30 Sept 2011
Hot start for fluoridation hearing
Anti-fluoride campaigners made up the bulk of the audience at day one of the two-day tribunal into the future of water fluoridation in the New Plymouth district.MATT RILKOFF Last updated 05:00 30/09/2011SharePrint Text Size 2 comments ANDY JACKSONAnti-fluoride campaigners made up the bulk of the audience at day one of the two-day tribunal into the future of water fluoridation in the New Plymouth district.Relevant offersTouted by one side as the great health leveller and the other as a dangerous poison, water fluoridation hit New Plymouth District councillors with both barrels yesterday.
However, their weight of numbers was matched by the gravitas of the smaller Taranaki District Health Board group, which was the other main submitter on the day.
For the first two hours of the tribunal, councillors heard and asked questions of Whangarei dentist Lawrence Brett and Hamilton doctor Peter Scanlon of anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network New Zealand.
During that time, the argument against putting fluoride into water supplies to reduce tooth decay seemed rock solid. Among many things, Mr Brett told councillors the best teeth in the country were found in the non-fluoridated towns in the South Island, and it was diet that determined dental health, not fluoride.
"These are things we have to accept as true. Tooth decay is caused by sugar. Decay is not a result of a shortage of fluoride in our diet, it's an excess of sugar."
Dr Scanlon also spoke at length, though concentrated on the health risks that could be associated with the addition of fluoride into drinking water.
"The sophistication and complexity of how a body is means the simplistic one-fits-all approach like the fluoridation of water is such an outrageous concept it is laughable. The Government has dismissed it in light of the expanding evidence that this is a paradigm shift, wake up. Houston, are you there?"
Both men received a standing ovation but was no such reaction to the next submitters, Taranaki District Health Board.....
29 Sept 2011
Canada - New surface treatment plant ready for public’s inspection
Water world
New surface treatment plant ready for public’s inspection
By Cheryl Browne, Barrie Examiner
Posted 3 hours ago
I don't know about you, but my skin gets wrinkly after having a good soak. So the concept of having 12 baths a day means most of us would resemble shrivelled up prunes.
Yet that's how many baths each of the 42,000 homes in south-end Barrie would need to have each day to use up the water in the new Surface Water Treatment Plant on Royal Parkside Drive......
...Barrie councillors determined they wouldn't add fluoride to the water when they were planning the building of the new system, and Adams agrees.
"It's a very reactive dangerous chemical and there's constant controversy over how much is enough or too much," he said.
New surface treatment plant ready for public’s inspection
By Cheryl Browne, Barrie Examiner
Posted 3 hours ago
I don't know about you, but my skin gets wrinkly after having a good soak. So the concept of having 12 baths a day means most of us would resemble shrivelled up prunes.
Yet that's how many baths each of the 42,000 homes in south-end Barrie would need to have each day to use up the water in the new Surface Water Treatment Plant on Royal Parkside Drive......
...Barrie councillors determined they wouldn't add fluoride to the water when they were planning the building of the new system, and Adams agrees.
"It's a very reactive dangerous chemical and there's constant controversy over how much is enough or too much," he said.
28 Sept 2011
Plymouth Children to be Offered Fluoride Varnish Treatments
Plymouth Children to be Offered Fluoride Varnish Treatments
Children in poor areas of Plymouth will be given fluoride varnish treatments to try and reduce rates of decay.
The fluoride scheme will be aimed at seventeen schools in deprived areas of Plymouth. The programme has been launched as a result of research that shows significant inequalities in standards of oral health in different areas of the city.
Research showed that a third of five-year-old children in Plymouth suffer from tooth decay, however, rates differed according to the area, with figures ranging from just under 7% in Elburton and Dunstone to 56% in Barne Barton....
Children in poor areas of Plymouth will be given fluoride varnish treatments to try and reduce rates of decay.
The fluoride scheme will be aimed at seventeen schools in deprived areas of Plymouth. The programme has been launched as a result of research that shows significant inequalities in standards of oral health in different areas of the city.
Research showed that a third of five-year-old children in Plymouth suffer from tooth decay, however, rates differed according to the area, with figures ranging from just under 7% in Elburton and Dunstone to 56% in Barne Barton....
27 Sept 2011
26 Sept 2011
Phyllis Mullenix,PhD discusses the toxicity of water fluoridation IAOMT 2009 Las Vegas
Very long scientific talk for the experts.
Echo In my view
CLLR DAVID HARRISON,Liberal Democrats, Hampshire County Council
SHA should drop plans for fluoride
AS a long-standing regular reader of the Daily Echo, I can't recall any topic that has prompted so many contributions to the 'Your Views' pages than the issue of adding fluoride to tap water.
Although the plans relate to Southampton and surrounding areas, the matter is of national interest because it is widely believed that if the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) manage to impose it upon an unwilling population here, then it will be followed up in other parts of the country.
I pay tribute to the campaigning group Hampshire Against Fluoride because they have proved resilient and dogged in their determination to fight the plans, often at great personal cost to themselves.
They truly deserve respect for fighting a cause they believe in and so effectively.
I have been struck by the absolute certainty from the pro-fluoride supporters that the plans are in the public interest and carry little or no health risks.
This is only matched by the anti-fluoride supporters who believe equally strongly that the health risks are only too real and that to proceed would be effectively to poison the population on a massive scale.
Hearing all of the arguments, I struggle to form any firm conclusion other than to hold with the view that the precautionary principal should apply. If in doubt -leave it out!
My own particular hostility to the fluoride proposals centres around the issues of democracy, human rights and consent
Just about every elected councillor and MP in the area has expressed resistance to the plans.
The SHA carried out a consultation, whilst putting the case for fluoride, and despite this, the result was a firm thumbs-down, with more than 70 per cent of those responding indicating that they did not want it.
For me, the key point is that the plans really amount to mass medication.
I think the SHA has done very great harm. It has stubbornly forged ahead, using vast sums of our money in its efforts to impose this without any kind of electoral mandate.
This money could have been so much better utilised, targeting the young children who require much better oral healthcare.
Nobody is going to shed a tear that the SHA will soon be no more.
The very least that it could do, to salvage some remnant of public respect, would be to drop the plans - thus confirming what we always knew.
Nobody has the right to impose such a thing without consent.
25 Sept 2011
ANGLIAN PLUNGES FOR WHALE FLUORIDE TANKER
ANGLIAN PLUNGES FOR WHALE FLUORIDE TANKERWhale Tankers of Solihull has supplied an ADR approved 2600 litre rigid tanker unit for long-standing utility customer, Anglian Water geographically the largest waste and wastewater company in England & Wales covering an area of some 27,500 sq kilometres.
Mounted on a Mercedes Atego 816 4 x 2 7.5 tonne chassis, the new tanker has been designed and built to carry Fluorosilicic acid. Introduced into Anglian Water's fleet as a replacement unit, the fluoride tanker is being used to transfer Fluorosilicic acid from bulk to local tanks for the dosing of fluoride to water in specific areas of the Anglian region.
The ADR tanker constructed from carbon steel has been supplied with TC1 and TC2 accredited approval certification. Complete with an automated closed loading and discharge system enabling pre-determined levels of fluoride to be delivered to dose water the latest Whale tanker to join Anglian Water has been supplied with the company's industry acclaimed WhaleCARE field-based preventative maintenance programme......
Hopefully they won't be coming to Southampton.
24 Sept 2011
Human rights - balancing the books.
Human rights - balancing the books.
The article in the Daily Mail of 17th September - “Paedophile's park ban lifted because of his human rights" exposes the continued ignorance of what human rights really are, even within the judiciary itself.
The key to this flawed decision lies in understanding the difference between absolute and relative human rights. This governs the code of civil liberties that forms a large section of the legal framework under which we run our society. Absolute rights are the property of the individual, and may not be violated, by another individual or even by the State itself. Relative, or conditional, rights are those that are subject to the rights of others and of the society in which we live. They may be exercised by an individual only when an acceptable compromise is agreed with those who also enjoy the same or competing rights.
