Friday, 28 November 2008
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Bernard's letter today to the Southampton Echo in response to yesterdays news:
I was appalled to see the council vote go so substantially in favour of fluoridation when, on the evidence I have followed these last few months, so much of the public opinion in your area was firmly against it. What are we to make of councillors who, instead of conscience in making decisions likely to bring negative health prospects upon so large a section of the community?
Your health chief Andrew Mortimer lied to you when he trivialised the fluoride addition, pretending it to be the same as was all ready in the water you are drinking. The fluoride in toothpaste is usually Sodium fluoride but that is not benign, having been formerly available as an over-the-counter rodent poison in the USA. The water additive chemicals are industrial wastes, diSodium fluorosilcates and Hexafluorosilicic acid, never tested for human consumption; never subjected to the rigorous testing as befits all other drugs whether proprietory or prescribed;and certainly not tested as being safe.
The complex of those chemicals derived from phosphate rock conversion in the manufacture of fertilizer, includes a range of heavy metals including the deadly neurotoxicants lead, mercury and cadmium. The cancer causing agents Silicon, Chromium and even Polonium are also present and in the light of the recent recall of vast numbers of lead-painted toys imported from China, the World Health Organisation has repeated its standard position, namely "There is no safe lead level for children" To establish a measurable standard the WHO maxima for lead is 0.02 parts per million. The NHS claim for safety with fluoride is 1.0 parts per million. Divide the first figure into the second and it will be plain to see that the NHS is comfortable with a compound fifty times the internationally agreed maximum concentration for lead. Are we, as members of the British public, prepared to stand by and watch our elected members conspire to commit an act of criminal attack on us and our children by insisting that fluoride is good for us?
When the fluoride-related amendment to the 2003 Water Act was pushed illegally to a vote in Parliament and passed, I wrote to my pro-fluoride MP Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour Bristol North West), pointing out that the fluoride resistance movement had not been eliminated. The battle for corruption-free public health, at all levels, would continue, and so it has. Your councillor who attempted to intimidate the others should be referred to the Ombudsman for Health under a maladministration charge. Democracy was not well served at Wednesday's council meeting.
Bernard J Seward
National Pure Water Association
Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Glos and Wilts
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Southampton City Councillors at their Full Council meeting on Thursday 19th November chose to ignore the wishes of their electors and voted 26 to 18 to support the water fluoridation proposals for Southampton. This was despite admitting that most of the Southampton electorate are against fluoridation. In one case a Councillor stated that every letter and email he had received asked him to vote against fluoridation.
Every other Council in the area has considered fluoridation carefully and to date they have all without exception voted against water fluoridation. Southampton Councillors had a flawed Health panel review of the subject which was undermined by one Councillor who clearly had made up his mind before hearing any evidence and tried to undermine everything that those opposing fluoridation said. The Full Council then refused to hear a deputation to state the case against fluoride to every Councillor, meaning that many of the statements made just lacked an understanding of the serious and widespread scientific evidence of harmful side effects of fluoridation.
John Spottiswoode, Chairperson of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: “It makes one ashamed to live under a Council that is quite happy to force people across the city to drink water that is contaminated with a known toxin. The Councillors ignored the warnings from some of the most eminent and respected scientists of the dangers. They also ignored the most comprehensive review of fluoridation in the world, the National Research Council, that warned of the dangers of brain damage, brittle bones, thyroid toxicity and bone cancers. When most countries across Europe have tried water fluoridation and abandoned it as ineffective and dangerous, why should we in Southampton be forced to go down this scientifically discredited route? ”
Monday, 10 November 2008
Whilst Southampton debates whether to add fluoride to our drinking water supply, it is interesting to note votes in the USA on the subject, which were somewhat overshadowed by the Presidential election. 53 communities, with a combined population of 244,438, rejected adding fluoride to their public drinking water in the November 4, 2008, election referenda. This comes on top of the rejection of water fluoridation earlier this year by Quebec, a city that had been fluoridated for thirty years.
Meanwhile countries that have fluoridated at 1 part per million (the level proposed for Southampton) have been pulling back from that level, saying that it is too high. Canada and Ireland have both reduced the level where they fluoridate to 0.7 ppm, and Hong Kong now says 0.5 ppm is a safer level.
As Professor Paul Connett said: “Once again we have seen confirmed - from Maine to Nebraska - that when and where citizens are given free choice on this matter and they organize, the overwhelming majority of towns reject fluoridation. On November 4, in an historic presidential election year, 79% of communities with referenda voted to keep fluoride out of their water.
To put it another way, the only way governments can keep fluoridation going is to take away (e.g. Australia) or circumvent (e.g. UK) the right of citizens to choose what medicine they take. Such an approach sabotages both our human and democratic rights.”
John Spottiswoode, Chairperson of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: “When across the world people are saying that fluoridation of water should be reduced or scrapped completely, why on earth are people in Southampton trying to force everyone to drink this toxic chemical? Where there is such strong scientific evidence of harm from fluoride it is incredible that any responsible person should seriously consider adding it to our water. It is unsafe and unethical.”
Notes for Editors:
1. The detailed statistics on the votes can be found at: http://fluoridealert.org/11-4-08.html
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
What is also amazing in this context is the equally ridiculous quasi-political status of The British Dental Association. This body, augmented with members of the BMA, collectively The British Fluoridation Society, maintains a relentless force upon Government to poison the nation's water supplies with 'fluoride', not the same as the naturally occuring compound but a toxic and corrosive industrial waste, untested and untreated for human consumption, and in the same league as the banned weedkiller Paraquat. And this so that a relatively few children might (just might) have better teeth. Health Minister Alan Johnson thinks this spurious exercise is worth £42 million of NHS funding.
Frankly, as a seasoned opponent of fluoridation as a hazard to health, I would reconcile this comment with the heading of today's editorial leader column, "Better to tackle the extremists in our midst."
Bernard J Seward
Member National Pure Water Association
Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Glos & Wilts
Monday, 20 October 2008
Leaflet: one being used in Southampton at the moment
I am writing about the “public consultation document “ on the proposed fluoridation of the Southampton water supplies.
I am very concerned about the way the campaign is being presented.
1) I notice that the Southampton City PCT has put a full page advertisement in the Southampton Echo in favour of fluoridating the water supply to 1ppm.
2) I also notice that at the beginning of your public consultation document you state “In 2009 the South Central SHA will decide whether or not it is a good idea to put fluoride in the water supply. They will base their decisions on research evidence, surveys, expert guidance and feedback from local people. The consultation is not a “vote” so the option with the most support will not necessarily be chosen”.
I understand that a SHA has to be instructed by a PCT to consider and implement a new measure?
