester Douglass, which he claimed would not support an association between osteosarcoma and water fluoridation and were intended for publication in summer 2006, have yet been published.[HL10350]
Earl Howe: Nothing has yet been published, but we understand that Professor Douglass will shortly be publishing a paper on his findings in the Journal of Dental Research.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 26 April (WA 47-8) and 23 May (WA 378), whether the figure of 3 per cent for fluorosis of aesthetic concern given by the National Fluoride Information Centre on its website took account of the 95 per cent
30 Jun 2011 : Column WA466
confidence intervals around the prevalence figure of 12.5 per cent in table 7.7 of the York report, which gave a spread of 7 per cent-21.5 per cent. [HL10382]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We do not have information of this detail since the National Fluoride Information Centre was independent of the department. The research project which we have funded the School of Dentistry at the University of Manchester to undertake on the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis will provide new information.
Question
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 23 May (WA 379), whether in view of the many uncertainties about the evidence expressed in the York review a more accurate summation of what it reported would be the statement from the executive summary that "the best available evidence suggests", rather than "it found", that fluoridation protected children's teeth.[HL10345]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The conclusions section of the York review includes the statement:
"The best available evidence (level B) from studies on the initiation and discontinuation of water fluoridation suggests that fluoridation does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries-free and by the mean dmft/DMFT score".
We continue to seek to ensure that we reflect the findings of the review in an accurate and meaningful manner.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 6 June (WA 40-1), whether a period of 11 years between the institution of a legal requirement to monitor the effects of water fluoridation schemes in the United Kingdom and the publication of the first reports on existing schemes represents a satisfactory response to potential health concerns.[HL10346]
Earl Howe: As my previous reply indicated, we will meet the statutory requirements to monitor the effects of water fluoridation schemes. The monitoring will complement that already undertaken by the public health observatories which we are confident would have already identified any major differences in morbidity or mortality between the health of the populations of fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on 30 January 2008 (WA 124) and Earl Howe on
30 Jun 2011 : Column WA465
24 May 2011 (WA 409-10), why they cannot make progress by examining the risks, benefits and costs of existing fluoridation schemes as referred to by Lord Darzi of Denham.[HL10347]
Earl Howe: The research on dental fluorosis, which is the only proven side effect of fluoridation, is being conducted on a sample population of Newcastle where there is an existing fluoridation scheme. The benefits of fluoridation are illustrated by epidemiological surveys which show that levels of dental decay in fluoridated areas like the West Midlands are lower than those in areas like Greater Manchester where no adjustment is made to the level of fluoridation in the water supply. A new scheme would provide baseline information on oral health and cost of implementation which are not available from existing schemes.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 6 June (WA 41), (a) whether the British Dental Association remains a signatory to the campaign by the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health to promote water fluoridation; and if so (b) whether a school of dentistry is well placed to conduct an impartial study into the prevalence and severity of any adverse effects of fluoridation.[HL10348]
Earl Howe: The British Dental Association is an independent organisation and we have no recent information about its association with the campaign. Only dental care professionals have the expertise to identify dental fluorosis but the interpretive element of the research is based on a sample of lay people giving their views on the aesthetic impact of fluorosis. We are satisfied that these findings are being objectively recorded.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Thornton on 18 January 2010 (WA 102) and 23 February 2010 (WA 282-3), whether the findings by Professor Chester Douglass, which he claimed would not support an association between osteosarcoma and water fluoridation and were intended for publication in summer 2006, have yet been published.[HL10350]
Earl Howe: Nothing has yet been published, but we understand that Professor Douglass will shortly be publishing a paper on his findings in the Journal of Dental Research.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 26 April (WA 47-8) and 23 May (WA 378), whether the figure of 3 per cent for fluorosis of aesthetic concern given by the National Fluoride Information Centre on its website took account of the 95 per cent
30 Jun 2011 : Column WA466
confidence intervals around the prevalence figure of 12.5 per cent in table 7.7 of the York report, which gave a spread of 7 per cent-21.5 per cent. [HL10382]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We do not have information of this detail since the National Fluoride Information Centre was independent of the department. The research project which we have funded the School of Dentistry at the University of Manchester to undertake on the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis will provide new information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