For example, the right to refuse medication is absolute. But if you have a highly contagious and dangerous disease, this could infect and kill another person, in violation of their absolute right to life. In such circumstances your right to liberty is a conditional right - you may be detained by the State in quarantine to prevent the disease spreading to others. But even then, your absolute right to refuse medication that could save your life remains in effect; you cannot be forcibly treated and cured against your will.
The ban on the paedophile was introduced to prevent him molesting children in the park. The right of children not to be subject to such molestation is an absolute right - a paedophile cannot claim to have the right to molest children, because that would overturn the right of the child not to be molested.
The judge is in error because he has failed to recognise that the ban on him using the park merely limits his conditional right to take exercise. It does not prevent him from doing so elsewhere, but his exercising is subject to rules under the civil liberties code of this society that recognise the equal right of children to use the park without interference.
Our over-friendly neighbourhood paedophile might, of course, decide to take his exercise on the fast lane of the local motorway, even if at considerable personal risk. But he might then cause a pile-up and the death of innocent motorists, which would be a serious violation of their right not to be subject to activities by others that could result in their death. Reasonably enough, our rules on civil liberties dictate that such activity must be prohibited in law. Within our society as we mutually accept it, we permit people to take exercise, but not in a fashion that threatens other people's rights, especially if the rights that are threatened are absolute..
Earl Howe's outrageous statement in the house of Lords last week that "in our view, any infringement of human rights arising out of water fluoridation is justified by the benefits to oral health." illustrates just how far this ignorance - or perhaps arrogance - has infiltrated into our society. Fluoridation disfigures children, and on that account alone the forcible administration of fluoride in the public drinking water supplies is in gross violation of Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits any treatment that is degrading.
Having to live with disfigured teeth is undoubtedly degrading - watch my video on 'Rachel's Story' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trQSZHF8eI4) to hear one young woman's experience of growing up in England with moderate dental fluorosis. So even if fluoridation worked - which it does not - it violates the absolute prohibition on degrading treatment imposed under Article 3 of the Convention.
Of course children with bad teeth have the right to treatment - but that right is itself a conditional right. Treatment cannot be given in a fashion that violates the absolute right of other children not to be subjected to degrading treatment. Equally, our paedophile member of society is free to exercise elsewhere, provided he does not threaten other children.
Earl Howe's arrogant statement exposes his failure to understand the principles that underlie the human rights legislation. His claim that 'any infringement' is acceptable 'if' it protects a few children from tooth decay does not identify which right he supports the government violating in its irrational and illegal policy, irrespective of whether fluoridation actually works.
Quite simply, Earl Howe has put on record the government's position that it is entitled to violate the absolute prohibition on degrading treatment of children, that disfigures thousands of English children each year. It appears to be his view that any such violation of a child's rights is acceptable if it results in a few children having slightly less dental decay. On that ground alone, the government's policy of water fluoridation should be referred to the Courts for resolution.
Parliament has given our Courts authority to restrict the activities of paedophile, so that their attempts to violate our children can be curbed. Yet it continues to condone the Department of Health's activity that violates the absolute right of our children not to be subjected to degrading treatment. Fluoridation condemns thousands of children to a lifetime of rejection, social and financial disadvantage. Yet our 'Parliament of Fools' doggedly clings to the myth that this enforced and prohibited form of public medication is of such national urgency that its retention justifies the abolition of the human rights of the public.
It is time for the Courts to decide whether this form of child abuse is indeed, like paedophilia, in gross violation of the Human Rights of our children, and that those who advocate it are, again, like paedophiles, unfit to be let loose in modern society.
Doug Cross
Director, UKCAF
The article in the Daily Mail of 17th September - “Paedophile's park ban lifted because of his human rights" exposes the continued ignorance of what human rights really are, even within the judiciary itself.
The key to this flawed decision lies in understanding the difference between absolute and relative human rights. This governs the code of civil liberties that forms a large section of the legal framework under which we run our society. Absolute rights are the property of the individual, and may not be violated, by another individual or even by the State itself. Relative, or conditional, rights are those that are subject to the rights of others and of the society in which we live. They may be exercised by an individual only when an acceptable compromise is agreed with those who also enjoy the same or competing rights.
For example, the right to refuse medication is absolute. But if you have a highly contagious and dangerous disease, this could infect and kill another person, in violation of their absolute right to life. In such circumstances your right to liberty is a conditional right - you may be detained by the State in quarantine to prevent the disease spreading to others. But even then, your absolute right to refuse medication that could save your life remains in effect; you cannot be forcibly treated and cured against your will.
The ban on the paedophile was introduced to prevent him molesting children in the park. The right of children not to be subject to such molestation is an absolute right - a paedophile cannot claim to have the right to molest children, because that would overturn the right of the child not to be molested.
The judge is in error because he has failed to recognise that the ban on him using the park merely limits his conditional right to take exercise. It does not prevent him from doing so elsewhere, but his exercising is subject to rules under the civil liberties code of this society that recognise the equal right of children to use the park without interference.
Our over-friendly neighbourhood paedophile might, of course, decide to take his exercise on the fast lane of the local motorway, even if at considerable personal risk. But he might then cause a pile-up and the death of innocent motorists, which would be a serious violation of their right not to be subject to activities by others that could result in their death. Reasonably enough, our rules on civil liberties dictate that such activity must be prohibited in law. Within our society as we mutually accept it, we permit people to take exercise, but not in a fashion that threatens other people's rights, especially if the rights that are threatened are absolute..
Earl Howe's outrageous statement in the house of Lords last week that "in our view, any infringement of human rights arising out of water fluoridation is justified by the benefits to oral health." illustrates just how far this ignorance - or perhaps arrogance - has infiltrated into our society. Fluoridation disfigures children, and on that account alone the forcible administration of fluoride in the public drinking water supplies is in gross violation of Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits any treatment that is degrading.
Having to live with disfigured teeth is undoubtedly degrading - watch my video on 'Rachel's Story' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trQSZHF8eI4) to hear one young woman's experience of growing up in England with moderate dental fluorosis. So even if fluoridation worked - which it does not - it violates the absolute prohibition on degrading treatment imposed under Article 3 of the Convention.
Of course children with bad teeth have the right to treatment - but that right is itself a conditional right. Treatment cannot be given in a fashion that violates the absolute right of other children not to be subjected to degrading treatment. Equally, our paedophile member of society is free to exercise elsewhere, provided he does not threaten other children.
Earl Howe's arrogant statement exposes his failure to understand the principles that underlie the human rights legislation. His claim that 'any infringement' is acceptable 'if' it protects a few children from tooth decay does not identify which right he supports the government violating in its irrational and illegal policy, irrespective of whether fluoridation actually works.
Quite simply, Earl Howe has put on record the government's position that it is entitled to violate the absolute prohibition on degrading treatment of children, that disfigures thousands of English children each year. It appears to be his view that any such violation of a child's rights is acceptable if it results in a few children having slightly less dental decay. On that ground alone, the government's policy of water fluoridation should be referred to the Courts for resolution.
Parliament has given our Courts authority to restrict the activities of paedophile, so that their attempts to violate our children can be curbed. Yet it continues to condone the Department of Health's activity that violates the absolute right of our children not to be subjected to degrading treatment. Fluoridation condemns thousands of children to a lifetime of rejection, social and financial disadvantage. Yet our 'Parliament of Fools' doggedly clings to the myth that this enforced and prohibited form of public medication is of such national urgency that its retention justifies the abolition of the human rights of the public.
It is time for the Courts to decide whether this form of child abuse is indeed, like paedophilia, in gross violation of the Human Rights of our children, and that those who advocate it are, again, like paedophiles, unfit to be let loose in modern society.