It would thus seem from 1) and 2) above that the PCT has already decided in favour of fluoridating the water supply and would therefore override a public vote against fluoridation. Is this the case?
The public consultation document is also very much biased towards fluoridation in the way it uses language and statistics, even though it gives some of the arguments against and therefore gives a very unbalanced picture. This is a dangerous precedent for public consultations.
The headline “Topping up the natural fluoride levels in our water will reduce tooth decay” in the Southampton Echo half suggests that the naturally occurring fluoride in the water would be “topped up” with natural fluoride. In fact it will probably be topped up with hexafluorosilisic acid, one of the most corrosive acids in existence, which in the form in which it would be transported to the water works, is strong enough to dissolve the tarmac on the roads, if spilled!
Decisions around the fluoridating of our water supplies have mostly been based on the “York Review” of 2000, which suggested an improvement to children’s teeth of 15%.It also noted a 48% incidence of dental fluorosis : 12.5% of cosmetic concern. Your consultation document doesn’t mention these figures and only shows pictures of mild and very mild cases of fluorosis. Psychologically this condition causes as much distress as does missing or bad teeth.
The advertisement in the Southampton Echo also quotes Dr. Jacky Chambers, Director of Public Health, Heart of Birmingham teaching PCT as saying “Our own monitoring of local health trends confirms the best available evidence that 1ppm of fluoride………does not cause health problems”.
The York Review was based on the ”best available evidence”. This evidence as regards the “effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing caries”, in a letter by leading members of the review panel to Hazel Blears the then minister, said “ we could discover no reliable good quality evidence in the fluoridation literature worldwide” and regarding “Effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing inequalities in dental health across social groups”, they said “This evidence is weak, contradictory and unreliable”.
The consultation document suggests that you have already spent considerable sums of money on educational programmes to try and help people in some of the poorer areas of Southampton with little success. The York Review suggests that these “inequalities” are not often solved by mass medicating whole areas.
In paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document you say “This document provides information about the proposal and sets out all the facts about fluoridation.” This statement is blatantly untrue as I could send you tens if not hundreds of references to harmful effects of fluoridation, none of which are mentioned in your consultation document.
The statements by the Southampton City PCT would therefore not only seem to be misleading but also partially untrue. Please would you let me know if you have studied the evidence of the York Review and on what other more recent scientific and “peer reviewed” evidence you may otherwise have based your judgements?
I eagerly await your personal response to my questions and will make the appropriate conclusions if I don’t receive a rapid response.
Chairman of the “Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire”.
Friday, 17 October 2008
In referring to fluoride as a mineral, Burnham was wide of the mark. There is no such separate entity called fluoride because fluoride is a compound of the highly reactive toxic gas Fluorine, bound within another element. In nature, water courses from springs will contain Calcium fluoride which is caused by fluorine, locked up in the rock strata with which it has reacted, being washed out to the surface. The labels of bottled spring water should list the water-borne elements present and 'fluoride', where it exists, will be shown in most UK sources as <0.2>
Another misunderstanding which the 'experts' have made little or no effort to correct is the difference between the natural fluoride and the fluorinated additive. In fact, if the question
What is the chemical being used to treat us through our water supply? is answered truthfully, disodium fluorosilicate should be the answer. Its formula? H2SiF6 To chemistry students,
The H2SiF6 compound, apart from its fluorine content, carries measurable traces of heavy metals including radionuclides as well as being highly corrosive and bioaccumulative within human and mammalian organisms. The natural fluoride will not dissolve glass, metals and concrete, but your 'nanny state special-offer' fluoride certainly will and, administered through your water taps at what the Andy Burnhams of this world deign to call 'a tiny amount', you'll chance getting health problems to match. The most visible - and impossible to deny - will be dental fluorosis, well described in our campaign song 'Brown Spotted Teeth' and illustrated in the web pages of the National Pure Water Association on http://www.npwa.org.uk/
Bernard J Seward
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Surprised councillors at Hampshire County Council meeting heard that South Central SHA’s Public Consultation document on water fluoridation had been referred to the NHS Fraud squad because of its inaccuracies and one sided approach.
A critique of the document prepared by Lord Baldwin Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group against Fluoridation and an advisor on the York Review would be sent as evidence. Lord Baldwin said: “It is very worrying, not only that a Health Authority should have a final say on fluoridation instead of democratically elected councils, but that South Central SHA should have shown such a partial grasp of how evidence should be presented, and guilty of so many errors.”
UK Councils Against Fluoridation have also submitted a complaint to Advertising Standards regarding the one sided full page advertisement in the daily press which flouted the law in at least 7 aspects. Doug Cross, who revealed the untenable legal basis of water fluoridation on behalf of UK Councils Against Fluoridation, commented later “As a professional scientist, I was appalled at the blatant disregard for truth, balance and ethical standards of behaviour by the pro-fluoridation speakers. When senior decision-makers act with such total disregard for public safety, Councils must take charge and ensure that this discredited practice is abolished from the medical sector.”
Hampshire Against Fluoridation members present were shocked at the misinformation being given to Councillors by the pro-fluoridation faction. John Spottiswoode, Chairperson of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: “We have been saying for ages that the SHA and Southampton PCT have been pushing biased and unscientific poppycock. Now it is clear not only that Lord Baldwin says that we were right but that the so-called Public Consultation is nothing but a very expensive persuasion exercise that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and Councillors. It is an abuse of trust when public health officials push an industrial grade chemical into our water supply. The unscrupulous individuals responsible for trying to push this toxin on us need to be brought to account.”
Saturday, 11 October 2008
In her masterly analysis of funding/performance comparisons affecting our universities, Wendy Piatt has overlooked a salient point - something which unites the universities of mainland Europe with those in China.
China stopped fluoridating its water supplies after identifying its depressive effects on national IQ scores. Europe, with only one exception, wants nothing to do with additional fluorides; also recognising their proven risks to health; both physical and neurological.
It is a matter of concern that the city of Southampton, the home of one of our top class new universities, is currently being treated to a fluoride hard-sell by the blinkered mandarins at the helm of the NHS which seemingly cannot entertain any downside argument to this exercise in medical fascism.
Bernard J Seward
Sunday, 14 September 2008
For the sake of a small group of children we have to take their medicine for the rest of our lives whether we have the condition or not.
100% of the water is treated and it is admitted that of the 100%, 40% is wasted through underground leaks. So that is 40% of the fluoride escaping into the environment where it is not supposed to go.
Of the 60%, 7/8th is used by industry which includes the farming industry. The 1/8th that comes into your home, 99% you flush down the toilet, wash your clothes with and water the lawn. The remaining 1% of the 1/8th of the 60% is for drinking and washing. There are 3% of the population with the bad teeth who drink the 3% of the 1% of the 1/8th of the 60%.
