Saturday saw our AGM in the British School and apart from an excellent discussion resulting from questions we had two fascinating speakers: Rissa Mohabir, a local homeopath talking about the effects of fluoride and Bernard Seward, a long term campaigner against water fluoridation.Photo: Rissa left and Bernard below
The meeting kicked off with some live music and a protest song about water fluoridation - I'll add a post re that and the words in next few days. Rissa then gave a fascinating talk about how homeopathy has considered water fluoridation which was followed by Bernards talk which is enclosed below. Sadly this blog is rejecting paragraphs and running all the text together - this makes it difficult to read - any thoughts on how to stp this would be welcomed!
How I discovered Fluoridation Bernard J Seward 2007
The Esher News and Advertiser, the weekly newspaper in Surrey at whose print works I served my trade apprenticeship, carried a well subscribed letters page.
A regular contributor was a retired RAF officer, Mr P Clavell Blount who seemed to be conducting a one-man campaign of resistance to us all having something called fluoride in our drinking water.
The ‘fluoride’ at that time was Sodium Fluoride and, according to Clavell Blount, was the poisonous by-product of the aluminium smelting process. His argument against fluoridation stemmed first and foremost from his indignation of having a medicament forced upon him and his family by Government edict although, at that time (the late 1950s), fluoridation had not reached our local waterworks.
It was, nonetheless under discussion at the former Ministry of Health and the Secretary of State for Health at that time was Mr Richard Crossman of then ruling Labour Party.
Clavell Blount didn’t have the topic to himself; it was replied to by various local residents, one of whom was Sir Gerald Dodson QC who occupied a prestigious legal position as Master of the Rolls. Dodson famously wrote, “I have no objection to having my water fluoridated, but my preference is to take it with a measure of Scotch.”
That pompous statement irritated me and I thought to reply to it myself. I approached the chief sub editor who simply said “Write whatever you like; if there’s space we’ll consider printing it” And he did. He published everything I wrote from then onwards, not necessarily to do with fluoridation, but with many other aspects of the local culture.
I think I should point out that my dad was no slouch with the typewritten communication to various individuals, journals and newspapers, so I guess I was following in his footsteps. Writing school essays had been my particular strength;
I won’t bore you with my scholastic weaknesses.
It was obvious that pro-fluoride debate at local government level was proceeding on the strength of the ‘received wisdom’ perpetrated by the USA, that fluoride was a naturally occurring mineral. Where it was deficient in concentration, the benefit to children in respect of the resistance of their developing teeth to decay, justified its adjustment to no more than one part per million of water. As far as I was concerned, whatever the concentration, it set a dangerous precedent.
These days we hear a lot about ‘choice’ in connection with the health service. That was the word I used in my reply to the eminent legal brain of Sir Gerald Dodson.
I wrote:
Sir Gerald has the privilege of choosing of whether he takes whisky with his water or not. I demand the choice of consuming fluoride, or not. I do not choose to use fluoride toothpaste. With fluoride in the tap water, I am denied that choice. The proposals are immoral and unethical.
Shortly after that I wrote another letter to my paper with a copy to a larger circulation county newspaper, The Surrey Comet.
Sir, I would have you know I’m getting sick to death with all this clap trap about whether or not we should have fluoride in our tap water. The arguments, for and against, serve only to cloud the main issue, namely profit. Anyone with investments in the aluminium industry will tell you the same. If we allow these minority pressure groups and individuals to influence the case, we could all stand to lose and then where would we be? No, let us have our water fluoridated, and without further delay; and if the children are going to benefit from it as well, then jolly good luck to them. I signed it Filthy Capitalist
After this appeared in print, I had a phone call from Mr Clavell Blount, thanking me for my contribution. He said he wished he had written it himself.
He also took the opportunity of introducing me to the National Pure Water Association which I decided to join. Its succession of news bulletins convinced me that I had been on the right track from the start and that its supporting cast was somewhat greater than minority groups and individuals. People in positions of power in Parliament and elsewhere were rightfully concerned about the travesty, not only of the moral and ethical aspects, but the scientific ones as well.
I took this on board and when I came down to Bristol in 1967 to take up a technical college teaching appointment, I found the topic under review by the Bristol Community Health Council which, after a simple vote, had recommended fluoridation to the Avon Area Health Authority. I went to a BCHC meeting at Stockwood to ask specifically why they had reached that conclusion.
The lady chairman replied “We were thinking of the children” What else could she have said? So I asked whether the American fluoridation experience had been considered and taken into account in the discussion. She hadn’t a clue as to what I was talking about.
Then a voice from the back of the hall declared, There is nothing to be concerned about; fluoride is perfectly safe and will help to reduce children’s tooth decay.
I later identified this chap as Tom Dowell, a dentist who has now achieved a position as Chair of the Bristol Primary Care Trust. In more recent years, I received a letter from him stating there are no plans to fluoridate Bristol as “the natural fluoride levels are adequate and children in the region have generally good dental health.”
But, of course, there is a political undercurrent which, in the words of the former Chief Dental Officer, Professor Raman Bedi, suggests that pressure will be applied to ”…persuade the people to accept it ” This is not the customary form of words for a man purporting to lay the ground for an impartial public consultation. The morals and ethics of the case are still being violated. We must be on our guard against cunning plans.
This brings us up to date.