Doug Cross
Director, UKCAF
USA - Water Fluoridation Injury Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court
A 13-year-old's fluoride-discolored teeth was allegedly caused by drinking fluoridated bottled water since infancy. Her Mom is suing the bottlers for the cost to cover up the unsightly teeth.
New York – Sept 21, 2011 -- Attempting to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers, most US public water supplies include added fluoride chemicals. And some corporations sell fluoridated bottled water for the same reason. However, ingesting fluoride can lead to dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth, now afflicting 41% of adolescents, reports the CDC. But according to a newly-filed lawsuit, suppliers of fluoridated water fail to effectively warn customers that ingesting fluoride can discolor teeth
Nidel Law, P.L.L.C., in conjunction with Paulson and Nace, P.L.L.C., filed a case against Nestle U.S.A., Nestle Waters North America, Inc., and the Gerber Products Company, for damage caused by fluoride contained in their products marketed and sold for consumption by children under the age of eight. The Plaintiff, a 13-year old girl, suffers from dental fluorosis. Her
mother wants compensation for the costs associated with covering up her daughter’s unsightly teeth, estimated to be over $100,000 over her lifetime..........
New York – Sept 21, 2011 -- Attempting to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers, most US public water supplies include added fluoride chemicals. And some corporations sell fluoridated bottled water for the same reason. However, ingesting fluoride can lead to dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth, now afflicting 41% of adolescents, reports the CDC. But according to a newly-filed lawsuit, suppliers of fluoridated water fail to effectively warn customers that ingesting fluoride can discolor teeth
Nidel Law, P.L.L.C., in conjunction with Paulson and Nace, P.L.L.C., filed a case against Nestle U.S.A., Nestle Waters North America, Inc., and the Gerber Products Company, for damage caused by fluoride contained in their products marketed and sold for consumption by children under the age of eight. The Plaintiff, a 13-year old girl, suffers from dental fluorosis. Her
mother wants compensation for the costs associated with covering up her daughter’s unsightly teeth, estimated to be over $100,000 over her lifetime..........
Daily Echo - Do all you can to fight fluoride
Do all you can to fight fluoridePLEASE, please, do all you can to stop this fluoride "poison" from polluting our water.
We don't want it. When will they get the message loud and clear?
Thank you for all the update and help the Echo has given us.
MR & MRS R TARRY, Bitteme, Southampton.
SURELY there is a law to protect us from this fluoridation, it can't be that important or the north would not have axed it!
What about our human rights or health and safety? This SHA is so feeble minded, whatever the cost it will not give in.
E RUSSELL, Freemantle, Southampton.
23 Sept 2011
Lymington Times - City council joins anti-fluoride fight
City council joins anti-fluoride fight
CAMPAIGNERS against fluoride being added to Southampton's water supply, which would affect thousands of Totton residents, have gained the support of the city council.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation held a demonstration outside the council offices before a meeting on Wednesday in last week and handed in a 6,000-name petition against the scheme.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval in 2009 for the chemical to be added to Southampton's supply 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 High Court challenge to the scheme earlier this year was rejected by a judge.
Members of the city council had originally supported the scheme, but have now voted against, Hampshire and New Forest councils have also objected.
However, city councilleader Coun. Royston Smith said it was powerless to reverse the decision to fluoridate water without further legislation.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham told the ' A&T he planned to write to the SHA to request a halt to the scheme now that it was not supported by any local council or MP.
CAMPAIGNERS against fluoride being added to Southampton's water supply, which would affect thousands of Totton residents, have gained the support of the city council.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation held a demonstration outside the council offices before a meeting on Wednesday in last week and handed in a 6,000-name petition against the scheme.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval in 2009 for the chemical to be added to Southampton's supply 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 High Court challenge to the scheme earlier this year was rejected by a judge.
Members of the city council had originally supported the scheme, but have now voted against, Hampshire and New Forest councils have also objected.
However, city councilleader Coun. Royston Smith said it was powerless to reverse the decision to fluoridate water without further legislation.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham told the ' A&T he planned to write to the SHA to request a halt to the scheme now that it was not supported by any local council or MP.
Daily Echo - letter
We all want our water without fluorideI WAS at the council meeting on September 14 when good common sense took place for once and our council voted against fluoridating our water supply.
But of course we still have the SHA, who seem to want to add this chemical (fluoride).
When will they understand the word NO?
Other countries are taking it out. Doesn't that tell them anything? This fluoride builds up in our body system over the years and can affect some people more than others and can cause a number of health problems.
As I said many times before, our water is for drinking and not for treating anything, and since the SHA are using the word treat,
which is what they would be doing by treating teeth, then fluoride becomes a medicine, and it is against the law to mass medicate. So I think we have all made it very clear to the SHA to leave our water alone.
I, and I know many, many other people, are very angry how such a scheme could even be thought of in the first place.
We pay for our water and when it enters our taps it becomes ours and we all want it without your chemical fluoride, thank you.
Don't you think, SHA, if you are reading this, that we have all made it very clear that we don't want it? It is as clear as clear as we want our water.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
22 Sept 2011
Prof Newton won't back down fluoridation for Southampton goes ahead.
See this on Meridian TV web page
21 Sept 2011
Flouridation axe pleases BOLTON’S Greens
Flouridation axe pleases Greens
8:54am Tuesday 20th September 2011
BOLTON’S Green Party has welcomed plans to cancel a public consultation on fluoridation of Bolton’s water supply.
NHS North West drew up plans for a £200 million fluoridation scheme in 2008.
But, as reported in The Bolton News yesterday, the regional health body is due to be abolished and the fluoridation consultation plans will go with it.
Bolton Greens have long campaigned against fluoridation and leader Alan Johnson said he was pleased the public consultation had been scrapped.
He said: “We have been actively campaigning against this for some time now so we are glad it is back on the shelf.
“We are opposed to it in terms of civil liberties and mass medication.
“People can use fluoride toothpaste if they want. The real problem is a lack of NHS dentists.” The aim of fluoridation is to strengthen people’s teeth and its implementation in the North West would have cost £200 million over six years.
Health chiefs said the annual running costs of the scheme would have been a further £5.78 million.
8:54am Tuesday 20th September 2011
BOLTON’S Green Party has welcomed plans to cancel a public consultation on fluoridation of Bolton’s water supply.
NHS North West drew up plans for a £200 million fluoridation scheme in 2008.
But, as reported in The Bolton News yesterday, the regional health body is due to be abolished and the fluoridation consultation plans will go with it.
Bolton Greens have long campaigned against fluoridation and leader Alan Johnson said he was pleased the public consultation had been scrapped.
He said: “We have been actively campaigning against this for some time now so we are glad it is back on the shelf.
“We are opposed to it in terms of civil liberties and mass medication.
“People can use fluoride toothpaste if they want. The real problem is a lack of NHS dentists.” The aim of fluoridation is to strengthen people’s teeth and its implementation in the North West would have cost £200 million over six years.
Health chiefs said the annual running costs of the scheme would have been a further £5.78 million.
Daily Echo - Let parents have the right to decide
Let parents have the right to decide
I AM writing about the article (Daily Echo, September 15) about the fight against fluoride.
I feel very strongly about Labour councillor John Noon's comment "I believe fluoridation is beneficial to children's health. I actually feel we have a moral duty to do this -1 want to support children who don't have a voice".
As a parent of three children, my youngest two-year-old boy cannot speak for himself in the matters of this sort, so I feel it is mine and my wife's responsibility to decide if he should be administered a chemical such as fluoride. In the above comment by the councillor, he thinks he has been granted the right to make decisions for our children and it's not the right of the parents.
1 find this comment very offensive.