Does that sound like a good way to deliver medicine?
Besides, this group of children are drinking fizzy drinks what is the point of putting it in for them?
Friday, 12 September 2008
Have your say: what do you think about putting fluoride in the water?
In 2009 the Board of South Central Strategic Health Authority will decide whether it is a good idea to put fluoride in the water supply. They will base their decision on research evidence, surveys, expert guidance and feedback from local people. The consultation is not a 'vote' so the option with the most support will not necessarily be chosen. It is more important for the Board to understand the reasons for your views and the pros and cons of putting fluoride in the water. Please spend a few minutes to let us know what you think. Feel free to attach a letter or additional pages.
Any comments received after this will not be included in evaluation.
Anyone who is concerned about Water Fluoridation please go to South Central SHA's Fluoridation Consultation homepage:
Register your views as soon as possible. Now is the time to act not just for Southampton but to voice opposition for possible Water Fluoridation in YOUR area in future.
For a map of areas that will be affected by Southampton's fluoridation plan click the link below:
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Congratulations to the Daily Mail on daring to break ranks with the national media on fluoride. Time is long overdue for this secretively managed attack on the public to be exposed for what it is; a scientific fraud masquerading as a health benefit.
Fluoridation has been practised since the end of WW2 when it was a state-sponsored fly-tipping experiment, allowing the American Defense Dept to dispose of its atomic processing wastes. The outcome in terms of public health has been staggeringly negative, but nobody who has failed to research the subject fully, will be aware of it.
The UK Government, of all parties except the Green Party, has consistently maintained a steady position: We have not looked for any evidence likely to cast doubt on the health benefit of fluoridation; and since we haven't seen any, we may confidently conclude that there isn't any. Anybody who says different is a liar, a kook or a 'flat earther'.
Unfortunately, that group would include 14 Nobel Prizewinners in medicine, biology and toxicology; and internationally distinguished medics and scientists in the UK, the USA, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Russia and China. The Chinese, incidentally have halted all fluoridation schemes on account of the proven IQ deficits likely to compromise their globally dominated plans for its graduates.
An article published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1948:41:284-90
reads: "Fluoride causes a delay in tooth eruption of roughly a year. Children aged 5 living in fluoridated areas should be compared with children aged 4 living in non-fluoridated areas. When this is done, there is no benefit from water fluoridation."
Thus, by postponing the eruption of teeth by approximately 1.2 years, the statistics can show a 50% delay in the decay of those un-erupted teeth. It is a postponement, not a prevention. By teen age, the decay levels are comparable but the fluoridated children will be disadvantaged from becoming liable to dental and later to skeletal fluorosis for which there is no cure, not to mention ADHD, aspects of disturbed behaviour, reduced IQ and many other developmental risks the Government would rather we didn't know too much about.
Curiously, Europe has virtually turned its back on fluoridation because of the acknowledged risks to health.
Whatever happened to harmonisation?
Bernard J Seward B.Ed(Hons) LCGI, MIP3
Friday, 25 July 2008
Anti-fluoridation campaigners have already accused the South Central Strategic Health Authority, which will ultimately decide whether to give the plan to fluoridate water to 20,000 homes in Southampton and Hampshire the green light, of peddling propaganda. Yesterday, the Echo reports that the SHA board agreed to change documents designed to inform residents about fluoride during the consultation, after hearing feedback suggesting they don't fairly represent both sides.
Director of communications and corporate affairs, Olga Senior said focus groups felt the literature gives a good case for fluoridation, but failed to provide reasons against it.
"The feedback told us if what you want to do is give balance, you haven't done that. The pro-fluoridation group bases its arguments on science. The group against also bases its argument on reports and science. What doesn't seem to have come out at this stage is that balance."
The board agreed at the meeting to put consultation back two weeks to change the literature.
Board chairman, Dr Geoffrey Harris said: "We do need to be assured that in the public consultation document we are not closing down one side of the argument."
As revealed in the Daily Echo, Hampshire Against Fluoridation has lodged a formal complaint with the authority, saying the decision to take the issue to a public consultation was based on flawed facts.
Chairman and Green party activist John Spottiswoode has demanded the process be abandoned, because he believes evidence showing negative effects of fluoridation has been ignored. Meanwhile John last night welcomed the move to revise the literature - although it is clear from emails from campaigners there that there are still serious concerns about bias in this consultation.
The consultation will run until December 19, and the SHA board will make a final decision at a special meeting in February.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Great fluoride debate by Jon Reeve
IT is meant to be the independent body even-handedly navigating the tricky waters of a public consultation over controversial plans that have split opinion.
But the organisation that oversees Hampshire's healthcare has been formally accused of being biased over proposals to add fluoride to the tap water of nearly 200,000 residents.
On the eve of the consultation process being finalised, anti-fluoridation campaigners have lodged a complaint with South Central Strategic Health Authority, saying decisions have been based on flawed information.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation believes failings in the process mean at least £180,000 of public money has already essentially been wasted.
Tomorrow, the authority's board is due to decide on the details of how the three-month public consultation - being conducted at the request of Southampton Primary Care Trust which wants fluoridation - will be carried out.
But ahead of that meeting HAF's chairman, John Spottiswoode has called on the SHA to abandon the fluoridation process before that starts.
"The public consultation is clearly going to be a sham, being run as a propaganda exercise for water fluoridation, with the aim of achieving a pre-determined outcome," he said.
"The whole fluoridation episode is a disgrace to the health authorities and undermines any trust or confidence that we may have placed in their decisions in the past."
As previously reported by the Daily Echo, public views expressed during the consultation could be ignored if they are not based on accepted scientific reasoning and evidence.
That means a majority of respondents could potentially say they do not want fluoride added to the water supplies, but the scheme being given the green light anyway.
The SHA was last night unable to issue a formal comment on the complaints, but insisted the process would be fair, and no decision has yet been made on the plans to add fluoride to water.
The controversial proposals will see 160,000 residents - 67 per cent of the city's population - receiving added fluoride in their tap water in a bid to improve the city's chronic dental health problems. Around 36,000 more living in Eastleigh, Totton and Netley would also get extra fluoride as their homes are covered by the same water distribution centre.
A report going before SHA board members tomorrow says the proposals for the consultation have been checked by solicitors to ensure it is run according to legal guidelines set down by the Government especially for fluoridation.
Although the details have yet to be confirmed, the report says the consultation will include public drop-in events and Question Time style debates to allow residents to voice their concerns and have queries answered.
Leaflets and posters will be displayed in GP practices, dental surgeries, libraries and other community centres to increase awareness, and regular updates will be posted on a special website.
