M5 Tanker Accident

Letter To Bristol Evening Post....
Sir; How do we rate the recently reported road traffic accident on the M5?Serious, I would say. Anything causing a nine -hour hold up on one of our commercial routes will have serious economic consequences, not to mention the frustration, misery and despair among private motorists trapped in the queues.
Olive oil from a damaged tanker plus diesel oil on the carriageway must have been a challenge to the emergency teams but today things are, thankfully, back to normal.
Had that tanker been carrying one of the silicofluoride chemicals claimed to be an essential drinking water additive for good dental health in a minority of children, the outcome could have been very different.
An accident of that kind occurred in 1994 in Florida, USA. A vehicle carrying 4500 gallons of Hexafluorosilicic acid spilled its load on to the public highway.87 people including police and emergency workers had to be hospitalised forup to 6 weeks. 300 tons of chemical-contaminated road surface had to be planed off and taken to a controlled chemical waste tip. The total cost of the clean-up was around 4 million dollars; and while those unfortunate victims with their scorched flesh, sinuses, larynx and digestive tracts may have been discharged, the radioactive nature of the chemical vapour could trigger a fatal relapse several years up the line, with no apparent cause.
As to a similar case on our local stretch of the M5, it is doubtful that either north or south bound carriageways would yet be open, while the road repair crews would be subject to a radical risk assessment far out of proportion to that incurred by normal highway maintenance engineering. A spill on either of the Severn Bridges could damage the metal structure itself, after eating through the tarmacadam.
And all because some children have tooth decay; or can’t be persuaded or trainedin simple oral hygiene. Does that read like justifiable proportionality?
Post readers who may doubt the foolhardiness behind this totally unnecessary threat to us as we travel the roads of Britain, may care to inspect the website of the National Pure Water Association
www.npwa under ‘Accidents Happen’ and ‘Toxic Tankers’Evidence like this, deliberately excluded from political debate, has given the lie to the long standing proposition that fluoride is safe.
Recently endorsed by a report given by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in Public Health Issues, “…fluoridation compromises our individual right no to be compulsorily medicated, but in the absence of evidence of harm, this right can be set aside.” Can it really? Do all our MPs go along with this monstrous infringement of our fundamental rights?
Having submitted 10 pages of referenced research material for consideration by the Nuffield team, I felt very disappointed by the ‘whitewash’ treatment being given to the outcome of the fluoridation component of the study.
When, in November 2007, at the London launch of the report, I took the opportunity to ask a whistle-blower-type question, pointing out some of the hazards arising from popular fluoride misconceptions, I was shouted down by the chairman Lord Krebs and other ‘experts’ on the platform, while having the microphone snatched from my grasp.So much for political honesty and democracy in public health.
Bernard J Seward Bristol BS9 4QP