As he has taken the moral responsibility for all the children of Southampton and has made his mind up that industrial waste fluoride should be given to all, I guess he will take all the legal responsibility of administering this toxin into the water supply to our children, and for when children start to suffer from the side effects of fluoride that all the countries currently administering fluoride in the water are having, like fluorosis of the teeth in 41 per cent of children, and other health problems that I can list.
A councillor should stand up for their constituents, and under a democracy should support the majority.
Seventy-two per cent of the people in Southampton are against fluoride being administered in the water.
As this councillor ignores this fact, is he truly a councillor doing his duty as a representative of the people, or a councillor who considers power to be greater than his moral responsibility?
KEVEN WATER,
Address supplied.
I AM writing about the article (Daily Echo, September 15) about the fight against fluoride.
I feel very strongly about Labour councillor John Noon's comment "I believe fluoridation is beneficial to children's health. I actually feel we have a moral duty to do this -1 want to support children who don't have a voice".
As a parent of three children, my youngest two-year-old boy cannot speak for himself in the matters of this sort, so I feel it is mine and my wife's responsibility to decide if he should be administered a chemical such as fluoride. In the above comment by the councillor, he thinks he has been granted the right to make decisions for our children and it's not the right of the parents.
1 find this comment very offensive.
As he has taken the moral responsibility for all the children of Southampton and has made his mind up that industrial waste fluoride should be given to all, I guess he will take all the legal responsibility of administering this toxin into the water supply to our children, and for when children start to suffer from the side effects of fluoride that all the countries currently administering fluoride in the water are having, like fluorosis of the teeth in 41 per cent of children, and other health problems that I can list.
A councillor should stand up for their constituents, and under a democracy should support the majority.
Seventy-two per cent of the people in Southampton are against fluoride being administered in the water.
As this councillor ignores this fact, is he truly a councillor doing his duty as a representative of the people, or a councillor who considers power to be greater than his moral responsibility?
KEVEN WATER,
Address supplied.
20 Sept 2011
Daily Echo Letters
Change of law needed to stop fluorideALTHOUGH it is heartening to read of fluoridation schemes being scrapped in other parts of Britain (Daily Echo, September 13), and indeed in other places around the world, I fear it is over-optimistic to think that exorbitant costs will play any significant part in dissuading those bodies bent on pushing through their plans from doing so.
Nothing has stopped the enormous wastage so far and that by a health service supposedly in financial difficulties!
Remember it is not just the expense of materials, but also arranging for storage, security, staffing and so on.
Meanwhile, Southern Water refuses to stand up for the right of its customers not to receive random medication through their water supply, even though acknowledging that this is what fluoridation is.
Revision of the current law may well transfer power to authorise fluoridation, but what is needed is a law which will actually protect our water from this kind of interference. And the sooner the better.
G PAYNE, Southampton.
Keep fluoride out of our water!
THE water we drink is our lifeline, Without it we cannot survive It has to be always pure and safe, In order to keep us alive. Our bodies wont tolerate fluoride, It causes great harm, there's no doubt,It's dangerous to add it to water supplies, So, we must fight to keep fluoride out.
MRS D J COVE,
Southampton.
19 Sept 2011
Dreadful Fate (2010)
Dreadful Fate (2010) from DULAM SATYANARAYANA on Vimeo.
Terrible film to watch, an Indian village suffering from vast more fluoride than they want to put in our water but a warning that fluoride is a dangerous substance.
Daily Echo - letter
Welcome fluoride move
I AND many others would like to thank the Daily Echo for its coverage of the Anti Fluoride Campaign. We have got the council to over turn their decision and vote against putting this substance in our water.
About two thirds were against it for various reasons.
While the war is not yet won as the Health and Social Care Bill is still going through parliament, I hope at least that more people are aware of this registered poison and all the long term damage that it can do to your body. And 30-40 per cent more children would suffer with fluorosis on their teeth.
I hope that now the thousands of readers you have will email/write to their MPs and have their say about the consultation and the fact that there is no long-term study that proves this fluoride does any good at all.
There are no scientists that really want to take on any five to ten-year study just to prove a point either way, as they know already what the outcome would be and what all the long-term side affects are.
There are more countries that are now stopping fluoride schemes this year, as there is no effective proof, versus the money spent on these schemes -which is footed by the taxpayer. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
I AND many others would like to thank the Daily Echo for its coverage of the Anti Fluoride Campaign. We have got the council to over turn their decision and vote against putting this substance in our water.
About two thirds were against it for various reasons.
While the war is not yet won as the Health and Social Care Bill is still going through parliament, I hope at least that more people are aware of this registered poison and all the long term damage that it can do to your body. And 30-40 per cent more children would suffer with fluorosis on their teeth.
I hope that now the thousands of readers you have will email/write to their MPs and have their say about the consultation and the fact that there is no long-term study that proves this fluoride does any good at all.
There are no scientists that really want to take on any five to ten-year study just to prove a point either way, as they know already what the outcome would be and what all the long-term side affects are.
There are more countries that are now stopping fluoride schemes this year, as there is no effective proof, versus the money spent on these schemes -which is footed by the taxpayer. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
18 Sept 2011
Islington children get free fluoride treatment for their teeth
Islington children get free fluoride treatment for their teeth
By JON DEAN
Sunday, September 18, 2011
8:38 AM
Children under 10 can now get access to a new free dental treatment thanks to an initiative by NHS Islington.
The new scheme, which started this month , involves specialist dental teams heading to 34 schools, nurseries and children’s centres around the borough to provide free fluoride varnish to kids aged between three and 10.
The varnish is a coating painted on teeth to reduce tooth decay and while children are under 10 they can receive two treatments a year free of charge.
Islington has one of the highest levels of tooth decay among young children in the country.
Despite this, a third of the borough’s kids don’t visit the dentist for regular check-ups, even though they are free for children, and NHS Islington is encouraging the mantra: “first tooth = first visit”...
Why can't they do that in Southampton instead of putting in that contaminated industrial "by-product" (waste) into all our water?
By JON DEAN
Sunday, September 18, 2011
8:38 AM
Children under 10 can now get access to a new free dental treatment thanks to an initiative by NHS Islington.
The new scheme, which started this month , involves specialist dental teams heading to 34 schools, nurseries and children’s centres around the borough to provide free fluoride varnish to kids aged between three and 10.
The varnish is a coating painted on teeth to reduce tooth decay and while children are under 10 they can receive two treatments a year free of charge.
Islington has one of the highest levels of tooth decay among young children in the country.
Despite this, a third of the borough’s kids don’t visit the dentist for regular check-ups, even though they are free for children, and NHS Islington is encouraging the mantra: “first tooth = first visit”...
Why can't they do that in Southampton instead of putting in that contaminated industrial "by-product" (waste) into all our water?
17 Sept 2011
Daily Echo - letter
• Daily Echo, September 13.Fluoride 'shows democracy is dead'
YOUR headline "Fluoride plans axed (but not for us)" (Daily Echo, September 13) says it all really. The North West Health Authority has realised that the escalating cost of fluoridating its water supply is not a viable proposition, but the local Strategic Health Authority has been given another year of tenure to implement its ill-founded proposal to go ahead with fluoridating our supply regardless of cost or local opinion.
The Coalition Government has reneged on its promise to let the people decide, and simply rolled over to let the SHA do as it wishes. Democracy is dead. It beggars belief.
M CLEMENTS, Southampton.