Sunday, 20 July 2008
Rob and Jehanne Mehta singing "Brown Spotted Teeth" - now listed at the Centre for Political Song at Glasgow Caledonian University as a protest song - see our listing here.
Sunday, 13 July 2008
Courtesy of John Spottiswoode on behalf of South West Hampshire Green Party and Hampshire Against Fluoridation for publication in Hampshire - a good article that is worth a read.
Photo: Recent Safe Water Campaign meeting in Stroud
Fluoridation is harming many millions
Water fluoridation has been called the biggest medical scandal since thalidomide. Millions of people are being fed a toxic chemical through their water supply. This accumulates over the years in bones, brains, thyroid glands and in kidneys leading to a range of major health problems. According to literally hundreds of research studies water fluoridation is leading to cancers, brittle bones, damage to the central nervous system, mental problems, genetic damage, an increase in miscarriages and hypersensitive reactions. Those in favour of water fluoridation seem to deny all this peer reviewed and solid science.
Why does fluoride have so many negative effects on the body? Well a student of GCSE chemistry could well explain this, shaming some so-called professors. Fluorine is the most electronegative and highly reactive element known. In chemical reactions it will displace chlorine and iodine. Whilst chlorine and iodine are essential for the body, there is no known need for fluorine at all (except perhaps as a rat poison, where it works very effectively). Therefore by putting fluoride in our water we should expect a range of serious health effects in the body and, lo and behold, these have been found by research time and time again.
The defenders of fluoridation then point to places that already have water fluoridation and imply that this means it is OK for Southampton too. Again they ignore the masses of research that shows higher levels of health problem. They may even say that there is ‘no evidence of this in fluoridated Birmingham’, but that it because no-one has done a study to look. No-one in authority is willing to look truth in the eye, fund a study, and say ‘yes serious health problems do indeed affect Birmingham’ as research has found in the other fluoridated areas.
Those defending fluoridation (e.g. Professor Damian Walmsley of the British Dental association on the 10th July in the Echo) claim that fluoride is natural and that ‘all water contains the mineral fluoride’. This is far from the case. Fluorine is so reactive that it has for millennia mostly been safely tied up in the rocks, so only in certain places, where the water comes through these rocks, do we get any significant amount of fluoride naturally in water. Where this happens, in places like India and China, they know the terrible health effects all too well. Why do pro-fluoridation scientists in the UK ignore what those in India, China and the rest of Europe have found, that fluoride is a major toxin, and in some countries is banned completely from ever being added to water.
What is planned for Southampton is to dig up rocks from Spain, smash them into a powder, extract hexafluorosilicic acid and add this to our water, along with other pollutants such as arsenic. For the scientists among you, note that hexafluorosilicic acid has six fluorine atoms for every molecule, a very heavy toxic load.
The defenders of fluoride also do not seem to understand human rights. It is a basic human right to have clean water to drink, and much effort is spent trying to provide this across the world. Polluting our water with fluoride means that people here will be forced to drink this pollutant because most filters will not remove it. It is unethical to medicate people forcibly via the water supply. If people really want to damage their health then they can take fluoride tablets.
What will come next? Would there not be less depression, especially amongst the poor, if Prozac were added to our drinking water? Fluoride is no different as it is being added, however mistakenly, to try to produce a medicinal effect. Those favouring water fluoridation are being highly unethical and have forfeited any trust many may have once had in them, both scientifically and personally.
Reference: 1. Professor A Susheela, world expert in fluoride : Water fluoridation “may well dwarf the thalidomide tragedy”
Monday, 7 July 2008
Consult a specialist?
Go into Hospital?
Time of year?
Post operative medicine?
Or rely on vitamins?
Poisonous fluoride in your water supply?
Definitely – No Choice
We know best.
Who is the royal ‘WE’?
British Dental Association
British Medical Association
British Fluoridation Society
Secretary of State for Health
Chief Medical Officer of Health
Strategic Health Authorities
152 Members of Parliament, most of whom support the principle of CHOICE in public health issues.
Fluoride producers. They profit from selling it, as a waste product, to the Government
Spring water bottlers
Shippers and Hauliers
Anti-terrorism security firms
Fluoride dissolves glass, steel and concrete.
Thursday, 26 June 2008
B J Seward
I wish we had David Davis and his concern for loss of fundamental freedoms speaking for me and my colleagues in the Avon, Glos and Wilts Safe Water Campaign. PM Margaret Thatcher (BSc Chemistry) wasn't too concerned about them in pushing through a Water Bill in 1985. Despite a 399 Commons abstentions vote, she 'conferred' fluoridation on the population of the emerald isle. Was she really that worried about Irish children's teeth? If not, what else did she have in mind?
Bernard J Seward
Monday, 23 June 2008
John Graham, an Executive Member for the National Pure Water Association, writes in The Ecologist, an excellent article on fluoride entitled "Riding the fluoride tiger":
This pic above comes from another new article re fluoride from SchNEWS:
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Dr Caroline Lucas MEP has slammed the public consultation process on water fluoridation in Southampton today, after a local campaigner was refused permission to speak at a public meeting. The public consultation meeting, to be held by South Central Strategic Health Authority in Newbury tomorrow, is meant to provide an open space for local residents and campaigners to voice their concerns on plans by the Primary Care Trust and the SHA to add fluoride to water in the area. But South West Hants Green Party campaigner John Spottiswoode has been told by officials that he will not be able to outline the dangers of fluoridation, and thus the meeting panel looks set to include only those who support the scheme.
South East MEP Dr Lucas said: “By refusing a platform for a concerned activist at tomorrow’s meeting in Newbury, Southampton health chiefs have exposed their consultation process as an undemocratic sham. Before making this crucial decision on water fluoridation, they have a public duty to listen to evidence from both sides of the debate.
“New research was presented to the Petitions Committee in the European Parliament this week which showed an epidemic of dental fluorosis affecting children in the Republic of Ireland in areas where a policy of fluoridation has been implemented. “This alarming research from the Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment is now being investigated by both the Parliament and the European Commission.
“Fluoride, or fluorosilicic acid, is an untested hazardous waste, and to add it to drinking water to supposedly prevent tooth decay is disproportionate and cannot be justified. This scheme would amount to a mass medication of the population in Southampton, and could seriously infringe the EU’s Drinking Water Directive, the Waste Directive and the Medicines Directive. “Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, particularly when the bad effects of dental fluorosis are taken into account. Furthermore, many studies have indicated links between water fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems.
Dr Lucas concluded: “Health officials in Southampton must take into account all of the concerns which have been expressed on this issue, instead of committing to this unpopular strategy.”
• Using biased and misleading statements. This includes scare mongering about dental health, whereas in fact the dental health in Southampton is one of the best of any city in the UK and in Europe based on the published statistics.
