Fluoridation in Hampshire a real possibility

Sadly the news is that the South Central Strategic Health Authority have just released their report saying they want to proceed to the next step, ie public ‘consultation’, on the route to putting fluoride in our water. If this succeeds in Hampshire then it is more likely there will be a push for the rest of the country to also get fluoridated. See the SHA report at:> http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/document_store/12115365311_ha08- 046_decision_to_consult_on_proposal_for_water_flouridation_in_southampt > o> n.pdf
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> Rp-sw-discuss@lists.greenparty.org.uk http://lists.greenparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rp-sw-discuss