16 Sept 2011
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 14 July (WA 202), how the ethical requirement for individual informed consent as set out by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in "Consent to medical treatment" applies to water fluoridation schemes. [HL11654]
Earl Howe: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency considers that fluoridated water falls outside the definition of a medicinal product. Moreover, in our view, any infringement of human rights arising out of water fluoridation is justified by the benefits to oral health.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 7 February (WA 17-18) and 17 May (WA 300), whether the website of the former National Fluoride Information Centre is still in existence; and, if so, whether the incorrect statements about the York systematic review in 2000 having expressed no health concerns about fluoridation, and having provided a figure of 3 per cent for the extent of fluorosis of aesthetic concern, have now been corrected.[HL11655]
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 26 April (WA 46-7), whether it is a proper function of a
15 Sep 2011 : Column WA88
body set up for the purpose of providing public information about the health evidence surrounding water fluoridation to provide balanced information on any given aspect, rather than to rely on the public being aware of and accessing original reports to discover any caveats by researchers.[HL11656]
Earl Howe: We can confirm that the website of the former National Fluoride Information Centre has now been closed. We agree that bodies dedicated to providing information to the public should endeavour to do so as objectively as possible.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 14 July (WA 202), how the ethical requirement for individual informed consent as set out by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in "Consent to medical treatment" applies to water fluoridation schemes. [HL11654]
Earl Howe: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency considers that fluoridated water falls outside the definition of a medicinal product. Moreover, in our view, any infringement of human rights arising out of water fluoridation is justified by the benefits to oral health.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 7 February (WA 17-18) and 17 May (WA 300), whether the website of the former National Fluoride Information Centre is still in existence; and, if so, whether the incorrect statements about the York systematic review in 2000 having expressed no health concerns about fluoridation, and having provided a figure of 3 per cent for the extent of fluorosis of aesthetic concern, have now been corrected.[HL11655]
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 26 April (WA 46-7), whether it is a proper function of a
15 Sep 2011 : Column WA88
body set up for the purpose of providing public information about the health evidence surrounding water fluoridation to provide balanced information on any given aspect, rather than to rely on the public being aware of and accessing original reports to discover any caveats by researchers.[HL11656]
Earl Howe: We can confirm that the website of the former National Fluoride Information Centre has now been closed. We agree that bodies dedicated to providing information to the public should endeavour to do so as objectively as possible.
15 Sept 2011
Dail Echo - Southampton City Council votes against fluoride
5:59pm Wednesday 14th September 2011
Southampton councillors have voted to oppose controversial plans to fluoridate to the city's water supplies.
By a majority of around 2-1, city councillors backed a motion opposing the addition of fluoride to tap water to fight tooth decay.
councillors agreed to use any future powers the authority may be given to prevent the implementation of a proposed fluoridation scheme by health chiefs.
Under the Government's proposed NHS reforms, councils are due to be handed powers over fluoridation schemes when strategic health authorities (SHA) are scrapped in 2013...............
Southampton councillors have voted to oppose controversial plans to fluoridate to the city's water supplies.
By a majority of around 2-1, city councillors backed a motion opposing the addition of fluoride to tap water to fight tooth decay.
councillors agreed to use any future powers the authority may be given to prevent the implementation of a proposed fluoridation scheme by health chiefs.
Under the Government's proposed NHS reforms, councils are due to be handed powers over fluoridation schemes when strategic health authorities (SHA) are scrapped in 2013...............
14 Sept 2011
Echo letters and news item
LettersFluoride debate
TODAY councillors will be debating water fluoridation. Many now oppose the measure, but some remain in favour, and they undoubtedly represent many anti-fluoride constituents.
Fluoride through the tap is like poisoning the air, you cannot escape and you cannot help but breath it. Thus, under corporate protection, a pro fluoride councillor sanctions an act that would be illegal as an individual. Those who vote for fluoridation are signing up to the ideology of enforced mass medication through drinking water, and the profoundly unethical precedent it sets for potential delivery of other drugs besides fluoride.
Are councillors in favour of tap water as the compulsory delivery system for medicine? Fluoride enforcement is not benign. It is an assault on YOU as an individual and it deprives you of your absolute right to refuse medication.
Councillors have been fully informed of the risks and harms involved in compulsory fluoridation using Hexafluorosilicic Acid - a toxic industrial waste product that has no medicinal licence. It would not be unreasonable for voters to take legal action against them.
JENNIFER GODSCHALL JOHNSON, Upper Clatford.
• WITH the SCSHA signalling their intent to continue their plans for forced medication of the population of Southampton, a very dangerous precedent is being set. If SCSHA get their way, we will lose the most basic human right of controlling what goes into our body.
Where could this dangerous path lead if unelected people who care nothing for people's choice are allowed to destroy our most fundamental human rights? I have had the opportunity to debate with the SCSHA on Radio the dangers of fluoridation and when I raised Dr Jennifer Luke's work which showed increased concentrations of fluoride in the Pineal gland in areas with water fluoridation. They had no answer other than saying it was safe, they have made no attempt to repeat or explore her research.
There is a huge body of evidence which shows fluoridation is dangerous which is why almost every other week I read of another city which has stopped fluoridation or is in the process of stopping it, eg. Calgary in Canada, Alaska in USA the list is too numerous to quote here.
What of the rights of religious groups or people with philosophical objections who believe it is against their belief system to be force medicated. Well the answer according to SCSHA is shut up and take your medicine.
ARSHAD SHARIF,
Chairman Muslim Council of Southampton.
13 Sept 2011
Important Message
Water Fluoridation – The Council Decides
Hampshire Against Fluoridation will be handing in a petition at the Full Council meeting at Southampton Guildhall on Wednesday 14th September. We would like to thank everyone who signed the petition and helped us gather 6, 500 signatures – enough to trigger the all-important debate and vote by Southampton City Councillors. We are asking the Council to pledge to reverse the SHA’s controversial fluoridation scheme when they take over public health responsibility in 2013.
Please join us at 1pm in Guildhall Square, Southampton on 14th September. We will be gathering to demonstrate before the Full Council meeting at 2pm. Let your councillor know how you feel about being forcibly fluoridated and let’s hope they listen to their constituents and vote for the motion being put before Council. A clear statement of intent to reverse any fluoridation scheme that has been or is in the process of being implemented by 2013 would send a very powerful message to the SHA. Hampshire Against Fluoridation will let supporters know how each councillor voted at this debate.
Please help us to ensure our drinking water is kept fluoride-free.
Wednesday 14th September 1pm onwards in Guildhall Square and the Full Council meeting afterwards at 2pm in the Guildhall.
Please join us at 1pm in Guildhall Square, Southampton on 14th September. We will be gathering to demonstrate before the Full Council meeting at 2pm. Let your councillor know how you feel about being forcibly fluoridated and let’s hope they listen to their constituents and vote for the motion being put before Council. A clear statement of intent to reverse any fluoridation scheme that has been or is in the process of being implemented by 2013 would send a very powerful message to the SHA. Hampshire Against Fluoridation will let supporters know how each councillor voted at this debate.
Please help us to ensure our drinking water is kept fluoride-free.
Wednesday 14th September 1pm onwards in Guildhall Square and the Full Council meeting afterwards at 2pm in the Guildhall.
ALL WELCOME – TELL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO ATTEND EVEN FOR A SHORT TIME.
We need to make a BIG impact!
Placards, banners, enthusiasm and new faces welcomed.
Comment
Reference to comment about Barnsley thanks for that I had just realized that I was wrong it isn't fluoridated although I did find a reference that it was. This was printed in the Times in 2008
Awareness of fluorosis is low
Even dental teams are unaware of the dangers. Richard Harrison, a clinical dental technician from Barnsley, a fluoridated area, certainly wasn’t aware that his seven-year old daugher might be at risk of fluorosis. But as soon as her second teeth started to come through, he saw they were mottled and brown-stained with white flecks – the classic sign of dental fluorosis. Too much exposure to fluoride while the second teeth are developing beneath the milk teeth makes their enamel porous, something that doesn’t become apparent until the teeth break though. In mild cases, this leads just to a pearly sheen to the teeth. In bad cases there can be staining, chipping and pitting of the tooth.
“She always loved strawberry-flavour toothpaste, so she may have swallowed it,” Harrison says. “Our biggest fear is how other children will respond to the way she looks.” The effects of dental fluorosis are irreversible, although it can be covered up with expensive tooth veneers when children reach their early teens.
