22 Oct 2013

Fluoride answers demanded by New Forest MP Julian Lewis

Fluoride answers demanded by New Forest MP Julian Lewis
Fluoride answers demanded by MPFluoride answers demanded by MP
AN MP has demanded answers on the future of fluoridation in Hampshire.
Council chiefs in Hampshire believe controversial plans to introduce fluoridation could be dead in the water.
The leaders of both Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council wrote to the Government earlier this year asking for clarification on whether the scheme still exists.
But the organisation which would be charged with adding the chemical to drinking water has still not reached a decision on whether to fight for its introduction or not.
Now New Forest East MP Julian Lewis has urged Public Health England (PHE) to hurry up with its deliberations and let the 200,000 affected people know whether it intends to fight to introduce it or not.
The fluoridation saga has rumbled on since 2009, when the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) revealed its scheme to putfluoride into water in parts of Southampton, EastleighTottonNetley andRownhams.
The plans proved hugely controversial but were given the green light in 2009.
But, as revealed in the Daily Echo in July, council chiefs now believe the scheme does not exist and have asked the Government and PHE to confirm or deny their suspicions.
They say paper work was not completed during the handover between the SHA, which was scrapped earlier this year, and PHE, which took on responsibility for fluoridation, earlier this year and that therefore the scheme does not exist.
Since then PHE spokesmen have repeatedly stated that the organisation is reviewing its position on the future of the scheme, but Mr Lewis is now upping the pressure on them to produce a definitive statement on its future.
Although the final decision is set to be made by Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, PHE bosses are reviewing whether they will put forward a case arguing for the introduction of fluoridation to Mr Hunt.
Conservative Mr Lewis, whose constituency contains Totton, wrote to PHE’s chief executive Duncan Selbie requesting a statement from PHE that would “put an end to the confusion and speculation surrounding this whole sorry saga.”
But in his reply Mr Selbie said the organisation was still taking advice on its position and that no response is immediately forthcoming.
Mr Lewis said: “It is obvious from the contortions of its chief executive that PHE is still trying to poke its nose into an area where its interference is not welcome.
“The proponents of fluoridation failed to get the contract signed in time but continue arrogantly to try to impose it.”
A Public Health England spokesman said: “Public Health England continues to give full and careful consideration to all the relevant factors relating to water fluoridation in Southampton and south west Hampshire.”


rcannard said...

Well done to MP Julian Lewis, the question though is why are they stalling, perhaps they can see a back door or a loophole in the law to introduce the scheme, my betting is they will play on the money that's been spent and of course the deprived children who without fluoride will loose all there teeth, you only need to look at America and Australia to see that fluoridation is not working. Why are our health professionals not looking at the evidence and scientific facts regarding fluoride, i'm not a medical professional but i know when something isn't good and should be avoided. Should fluoridation be introduced i will personally hold these people responsible no matter what indemnity they hide behind, this is an evil practice that has to stop

Cllr Chris Cooke said...

rcannard - I think they are stalling because the money originally allocated to this Hampshire fluoridation scheme was instead used to "refurbish" all of the West Midlands and South Staffs Water fluoridation plants!! You know these health bureaucrats - don't like to see money go to waste (ie - back to the taxpayer). So - my guess is - they are waiting for a new funding budget from central government. Otherwise, I'm sure they would have no qualms about letting a few irregularities / illegalities stand in their way!

Carrie said...

"Otherwise, I'm sure they would have no qualms about letting a few irregularities / illegalities stand in their way!"

I'm sure they wouldn't Councillor Cooke, as we know they're a bunch of corrupt psychopaths, but surely the water companies can't be forced to play their game if they're breaking the law?

Joy Warren, Coordinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation said...

It's true that the £millions used to purchase and instal about 22 fluoridation dosing plants in Severn Trent's area between 2009 and 2011 was originally intended for new fluoridation schemes. When Southampton's fluoridation became delayed, some of the money was instead vired to refurbishment schemes and STW shouted the loudest. The unused portion was reabsorbed into the DH's coffers.

I really do believe that we are not being given a final decision by PHE South of England because they are stalling while waiting for West Cumbria to become fluoridated again and for the planned prospective research to begin. How cynical is that? You see they are not allowing Hampshire and Southampton anti-fluoridationists one iota of triumph and when they announce that the West Cumbrian fluoride taps have been turned back on, the start of fluoridation up north will counter the failure of fluoridation down south. A very clever psychological trick, do you not think?

The research money which was intended for the Southampton prospective research has now been allocated to the proposed West Cumbrian prospective research to the tune of £1.55m. This research will be carried out by Dr Pretty of Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust and his colleagues.

Of course, it's perfectly despicable to hasten the reintroduction of fluoridation in Cumbria (without consulting the population) in order to experiment on their children. Even though the York Review and the MRC recommended more research into fluoridation, how can any research these days conclusively prove or disprove that fluoridation is safe and effective when background levels of fluoride are so high in manufactured foods. For example, any drinks using concentrate as a base and fluoridated tap water to dilute the concentrate is going to contain up to 1ppm fluoride/litre. Let's take Pepsi Max as a good example: as well as containing aspartame (arggghh), it contains 1mg fluoride per litre. No research is going to be conclusive when fluoride is everywhere. The research is a terrible waste of our money and will serve only to give the DH the excuse to obfuscate while the longitudinal research is current and whilst awaiting results.

If the Cumbrian research goes ahead, those of us who are fluoridated need to consider taking avoidance action, viz. get a R/O filter, since we won't see potable water coming out of our taps anytime soon.