• Ignoring compelling and valid scientific research that clearly shows the major health dangers from fluoridation (increased cancers, brittle bones, increased senility, low IQ in children, high levels of miscarriages and still births).
• Refusing to listen to why other countries in Europe have banned fluoride and refusing to hear the case against fluoride at the Authority.• Using unscientific theories and assertions based on no evidence
• Being deliberately misleading by quoting selectively and inappropriately from the government’s own York Review on fluoridation
• Failing to take account of research that demonstrates that the use of dental data on five year olds to justify fluoridation is not only seriously unsound, but fails to recognise that the data in fact demonstrates that we are poisoning our children in a systemic (whole body) fashion in fluoridated areas.• Not taking their basic duty seriously to ‘first, physician, do no harm’ and not taking the precautionary approach to medicine
• Failing to show any cost benefit from fluoridation, probably because the figures nationwide show no cost benefits. Wolverhampton shows a more than doubling of dental health costs in the five years following fluoridation.
• Being unacceptably secretive over the basis for their decision, which implies that the basis is fundamentally flawed. Why does the Authority continue to refuse to divulge the details and the Technical Report even when asked for it under the Freedom of Information Act?
• Setting up plans for a heavily biased ‘consultation’ process that would involve a one sided presentation of the case. A biased consultation is not a real consultation but a PR exercise set up to get a predetermined result.
• Fails to take account of the fact that mass medication using the water supply is highly unethical expressly forbidden by the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
• Does not take account of the fact that fluoride compounds have never been tested nor approved for addition to water to cause a medicinal effect, which is required for something seeking a medicinal effect. Spokesperson John Spottiswoode said "This report confirms our worst fears. The report fails to take account of the mass of scientific evidence pointing to major health problems from a sustained intake of fluoride and fails to seek to protect the health of us all.” “It is hard to have to attack a Health Authority for what amounts to serious health failings when we all want to trust and rely on their professionalism and good will. We rely on them to use proper evidence based medicine. However the Health Authorities are refusing to release details behind the report, even when asked under the Freedom of Information legislation. What have they got to hide? Why won't they be open with the public about their true reasons for pushing fluoridation? I thought that the Freedom of Information Act was meant to stop this sort of over-secretive behaviour. What else can we not trust them about? The Strategic Health Authority is using statistics like a drunk for support, not for enlightenment, and ignoring research that does not tell them what they want to hear. This is a serious condemnation and not one we take lightly. It is something we would not say unless we felt we had to and it was fully justified by the facts. ” “This report is a disgrace to medical science and the dangerous addiction to adding toxic chemicals to our food and water must stop immediately. If the population of Southampton, Eastleigh and Totton do not object now, and in the strongest ways, then it looks like we will end up with the toxin fluoride in our drinking water."
This SHA report fails dismally to take account of the mass of scientific evidence pointing to health problems from a sustained intake of fluoride. The Health Authorities are also refusing to release details behind the report, even when asked under the Freedom of Information legislation. We have to ask what have they got to hide? Why won't they be open with the public? The Strategic Health Authority is also ignoring research that does not tell them what they want to hear. In short the report is a disgrace to medical science. See more here re water fluoridation: http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk/
Here is a comment from Green party member: "It is genuinely shocking what the Health Authorities think they can do when pushing what is basically a strong toxin that is best suited as its original use as a rat poison. How can the authorities refuse to accept valid peer reviewed research evidence that they do not like, but accept deeply flawed research that does suit them? How often is this happening in other situations as well??? Unfortunately a wider conclusion is that the people in charge cannot be trusted with safeguarding our health and we can’t believe what they say without checking it out fully> ourselves. As I say it is shocking when you first encounter it in full lurid detail."
There are many concerns re fluoride - one of them is hypothyroidism. For those interested there is an e-petition from the National Pure> Water Association. Anyone in the UK is eligible to sign (you can also sign other petitions re promoting psychological approaches to traffic and removing Thatcher image from Welsh Assembly). Click sign a petition at: https://www.assemblywales.org/gethome/e-petitions/p-03-137
Hampshire Against Fluoridation and SW Hants Green Party have combined to call on the South Central SHA to reject a report recommending that the Health Authorities proceed with the process to fluoridate the drinking water in much of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh and Totton. Some notes going towards their press release are below. Others in the SW may like to raise this issue. There are many grounds for rejecting the report recommendations, but in particular:
• The report states that 'Water fluoridation has not been shown to have untoward effects other than an increase in the level of fluorosis' (para 7.3). This is amazingly dismissive and an irresponsible misuse of science. Firstly it belittles the very real damage of fluorosis not only to the teeth, but to the bones and the rest of the body due to systemic fluorosis. Secondly it ignores the massive body of valid peer reviewed research showing major health problems linked to fluoride intake. These health problems include cancers, brittle bones, mental problems (increased senility and lower IQs) and thyroid poisoning, so why does the paper not address any of this at all?
• Misrepresentation of the scientific facts. The report refers to the York Review of 2000 and picks out of it unrepresentative statistics including some that the York Review themselves said are misleading (appendix 2, para 2.2). It also puts forward an unproved theory as to why fluoride might work (appendix 2 para 1.1), and uses unscientific assertions, covering this with words like 'probably' (para 2.4). It fails to state the key conclusion from the York Review that it did not find convincing evidence of benefit, even for teeth, and the York Review pointed specifically to the real damage caused by dental fluorosis. The SHA report does not make clear that the York Review found that 48% of those in fluoridated areas have evidence of fluorosis and 12.5% have significant fluorosis (i.e. needing treatment), glossing over the point (appendix 2 para 3.1) and using a misleading picture of> mild or very mild dental fluorosis to imply this is what the concern is about. They should show the pictures of concerning fluorosis (see below)
• It concentrates on the (unproven) benefits to teeth and fails to address the health effects from systemic poisoning of the body by extended exposure to fluoride. Using the caries data for five year olds is fundamentally flawed because young children in fluoridated areas are so poisoned that their teeth fail to come out until approximately a year after their peers in nonfluoridated areas. This means that the teeth are exposed for a year less and at five years old this is significant. The supposed beneficial effect as people age disappears, so old people have just as many fillings whatever their water fluoridation status.
• The report fails to take the precautionary approach, which any health authority should do as a primary function (first, physician, do no harm). I.e. where there is significant doubt that a substance is safe then a chemical should not be added to the water. In the case of fluoride there is massive concern shown in valid peer reviewed and published research. Fluoride has never been tested nor approved for addition to water to cause a medicinal effect.
• The report does not address the issue that it is against human rights and medical ethics to carry out mass medication via the water supply. This would be what we would expect of Hitler, but should never be countenanced in a society that respects human rights.