Awareness of fluorosis is low
Even dental teams are unaware of the dangers. Richard Harrison, a clinical dental technician from Barnsley, a fluoridated area, certainly wasn’t aware that his seven-year old daugher might be at risk of fluorosis. But as soon as her second teeth started to come through, he saw they were mottled and brown-stained with white flecks – the classic sign of dental fluorosis. Too much exposure to fluoride while the second teeth are developing beneath the milk teeth makes their enamel porous, something that doesn’t become apparent until the teeth break though. In mild cases, this leads just to a pearly sheen to the teeth. In bad cases there can be staining, chipping and pitting of the tooth.
“She always loved strawberry-flavour toothpaste, so she may have swallowed it,” Harrison says. “Our biggest fear is how other children will respond to the way she looks.” The effects of dental fluorosis are irreversible, although it can be covered up with expensive tooth veneers when children reach their early teens.
Link between obesity and water fluoridation
This a comment of mine (my emboldening) in the Daily Mail Online (link to article below)
It really does seem to me that a link between obesity and water fluoridation is proven by these figures and needs to be exposed.
"Notice fluoridated Tamworth and Gateshead take the two top places and with fluoridated Nuneaton & Bedworth also in the top five. It's been known for a hundred years now that fluoride has this effect on the thyroid gland causing underactivity (hypothyrodism) which leads directly to weight gain. I don't doubt other factors contribute too - for instance our food is also laced with many vaccines, pesticides, chemicals and "increased shelf life" processes that make it barely processable in the body, although that's a different matter. But 60% of the top five towns heading the fat league are all fluoridated towns - whilst only 10% of the country is fluoridated. We also already know that the West Midlands - 70% fluoridated - is the most obese region in the country. Well - I just can't help but think it points fairly strongly to something they would rather we did not notice.
- Cllr Chris Cooke, Tamworth, UK, 11/9/2011 21:16"
Link to Daily Mail
It really does seem to me that a link between obesity and water fluoridation is proven by these figures and needs to be exposed.
"Notice fluoridated Tamworth and Gateshead take the two top places and with fluoridated Nuneaton & Bedworth also in the top five. It's been known for a hundred years now that fluoride has this effect on the thyroid gland causing underactivity (hypothyrodism) which leads directly to weight gain. I don't doubt other factors contribute too - for instance our food is also laced with many vaccines, pesticides, chemicals and "increased shelf life" processes that make it barely processable in the body, although that's a different matter. But 60% of the top five towns heading the fat league are all fluoridated towns - whilst only 10% of the country is fluoridated. We also already know that the West Midlands - 70% fluoridated - is the most obese region in the country. Well - I just can't help but think it points fairly strongly to something they would rather we did not notice.
- Cllr Chris Cooke, Tamworth, UK, 11/9/2011 21:16"
Link to Daily Mail
Daily Echo - If it costs too much to ad fluoride up north, why is it still being considered in Hampshire?
If it costs too much to add fluoride up north, why is it still being considered in Hampshire?
By Jon Reeve
ANTI-fluoride campaigners have demanded that health chiefs scrap plans to add the chemical to Hampshire tap water, after a similar scheme elsewhere in the country was abandoned.
Health bosses in the north west have admitted the costs of introducing fluoridation there have mushroomed.
Opponents of South Central Strategic Health Authority's moves to put fluoride in water delivered to nearly 200,000 people in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams have welcomed NHS North West's decision.
And with Southern Water admitting it still doesn't know exactly how the scheme will be implemented, campaigners argue the problems elsewhere show the Hampshire plans should also be axed.
Last week, health minister Anne Milton told ew Forest East MP Julian Lewis the Government has no idea what the Southampton scheme will cost beyond the original £471,000 estimate.
He said: "South Central SHA believes that it can convert a
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Write to: Newsdesfc, Daily Echo, Newspaper House, Test Lane, Redbridge, Southampton 5016 9JX,
• E-mail newsdesk@dailyecho.co.uk. B Comment online at dailyecho.co.uk
Shortened version due to the Echo's copyright.
11 Sept 2011
10th Sept Meeting
Yesterday's talk by Paul was a great success. There were well over 100 people in the audience with many new to the campaign. Paul was entertaining and informative (as always). he spent much of the time talking about sucesses where fluoridation has been stopped in North America and New Zealand. he also spoke about recent research findings and the need for public campaigns.
The more she eats, the more she wants
The more she eats, the more she wants
Published on 09/09/2011
Sugar is not an essential nutrient in the body — it is a harmful product. JOHN MUTURI shows you how to wean a baby off sugar
............
Sugar is so sweet and like most of us, babies find it
Weight gain
If the child’s calorie intake is higher than her energy needs, she will gain weight.
Obesity has serious long-term health effects such as diabetes and premature death.
Thankfully, your child can be weaned off sugar.
Studies show that if you give a child low amounts of sugar between the ages of two and four, when she grows up and is exposed to more sugar she tends not liking it.
• Offer only healthy snacks between meals — a biscuit with cream cheese and chopped fresh raw fruit.
Published on 09/09/2011
Sugar is not an essential nutrient in the body — it is a harmful product. JOHN MUTURI shows you how to wean a baby off sugar
............
Sugar is so sweet and like most of us, babies find it
Weight gain
If the child’s calorie intake is higher than her energy needs, she will gain weight.
Obesity has serious long-term health effects such as diabetes and premature death.
Thankfully, your child can be weaned off sugar.
Studies show that if you give a child low amounts of sugar between the ages of two and four, when she grows up and is exposed to more sugar she tends not liking it.
• Offer only healthy snacks between meals — a biscuit with cream cheese and chopped fresh raw fruit.
10 Sept 2011
Professor Sheldon work in this area is not held in high regard!
Councillor Noon's reply to Anna's letter (below)
Thank you for your further email with regard to Fluoridation, but I do feel I have a moral duty to support Fluoridation on the grounds that: Fact: Over 97% of scientist and health professional say that the small amounts of fluoride that the Health service are proposing to use ARE NOT HARMFUL and pose no risk only massive dental health benefits to children and also dental health benefits to other sections of the community. Professor Sheldon work in this area is not held in high regard (like others that use bad science) by most of his peers. At least in your reply you do hint that that it will benefit children.
I enter politics some 40 years ago to improve the lives of others and society in general, therefore, believe I have a moral duty to support fluoridation and will be doing so.
With regards,
John Noon
Councillor for Bargate.
Dear Cllr Noon
Thank you for your reply. I wish to politely inform you that there is, in fact, no evidence to support your claim of a "massive improvement" in older people's dental health. Such claims prompted the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) to request that the PCT withdraw this claim from their advertising material and website. Professor Sheldon (the Chair of the York Review ) also cautions about such claims about children's dental health and water fluoridation. However, there is evidence (a Cochrane Review - the gold standard in terms of evidence) to support the use of fluoride varnishes on children's teeth which is a targeted and evidence-based intervention.
regards
Anna Peckham
Thank you for your further email with regard to Fluoridation, but I do feel I have a moral duty to support Fluoridation on the grounds that: Fact: Over 97% of scientist and health professional say that the small amounts of fluoride that the Health service are proposing to use ARE NOT HARMFUL and pose no risk only massive dental health benefits to children and also dental health benefits to other sections of the community. Professor Sheldon work in this area is not held in high regard (like others that use bad science) by most of his peers. At least in your reply you do hint that that it will benefit children.
I enter politics some 40 years ago to improve the lives of others and society in general, therefore, believe I have a moral duty to support fluoridation and will be doing so.
With regards,
John Noon
Councillor for Bargate.
