HEALTH
BODY HIDES MONEY SPENT
PUBLIC
HEALTH ENGLAND HAS REFUSED TO REVEAL HOW MUCH PUBLIC MONEY IT HAS
SPENT PURSUING THE SCHEME TO FLUORIDATE TAP WATER IN THOUSANDS OF
HAMPSHIRE HOMES.
The
organisation, funded by taxpayers, has declined a request from a
locally elected politician to reveal how much public money they have
spent on trying to impose fluoridated tap water on an unwilling
population.
It
was hoped that the scheme would be dropped when Public Health England
took on the role of looking after public health, following abolition
of the Strategic Health Authorities, especially as legally binding
contract had not been signed with Southern Water.
The
matter of whether there is an "existing" scheme for them to
progress seems likely to subject to yet another legal ruling. It is
widely known that local Councillors representing the areas to receive
the fluoridated tap water are not in favour, at least not without a
referendum with a result that supports the change.
Hampshire
County Councillor David Harrison, long term campaigner against
fluoridation, submitted a Freedom of Information request, in an
attempt to reveal how much taxpayer's money Public Health England had
spent progressing matters, but the the organisation has refused to
say, claiming that it isn't in the interests of good governance to do
so.
Copy
of their letter (Page 2) :
2.
Our
ref: 11/01/jb/472 Councillor David Harrison
dharrison100@aol.com
27
January 2014 Dear Councillor Harrison Re: Amount
spent on fluoridation
Thank
you for your email of 11 January 2013 in which you asked “how much
public money has been spent by Public Health England [PHE] on
progressing the issue of fluoride in tap water...(to include a best
estimate of officers time, legal costs etc)”
Your
email has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom
of Information (FOI) Act. In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the
Act I can confirm that PHE does not hold the information requested.
PHE does not record this information; there are no officers whose
work is fully devoted to the issue and legal advice is obtained from
the Department of Health’s legal services.
Please
note that the FOI Act only covers information held by a public
authority. We are not required to create new information or to record
information not needed for our own business purposes. Nor are we
obliged to create a best estimate in order to respond to your request
and to do so would be poor information governance.
If
you have any queries regarding the information that has been supplied
to you, please refer them to me in the first instance. If you are
dissatisfied with this response and would like to request an internal
review, then please contact Mr George Stafford at the address above
or by emailing complaints@phe.gov.uk.
Please
note that you have the right to an independent review by the
Information Commissioner’s Office if a complaint cannot be resolved
through the PHE complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner’s
Office can be contacted by writing to Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Yours
sincerely
Jonathan
Bennett
Freedom
of Information Officer
3.
Councillor
Harrison says " When Public Health England was set up, we got
all the usual promises about how open and transparent they would be
in all their dealings.
This
is our money they are spending and we are entitled to know the truth.
The scheme isn't wanted. It never has been. It never will be. Public
Health England are acting like they have a blank cheque to waste our
money. It is utterly disgraceful".
Contact Councillor
Harrison by telephone number 02380 864500, e-mail :
dharrison100@aol.com
or Facebook Page “Councillor David Harrison”.
2 comments:
People everywhere are learning the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, so only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water. Last July Israel banned it. To see why, Google "Fluoride dangers" and read a few of the 800,000 articles.
If fluoride works at all it works on the outside of the tooth not from inside the body. Thus there is no need to expose the whole body to a known toxic substance for a lifetime with every glass of water drunk. And there is no rational reason to force people to drink it against their will.
It's not just our hard earned money they are wasting they are playing Russian Roulette with a substance that has not been fully studied. Iv never known a dentist to apply fluorosilicic acid to there clients’ teeth as a gel or give away samples of fluorosilicic acid toothpaste or prescribe a fluorosilicic acid pill. In the USA warnings have been given to parents of very young children not to use fluoridated water when mixing baby formula, so i guess by this submission they are saying it's not safe for young children to consume fluoride. Ingested fluoride from water produces only 0.02 ppm fluoride ion in saliva to topically bathe teeth (NRC), which is worthless for dental caries compared to toothpaste with fluoride at 75,000 times higher concentration. Systemic fluoride was ruled ineffective by the CDC in 2001, which is old news for most of us, but not for those who still promote its ingestion. The truth can hurt one’s stubbornness, but not acting on the truth can hurt everyone else. The repetitive 1ppm of fluoride is safe and effective is wearing very thin at best it might mitigate, but it does not prevent dental caries and water is not the only source of fluoride as it's in the food we eat the air we breath and the water we bathe in.
Post a Comment