• The report does not justify the claimed cost benefits. Fluoridated areas such as the West Midlands have no reduction in dental health costs, in fact in Wolverhampton the dental costs more than doubled in the five years following fluoridation. The fact that this sort of detail is not being given to those concerned about the issue is very worrying. Before committing further money and effort to fluoridation these areas must be addressed properly. The report uses exaggeration and misleading statements in several places. this starts from the very first sentence where it states "..children in Southampton have some of the poorest dental health across the NHS South Central Region and in the country." and then uses comparator areas (in appendix 1) that are not at all comparable to Southampton. Recent research has shown that Southampton has one of the best dental health records amongst all the cities in the UK. Even the results of a public survey (appendix 5) are highly suspect because where fair and balanced questions are put to the public about water fluoridation in England there has never ever anywhere been a majority in favour of fluoridation. So what was the methodology used? What were the actual questions? The report does not say and the SHA refuses to give opponents of fluoridation details behind their bland assertions in the report. Saying that the health and social care professional they spoke to 'support fluoridation without exception' is similarly imprecise. Who did they speak to? How many? Have these health professionals actually read the latest research showing the dangers of fluoridation? Can we expect health professionals to step out of line when the Health profession has such a record for suppressing dissent, in some cases threatening those not supporting the official line with being struck off? Finally the formal consultation proposed (section 6) is heavily biased in favour of the pro-fluoridation camp, as has been the situation throughout the process. There is talk about a consultation document, presentations, briefing materials, advertisements and posters. Who will write these? Presumably the very same people who support fluoridation in the Health Authority already, meaning that there is no meaningful presentation of opposing views. Biased consultation is not proper consultation at all.
Rp-sw-discuss mailing list> Rpfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.greenparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rp-sw-discuss
Such an analysis and its procedural methodology raises ethical issues. Staff delegation; the collation and transmission of the results to each child's GP and the entitlement, or otherwise, of parents to be informed, all pose significant burdens of responsibilty upon what should be a centres of learning and not unfunded pseudo health clinics.
However, If the effect of one drug requires a monitoring programme, so should they all where health effects are claimed, especially as the documented evidence against fluoride indicates a lowering of intelligence and attention deficits in the young.
Bernard J Seward Bristol
Monday, 2 June 2008
"...a research team led by Professor Jouni Jaakkola of the University of Birmingham analysed the birth registry details of nearly 400,000 babies born in Taiwan between 2001 and 2003. Levels of chlorine found in water there are similar to those found in the UK. Scientists compared the number of birth defects recorded by doctors to the level of THMs in the drinking water in different areas. The proportions of certain specific defects were much higher in areas where levels of THMs were above 20 micrograms per litre.The brain condition anencephalus, usually found in 0.01 per cent of births, rose to 0.17 per cent in high-THM areas...."
This report is worrying and not a surprise to many of us who have campaigned on water - it should prompt further research - although I'm not sure it will - at least chlorine is added for a reason - to make water safer - fluoride is added to medicate.
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
(A)Fluoride, in the form of silicofluorides, injected into 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies, ostensibly to reduce tooth decay, was never safety-tested.(B) "Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency," says Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, co-author of the government-sponsored NRC report. "The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals," says Thiessen."A low level of thyroid hormone can increase the risk of cardiac disease, high cholesterol, depression and, in pregnant women, decreased intelligence of offspring," said Thiessen.
(C)Common thyroid symptoms include fatigue, weight gain, constipation, fuzzy thinking, low blood pressure, fluid retention, depression, body pain, slow reflexes, and more. It's estimated that 59 million Americans have thyroid conditions.
(D)Robert Carton, PhD, an environmental scientist who worked for over 30 years for the U.S. government including managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, says "fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male."
(E) (1.0 mg/L fluoride is in most water supplies)Among many others, the NRC Report cites human studies which show- fluoride concentrations in thyroids exceeding that found in other soft tissues except kidney- an association between endemic goiter and fluoride exposure or enamel fluorosis in human populations- fluoride adversely affects thyroid and parathyroid hormones, which affect bone health "If you have a thyroid problem, avoiding fluoride may be a good preventive health measure for you," writes Drs' Richard and Karilee Shames in "Thyroid Power."
(F).Over, 1,700 Physicians, Dentists, Scientists, Academics and Environmentalists urge Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation is ineffective and has serious health risks. (http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html)
Please sign the petition and Congressional letter to support these professionals: http://www.FluorideAction.Net
References:(A) "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA'sStandards," Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board onEnvironmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and LifeStudies, National Research Council of the National Academies ofScience. March 2006 Chapter 8http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571"Thyroid Function: Fluoride exposure in humans is associated withelevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and alteredT4 and T3 concentrations." (Page 262)"(The thyroid effects are associated with average fluoride intakesthat) will be reached by persons with average exposures at fluorideconcentrations of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water, especially thechildren." (Page 260)(B) Sodium Hexafluorosilicate and Fluorosilicic AcidReview of Toxicological Literature, October 2001http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf(C) Chemical & Engineering News, "Fluoride Risks Are Still AChallenge," by Bette Hileman, September 4, 2006,http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8436gov1.html(D) Mary Shomon, About.com Thyroid editor, Patient Advocate --Author of "The Thyroid Diet" and "Living Well With Hypothyroidism"http://thyroid.about.com/(E) Fluoride, "Review of the 2006 National Research Council Report:Fluoride in Drinking Water," July-September 2006, by Robert J. Cartonhttp://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf(F) Thyroid Power and Feeling Fat Fuzzy or Frazzeled"by RichardShames MD & Karilee Shames RN, PhD http://www.thyroidpower.comhttp://www.feelingfff.com/Fluoride/Thyroid Health Effectshttp://www.fluoridealert.org/health/thyroid/Sources of Fluoridehttp://www.fluoridealert.org/f-sources.htmSulfuryl Fluoride Pesticide Residues Allowed on Foodshttp://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/sulfuryl.f.all.food.html United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National FluorideDatabase of Selected Beverages and Foods http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html
Contact Information:New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, IncPO Box 263Old Bethpage, NY 11804
Contact Person:email: email Web: http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Author:Nys Cofe-mailWeb: http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Is it now likely that our same government will reverse its hitherto relentless ambition to mass-fluoridate the water supplies of every citizen in the UK? If not, perhaps a member of the LMGH could be persuaded to explain why!
Bernard J Seward
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
See the letter earlier this year from Caroline Lucas, Green Party Member of the European Parliament for the South East of the UK:
Dr Geoffrey Harris
Chairman NHS South Central Strategic Health Authority
Oakley Road, Southampton SO16 4GX
18th March 2008
Dear Dr Harris
Water fluoridation problems and the need to test residents for current fluoride levels
I am writing for two reasons,
1. To express my concern at the proposal currently being considered to fluoridate the drinking water in Southampton, and possibly elsewhere in Hampshire.