Dear Cllr Noon
Thank you for your reply. I wish to politely inform you that there is, in fact, no evidence to support your claim of a "massive improvement" in older people's dental health. Such claims prompted the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) to request that the PCT withdraw this claim from their advertising material and website. Professor Sheldon (the Chair of the York Review ) also cautions about such claims about children's dental health and water fluoridation. However, there is evidence (a Cochrane Review - the gold standard in terms of evidence) to support the use of fluoride varnishes on children's teeth which is a targeted and evidence-based intervention.
regards
Anna Peckham
9 Sept 2011
Lymington Times - Anti-fluoride campaign to mount petition protest as fight goes on
Anti-fluoride campaign to mount petition protest as fight goes on
A 6,000-name petition against fluoride being: added to Southampton's water supply, which will affect thousands of Totton residents, is to be handed to the city council next week. . The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval in 2010 for the chemical to be added to the city's supply after the city's 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.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation is still hoping to overturn the plans and has collected more than 6,000 signatures
asking the city council to reverse its initial vote in favour of the scheme.
Chairman Stephen Peckham said: "We will be presenting this to the'City council at its meeting on September, 14th.
"Before the meeting we will hold a demonstration in Guildhall Square [and] we want as many people as possible there at 1pm — please try and come and let your friends and neighbours know too.
"We need to show councillors that people are concerned about fluoridation and that they must listen to the public."
Supporters are also welcome at a public talk by Professor Paul Connett today (Saturday). Prof. Connett is director of the leading international anti-water fluoridation organisation, the Fluoride Action Network.
The talk and question session will take place at Solent University conference centre in Above Bar Street, Southampton, from 2.30pm.
A 6,000-name petition against fluoride being: added to Southampton's water supply, which will affect thousands of Totton residents, is to be handed to the city council next week. . The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval in 2010 for the chemical to be added to the city's supply after the city's 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.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation is still hoping to overturn the plans and has collected more than 6,000 signatures
asking the city council to reverse its initial vote in favour of the scheme.
Chairman Stephen Peckham said: "We will be presenting this to the'City council at its meeting on September, 14th.
"Before the meeting we will hold a demonstration in Guildhall Square [and] we want as many people as possible there at 1pm — please try and come and let your friends and neighbours know too.
"We need to show councillors that people are concerned about fluoridation and that they must listen to the public."
Supporters are also welcome at a public talk by Professor Paul Connett today (Saturday). Prof. Connett is director of the leading international anti-water fluoridation organisation, the Fluoride Action Network.
The talk and question session will take place at Solent University conference centre in Above Bar Street, Southampton, from 2.30pm.
Daily Echo - Councillors urged to make fluoride pledge
Councillors urged to make fluoride pledge
by Jon Reeves
COUNCILLORS in Southampton are being urged to vow to oppose controversial
plans to put fluoride in Hampshire tap water.
The city council will next week vote on calls to promise not to allow
fluoridation to go ahead when it takes over responsibility for such schemes
from unelected Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) when those bodies are
scrapped in 2013.
..... Hampshire Against Fluoridation's free meeting is open to all. It starts at
2.30pm in the Solent Conference Centre in the Sir James Matthews Building,
Above Bar, Southampton.
Short version due to Echo copyright
by Jon Reeves
COUNCILLORS in Southampton are being urged to vow to oppose controversial
plans to put fluoride in Hampshire tap water.
The city council will next week vote on calls to promise not to allow
fluoridation to go ahead when it takes over responsibility for such schemes
from unelected Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) when those bodies are
scrapped in 2013.
..... Hampshire Against Fluoridation's free meeting is open to all. It starts at
2.30pm in the Solent Conference Centre in the Sir James Matthews Building,
Above Bar, Southampton.
Short version due to Echo copyright
8 Sept 2011
Councillor's reply to HAF's invitation to attend Prof Connett's meeting
Thank you for your email with regard to the campaign opposing Fluoridation and the invite to the meeting with Prof Paul Connett, unfortunately I do have a prior commitment on the 10th. I will be talking to residents in Bargate about many things including the massive benefits to children's and older peoples dental health Fluoridation will bring. Once again thank for the invite and sorry I am not able to attend.
With regards,
John Noon
Councillor for Bargate.
With regards,
John Noon
Councillor for Bargate.
Daily Echo - The people will have their say...
The people will have their say...
IN reply to Name & Address Supplied 'Not a voting subject' (Letters, August 26), in calling for a referendum I was asking other people to decide whether I took the medicine or not.
Yes, you are right, a democratic decision and freedom of choice is preferred to having my hands tied and forced to have fluoride in my cup of tea.
The citizens of Southampton have been denied that right.
I am, however, more concerned with the damage fluoride poisoning may have on the lives and health of our children and people in years to come.
Thanks to our Echo Soapbox we have been given a chance. We have shouted from the rooftops, questioned democracy, denounced the SHA, subjected them to a judicial review and questioned their intelligence.
Finally, thanks to Dr Williamson (Letters, August 20), we learn they are unable to answer his simple questions.
MPs and David Cameron, although sympathetic when contacted by Dr Williams, said they were powerless to stop the SHA. Our Prime Minister then used his powerless-powers to move the goalposts, granting the SHA another year to complete their mission.
They then, no doubt, will be retiring with a large golden handshake.
'Let the people decide', said Mr Brown, 'Yes', said Mr Cameron.
A referendum is a cry for help. Rioting on the streets is not an option for our anti-fluoride brigade and those who wish to protect their children, yet a small peanut, thrown at a window of No 10 would have been far more effective than the 10,000 signature petition handed in at the door.
So much for the Big Society. Polling day? Yes, the people WILL decide.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.
Labour, Tory it makes no difference they are all for it.
IN reply to Name & Address Supplied 'Not a voting subject' (Letters, August 26), in calling for a referendum I was asking other people to decide whether I took the medicine or not.
Yes, you are right, a democratic decision and freedom of choice is preferred to having my hands tied and forced to have fluoride in my cup of tea.
The citizens of Southampton have been denied that right.
I am, however, more concerned with the damage fluoride poisoning may have on the lives and health of our children and people in years to come.
Thanks to our Echo Soapbox we have been given a chance. We have shouted from the rooftops, questioned democracy, denounced the SHA, subjected them to a judicial review and questioned their intelligence.
Finally, thanks to Dr Williamson (Letters, August 20), we learn they are unable to answer his simple questions.
MPs and David Cameron, although sympathetic when contacted by Dr Williams, said they were powerless to stop the SHA. Our Prime Minister then used his powerless-powers to move the goalposts, granting the SHA another year to complete their mission.
They then, no doubt, will be retiring with a large golden handshake.
'Let the people decide', said Mr Brown, 'Yes', said Mr Cameron.
A referendum is a cry for help. Rioting on the streets is not an option for our anti-fluoride brigade and those who wish to protect their children, yet a small peanut, thrown at a window of No 10 would have been far more effective than the 10,000 signature petition handed in at the door.
So much for the Big Society. Polling day? Yes, the people WILL decide.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.
Labour, Tory it makes no difference they are all for it.