2. To ask what the levels of exposure there are in the current population in Southampton, and if this is not known, what steps are being taken to find this out.
My concerns over water fluoridation are that:
• It is not proven to be effective for teeth, particularly with the bad effects of dental fluorosis are taken into account (1)
• Many studies have indicated links between water fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems (see attached summary paper)
• Putting fluoride in the water amounts to mass medication of the population. This is in direct contravention on the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (2) and contrary to medical ethics (3). We are seeking a legal opinion on its contravention of the Medicines Directive.
The concern over levels of exposure in the population at the moment is also a very serious one as it is very important to know the total dose that people will be receiving if water fluoridation were to be administered. The World Health Organisation advises that Public Health Administrators should be aware of this before introducing any additional fluoride programme (4).
I look forward to hearing your responses to these points.
Caroline Lucas MEP
cc Mrs Pauline Quan Arrow, Chair Southampton City Primary Care Trust
Please note that this is an open letter that I will be releasing to the media.
1. York Study 2000. Main statement from the Conclusions: “The evidence of a benefit of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms or whether there is an impact on social inequalities. This evidence on benefits and harms needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, costs and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. All of these issues fell outside the scope of this review”:www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/fluorid.pdf and www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
2. Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/164.htm
3. “No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay’. It is a preposterous notion.” Dr Peter Mansfield, Advisory Board member of York Review.
4. "Dental and Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention.“ - World Health Organization (1994), Fluorides and Oral Health.
Saturday, 17 May 2008
However I suspect as the threat of fluoridation is not imminent in Gloucestershire then there is not so much concern - plus there is still confusion about fluoride and chlorine - and the fact that fluoride is in toothpaste must mean it is good for us.....?? And in any case there are many other local issues at the moment including post office closures, plans for a new nuclear power station, bus service cuts, airport expansion plans etc etc...
One bit of fun was an experiment Rob Mehta had been carrying out - see photo - last year Rob carried out an experiment using different water - see results here. This year he by mistake over watered all of the seeds by the same amount - the results showed best growth with teh spring water from Hawkwood, then tap water then fluoridated water. Of course these one off experiments don't have any scientific value but they are a bit of fun and replicate others who have shown similar results.
Anyhow we had a lively discussion after the speakers had finished which included a look at the best next steps. These will be picked up at our next meeting on 5th June at 2pm - contact us for details of venue.
Mysteries of water
I love this talk that Simon gives - it is the second time I heard it and I still find it fascinating - for a write up of the last talk which covered a lot of the same ground see my blog here - and see the photos here of a slide and one of the experiments.
Many people said afterwards that it gave them a whole new perspective on water - anyhow hope these notes give a taster of the AGM today.
Photo: Rob singing Brown Spotted Teeth
Fluoride and I Q Deficits
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he wants to make Britain the best-educated nation in the world.
If he’s serious he should talk to the Chinese. China is priding itself in turning out 20 thousand or more graduates, year on year and is leaving no stone unturned in pursuit of that goal.
One of those stones is the removal of an impediment to IQ among children aged 8 to 13. Research by Chinese scientists in 1995 found a correlation between high levels of naturally occurring fluorides in the ground water and incidents of serious brain dysfunction.
In that same year a Dr Phyllis J Mullenix who worked at the Department of Psychiatry at Boston Children’s Hospital, Massachussetts, published the results of her research into
the toxicological effects, upon the brain, of various substances used in therapeutic treatments, including sodium fluoride which has long had a use for the treatment of thyroid conditions.
Mullenix had used laboratory rats for her studies, but by scaling up the results in terms of equivalence of concentrations, body mass and blood/fluoride levels, she discovered, among other things, a reversal of a previously accepted mantra; notably that fluoride would not cross the blood/brain barrier in the unborn foetus. She found that it did; and that the outcoming behavioural patterns were related to gender, age and exposure of the subjects. Males were more sensitive to pre-natal fluorides, whereas females reacted more to weaning and adult exposures, but the net results overall represented a weakening of the expected mental faculties relating to intelligence.
A quote (or soundbite) from Dr Mullenix: "Humans are being exposed to levels of fluoride we know alters behaviour in rats; levels that flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits, and/or learning disabilities in humans."
Concurrently with her work, though independently, a Dr Bruce Spittle of the Dunedin Medical School, New Zealand, corroborated Dr Mullenix with his own work spanning 60 years of study of the effects of fluorine compounds on the central nervous system.
In 1994, the same year as Spittle’s work was published, scientist Richard Masters and water engineer Aaron Coplan collaborated in a study of 280 thousand children, also in the state of Massachussetts, finding high lead levels in the blood of those living in artificially fluoridated communities. Lead is a heavy metal we’d rather do without. We’ve spent a fortune getting rid of it in car fuel because it compromises normal brain development leading to long term deficits in learning and social behaviour.
In terms of public health, lead-free petrol and all that it implied must surely be an excellent example of money well spent.
Ironically, for the fluoridation proponents who do not yet seem to have made the connection, a major survey of 120 thousand children living in fluoridated New York State found that those with high lead levels also had more tooth decay than children living in neighbouring, unfluoridated, communities or states. This was freely reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association and commented upon by the New York State Coalition on Fluoridation (NYSCOF) whose web site makes an impressive case for fluoride opposition.
So with the benefit of their own research and that of other countries, now freely available and accessible via the internet, the Chinese authorities are playing safe and have banned fluoridation, cancelling existing schemes and abandoning plans for any further interventions, all in interests of the pursuit of academic excellence among their young people; not to mention their ambitions of world dominance in the global economy.
The 1995 Chinese scientific research paper “Effect of Fluoride Exposure in Intelligence in Children” , described in Barry Groves’ book ‘Fluoride Drinking ourselves to Death’ carries a graph plotting levels of IQ against age in two districts: Xinhua which had a low concentration of fluoride; and Sima with a high concentration.
Using the incidence of dental fluorosis as the marker, the IQ scores were 5 to 19 points lower for children in the severe fluorosis area compared with those with minimal fluorosis. A second study found a difference of 6 to 12 points lower in those children afflicted with severe fluorosis.
Another global competitor is India. India has legislated to remove all fluoride compounds from water before it reaches the suppliers. It acknowledges fluorides (even those naturally occurring) to be inconsistent with academic achievement among its consumers. The condition of their teeth is an irrelevance.
So wake up Gordon Brown – and you too, Ed Balls! Don’t glibly accept all that stale US inherited 1950s Dental Association hype.