7 Sept 2011
Commons Debates Daily Hansard - Written Answers
Fluoride: Drinking Water
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (a) estimate his Department has made and (b) data it has on the probable cost of adding fluoride to the water supply in Southampton and Totton; and what account he will take of opposition by (i) the public and (ii) relevant local authorities when deciding whether to make Government funds available for this purpose. [68310]
Anne Milton: Under Section 87 of the Water Industry Act 1991 strategic health authorities (SHAs) are responsible for fluoridation. The only estimate of the cost of the Southampton scheme held by the Department is the figure of £471,000 included in the consultation document published by South Central SHA in September 2008. We understand that the SHA intends to fund implementation of the scheme from its capital allocation, which it may use at its discretion.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he expects local authorities to take over responsibility for deciding if water supplies should be fluoridated; and whether this (a) could and (b) will be earlier than the delayed date for the abolition of strategic health authorities. [68311]
Anne Milton: Following the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum, strategic health authorities will now continue in place up until April 2013. Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill 2011, which contains the necessary legislative changes, local authorities will become responsible for consultations on fluoridation schemes from April 2013.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (a) estimate his Department has made and (b) data it has on the probable cost of adding fluoride to the water supply in Southampton and Totton; and what account he will take of opposition by (i) the public and (ii) relevant local authorities when deciding whether to make Government funds available for this purpose. [68310]
Anne Milton: Under Section 87 of the Water Industry Act 1991 strategic health authorities (SHAs) are responsible for fluoridation. The only estimate of the cost of the Southampton scheme held by the Department is the figure of £471,000 included in the consultation document published by South Central SHA in September 2008. We understand that the SHA intends to fund implementation of the scheme from its capital allocation, which it may use at its discretion.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he expects local authorities to take over responsibility for deciding if water supplies should be fluoridated; and whether this (a) could and (b) will be earlier than the delayed date for the abolition of strategic health authorities. [68311]
Anne Milton: Following the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum, strategic health authorities will now continue in place up until April 2013. Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill 2011, which contains the necessary legislative changes, local authorities will become responsible for consultations on fluoridation schemes from April 2013.
6 Sept 2011
5 Sept 2011
Daily Echo letter - Just how can they do this?
Just how can they do this?
HOW have we become so apathetic as to allow a group of private individuals to put what many believe to be a poison into our water supply?
It is my understanding that the public don't want it, the councils don't want it, therefore it must be a Government decision? If so do the Government not have a duty of care to its people? And if not then what about my human rights? The right to not have a toxic substance added to my water supply.
I have heard remarks that it is progress! Well I beg to differ it is certainly not progress rather an idealism of a world without child dental problems. As most of the children affected by dental problems do not drink water and have no dental hygiene habits anyway, it rather negates that statement. It is a well documented fact that this toxin builds up in the system slowly over a period of time. ,
If this is allowed to go ahead I foresee a future when people will not even make their retirement age, this toxin will kill them before they are able to enjoy the fruits of their labours.
I am extremely angry that this is being done despite the majority of people being strongly opposed to it. What happened to 'working for you'. The next MP who knocks my door and tells me they will do whatever it takes to stop this will get my vote. MOLLIE BENNETT, Bursledon
HOW have we become so apathetic as to allow a group of private individuals to put what many believe to be a poison into our water supply?
It is my understanding that the public don't want it, the councils don't want it, therefore it must be a Government decision? If so do the Government not have a duty of care to its people? And if not then what about my human rights? The right to not have a toxic substance added to my water supply.
I have heard remarks that it is progress! Well I beg to differ it is certainly not progress rather an idealism of a world without child dental problems. As most of the children affected by dental problems do not drink water and have no dental hygiene habits anyway, it rather negates that statement. It is a well documented fact that this toxin builds up in the system slowly over a period of time. ,
If this is allowed to go ahead I foresee a future when people will not even make their retirement age, this toxin will kill them before they are able to enjoy the fruits of their labours.
I am extremely angry that this is being done despite the majority of people being strongly opposed to it. What happened to 'working for you'. The next MP who knocks my door and tells me they will do whatever it takes to stop this will get my vote. MOLLIE BENNETT, Bursledon
4 Sept 2011
Hampshire Against Fluoridation
Thank you to everyone who has collected signatures. We now have over 6000. We will be presenting these to the City Council at their meeting on the 14th September. Before the meeting we will hold a demonstration in Guildhall Square. We want as many people as possible there at 1pm - please try and come and let your friends and neighbours know too. We need to show councillors that people are concerned about fluoridation and that they must listen to the public.
We are also delighted that Professor Paul Connett is visiting Southampton again to support our campaign. Professor Connett is director of the Fluoride Action Network the leading international anti-water fluoridation organisation. He is giving a public talk on Saturday 10th September at 2.30pm in the Solent University Conference Centre, Above Bar Street, Southampton (by Blackwells Bookshop). Please print and distribute the attached flyers. He will be telling us about campaign successes - recounting how many cities across North America have now stopped fluoridating their water supplies.
Please continue to support the local campaign. If you have not already done so, write to your City Councillor and find out how they intend to vote on water fluoridation at the Council meeting.
Stephen Peckham
Chairman, Hampshire Against Fluoridation
3 Sept 2011
Interview with Dr John Colquhoun 1998
Never seen this video before Dr John Colquhoun interviewed by a young looking Prof Connett. He came here when Jane Jones was active against fluoridation now both deceased.
1 Sept 2011
URGENT - Message from Cllr Liz Vaughan UKCAF.
URGENT
The issue of water fluoridation included in the 'Health and Social Care Bill due to be debated in the House of Commons on Sept 6th and 7th as soon as Parliament returns hence the urgent nature of this email.We have studied this Bill very carefully and its implications for councils. Please circulate to your councillors and officials as soon as possible.
1 We are advising councils to seek a Judical Review about the incompatibility of fluoridation provisions in the Bill with European and English law on medicines, food and protection of human rights
2. The Bill will force councils to employ the NHS Directors of public health, who are all known advocates of fluoridation. These will be required to force councils to implement Government public health policies regardless of public opposition.
3. Fluoridation always causes substantial damage to children. Councils will be required to repay the cost of fluoridation projects to the Secretary of State from their own income, meaning that the public will be paying for the privilage of poisoning their children
4. We have checked with the head of local government insurance at Zurich and this cannot come under normal council insurance and would be seen as an uninsursable 'foreseeable risk'.
. .
We have contacted the LGA to ensure that councils are protected from excessive or unlawful government policies they need to consider urgently the implications of this Bill both for member councils and the wider public for whom they are responsible.
We have had a long and successful experience of working with councils on fluoridation issues What we think people should do besides protest to their local councillor and make sure their MP is very aware of their opinions and feelings before Tuesday Sept 6th.is to also ensure their local media are aware that this is happening next week. Doug has worked very hard reading the 460 pages of the Bill before working on his professional assessment which is attached to this email.
If you have a website please put all of this on your site so everyone is aware that the fluoride pushers and their trade union the BDA have managed to convince Government of the need to fluoridate.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr Liz Vaughan UKCAF.
Councils Re Health and Social Care SC Bill 2011
The issue of water fluoridation included in the 'Health and Social Care Bill due to be debated in the House of Commons on Sept 6th and 7th as soon as Parliament returns hence the urgent nature of this email.We have studied this Bill very carefully and its implications for councils. Please circulate to your councillors and officials as soon as possible.
1 We are advising councils to seek a Judical Review about the incompatibility of fluoridation provisions in the Bill with European and English law on medicines, food and protection of human rights
2. The Bill will force councils to employ the NHS Directors of public health, who are all known advocates of fluoridation. These will be required to force councils to implement Government public health policies regardless of public opposition.
3. Fluoridation always causes substantial damage to children. Councils will be required to repay the cost of fluoridation projects to the Secretary of State from their own income, meaning that the public will be paying for the privilage of poisoning their children
4. We have checked with the head of local government insurance at Zurich and this cannot come under normal council insurance and would be seen as an uninsursable 'foreseeable risk'.
. .
We have contacted the LGA to ensure that councils are protected from excessive or unlawful government policies they need to consider urgently the implications of this Bill both for member councils and the wider public for whom they are responsible.
We have had a long and successful experience of working with councils on fluoridation issues What we think people should do besides protest to their local councillor and make sure their MP is very aware of their opinions and feelings before Tuesday Sept 6th.is to also ensure their local media are aware that this is happening next week. Doug has worked very hard reading the 460 pages of the Bill before working on his professional assessment which is attached to this email.
If you have a website please put all of this on your site so everyone is aware that the fluoride pushers and their trade union the BDA have managed to convince Government of the need to fluoridate.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr Liz Vaughan UKCAF.
Councils Re Health and Social Care SC Bill 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