If waste management features in your manifesto, remember that the original fluoridation scheme was a nuclear waste fly-tipping exercise conducted secretly upon the American people under the cloak of ‘National Security’. In the immortal words of actor Michael Caine, ‘Not a lot of people know that’…including most at Westminster.
You could start by instructing chancellor Alistair Darling to withhold any further treasury funding for ill-considered or fraudulently manipulated dental health schemes.
If British education is really worth fighting for, and it most certainly is, it should be simple enough to follow the 21st century prevailing policy of the American Dental Association; tell the truth about fluoridation, refuse to compromise further your declared educational objectives while setting aside the collection of disparate professional views, based on vested interests and reputations.
Bernard J Seward B.Ed(Hons)
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Should fluoride be added to our water supply?
A TELEPHONE poll of 1,000 randomly selected Island residents will be carried out next month to find out if the public want fluoride in their drinking water.
Health Minister Eddie Teare insisted that if there was no strong public mandate then his department would drop the proposal. But the launch of the latest phase of the consultation came amid continuing accusations of bias – and an embarrassing u-turn over an information leaflet being distributed to households. And Mr Teare admitted that even if the public voted in favour he was still likely to face a long political battle before fluoride could be introduced to the Island's water supply. He said: 'I've no idea how it's going to go. If the view of the public is they don't want fluoride then that's fine – we will walk away. I do feel this whole debate has been useful in raising the issue of the poor state of oral health in the Isle of Man.'
Public health officials are convinced fluoridation is the most cost-effective way of tackling alarmingly high rates of dental decay among the Island's children. But the anti-fluoride lobby accuse them of 'state-sponsored propaganda' and insist fluoride is unsafe and far from cost-effective. The Department of Health and Social Security has appointed independent market research company GfK/NOP to conduct the telephone poll of 1,000 randomly selected residents which will take place in early May. It will include those with ex-directory numbers. They will ask: 'Do you think tooth decay rates on the Isle of Man are above average UK level, below it, or about the same?'. They will continue: 'In fact tooth decay levels on the Isle of Man are considerably higher than the average UK level.
In many developed counties, and in some parts of the UK, fluoride is added to the water supply to reduce levels of tooth decay. Would you favour or oppose fluoride being added to the water in the Isle of Man.'
Kevin Glynn, campaign director for anti-fluoride group Save Our Water, said: 'How can you have a poll when only one side of the argument is given? I would say it is weighted as it doesn't include information on dental fluorosis, a proven side-effect.' But Mr Teare said: 'We're going to be accused of trying to manipulate things. This thing has got very personal and I regret that. We will have no input in the poll. The questions have been drafted by GfK/NOP. It's not weighted. We've not attempted to phrase the questions in such a way that there's only one answer.'
In Tynwald last week, the minister was criticised over a new public information leaflet, due to be distributed to all Island households this week. A line in the leaflet claimed that the Water Authority was 'now seeking to bring in legislation on fluoridation'. Water Authority chairman David Cannan pointed out this wasn't correct and the leaflets have now been re-printed by the DHSS at a cost of £2,500 with the offending line removed. Mr Teare said: 'There was a dispute about this in Tynwald and we took it out to avoid any ambiguity. We had relied on information taken in good faith from the Water Authority but they didn't feel comfortable with it so we removed it at their request. We reprinted it at DHSS cost because we just want to get on with it.' But the minister admitted that even with a strong public mandate, he could still face a tough challenge to persuade the politicians to vote for the legislation needed to add fluoride to the water supply.'I've got a very difficult road to cross,' he said. Save Our Water say they may challenge the public information leaflet on fluoridation. Mr Glynn said: 'We already know information put out by the DHSS is biased. This leaflet is just propaganda and may well be in breach of advertising codes as well because they are making medicinal claims of a food product.'
18 April 2008 From: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Telephone-poll-to-inform- fluoride.3994546.jp
Saturday, 3 May 2008
Do you suffer from mouth ulcers or rashes on your face? Are your teeth pitted and yellow? If the answer to these questions is yes, then your toothpaste may be to blame...and one of those ingredients that is worrying is fluoride.....
Thursday, 1 May 2008
We have finally got the new website up and running.
UK Councils Against Fluoridation
Please visit our url as the website contains much legal information which will be of great interest to Councils and other institutions.
Sunday, 27 April 2008
I am very disappointed by the below response to my request under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of the Technical Report into the fluoridation of water in Hour area. I do not want to get into an official dispute with a body that is meant to be looking after our health. South Central SHA is meant to be serving the public, not hiding things from us, and it is very depressing when the latter seems to be the case.
I did not ask for the information in the context of its environmental impact. I already know that will be serious as 99% of the fluoride put into the water is likely to go directly into the environment polluting our agricultural land and fisheries, plus be put into the atmosphere via steam from factories and in homes. This means that we well get a ‘multiple whammy’ of fluoride from several fronts as soon as it goes into the water. I asked for the report under the Freedom of Information Act, and I continue to ask for it under that legal protection for the public from officialdom’s arrogance. Your refusing to supply this information by using a legal get out clause is not in the spirit of openness that most people should expect from those whose job it is to serve our health interests.
Furthermore yesterday I was shocked to read in the Daily Echo in a letter from Dr Andrew Mortimer, public health director of Southampton City Primary Care Trust that we already have 0.3 parts per million of fluoride in Southampton’s water supply. This is a revelation and unknown publicly, as far as I am aware, before this letter. The British Fluoridation Society statistics (if you can trust them) in ‘One in a Million’ says that there is NO fluoride in Southampton’s water from natural or any other sources. Is this fluoride from pollution upstream, or from the boreholes?
So exactly whom does this fluoride poison affect in Southampton and the surrounding area? Will the SHA tell us or is it ‘confidential’ and those being poisoned have no right to know? I presume that this revelation must have come from the Technical Report that you are refusing to let me and the public see. This sort of information is very important to those concerned about the purity of our water supply. For instance this information alone is likely to prompt those who understand the dangers of fluoride, and can afford it, to install reverse osmosis water treatment in their houses.
Indeed it is important that the Health Authorities insist that this nasty poisonous chemical is removed from Southampton’s water as soon as is practical. But the concern in this area is that snippets from the Report are being used to back pro-fluoridation arguments and is being withheld from those opposed to water fluoridation. Is this part of the SHA’s Communication Strategy - to win the argument for fluoridation by releasing key data to those arguing in favour, but this same information is being hidden from those opposed? This sounds very Machiavellian in the worst way.
I repeat again that it is essential that you release this Technical Report immediately for the public good. In the spirit of openness, that I at least uphold, I am copying this to other interested parties. John Spottiswoode