Sunday, 6 December 2009

What about water poisoning?

Another of Bernard's letters - this time to the Telegraph:

Andrew Gimson's article exalts David Cameron as the people's champion of the 1974 Health & Safety at Work Act. Not only the workplace but the environment at large has benefited from the best interpretations of this Act.

"Few politicians, says Gimson, "are prepared to advocate an increase in food poisoning". . . Hold it right there Mr Gimson! What about water poisoning?

152 of them voted in support of the fluoride-enabling amendment to the Water Bill 2003. Did they all know that the additive fluoride (as distinct from the natural kind), is an untested, unrefined and uncertificated industrial waste product of fertiliser manufacture? Containing as it does significant traces of heavy metals, corrosives and radionuclides, it cannot in all honesty be linked to anything to do with public health.

The HSE, when challenged to uphold and defend the consumers best interests, refers the enquirer to the Drinking Water Inspectorate which is equally evasive with "We supply a product that conforms to the regulations..."

At a stroke then, it would appear that something very nasty which might have found its way by accident into our water, attracting a massive penalty upon the offender, has become legalised for mass distribution nationwide through our key commodity; the fresh, clean, potable drinking water we expect to draw through our taps.

If Mr Cameron can focus his attention on this single outrageous anomaly in public health policy, he will scoop many Labour votes while helping to improve, significantly, our general health. If he's still in doubt, he should ask the Green Party.

Bernard J Seward,
The Labour Party
National Pure Water Association
Bristolians Against Fluoridation
Safe Water Campaign

Sunday, 1 November 2009

Mercury, fluoride and more

Letter sent to Western Daily by Safe Water member expressing his own views:

I see the Director of Bristol's Public Health, Dr Hugh Annett, has been dismissive of alarms raised by those readers concerned about the neurotoxic element Mercury being part of the mix of the swine flu vaccine. "Just a preservative..." he says, as though it is of small consequence. One of my technology college technicians was poisoned to death by an exploding thermometer vaporising its contents. Mercury is not something to be trifled with and readers are justified in their concern.

By the same token, its presence in the industrial waste compound misleadingly called 'fluoride' the potential threat to our general health, also under the hippocritical promotion of Dr Annett, should be condemned.

Besides mercury, its residues include, cadmium, chromium, silicon and two radioactive elements, one of which decays to lead. It really should have no place in anything even remotely connected with public health, at whatever concentration, but the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency MHRA appears to be prepared, inexplicably, to give it complete clearance.

The graph of a 25 year Swedish survey conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, plotting the general decline in tooth decay throughout European countries, shows upward/reverse trends only in those countries where fluoridation has been promoted and adopted, suggesting that fluoride actually causes dental decay instead of preventing it as is claimed.

Arthritis is one of the serious conditions implicated. The cause and effect of fluoride on that condition was established in 1993 by Dr Robert Carton, a risk assessment manager for the US Environmental Protection Agency. Carton had conducted research based on the medical records of several hundred thousand women, post-65 years of age, some of whom had been exposed to fluoridated water supplies. Those who had been so exposed suffered from arthritis - all of them; but those living in unfluoridated communities and states, were relatively free of the disease.

Our Government's attitude to that research; and more like it from other countries including Australia, New Zealand, China, India and Japan, has been to ignore it. The MHRA is obviously content to follow that policy along with the Health & Safety Executive, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the British Dental Association, the BMA and successive health ministers of both main political parties,

The history of fluoridation has been characterised internationally by droves of distinguished 'experts' and learned bodies side-stepping their public responsibility to tell the truth. Today, nothing seems to have changed.

Bernard J Seward

Saturday, 10 October 2009

Safe Water Campaign AGM

Here is Philip Booth's blog entry re the AGM:

Today was the Safe Water Campaign of Gloucestershire's AGM and over 20 people came to hear Stephen Peckham from 'Hampshire Against Fluoridation' talk at The School of Art and Science, Lansdown.

Photos: Stephen talking then below some of the audience and Rob and Jehanne playing Brown Spotted Teeth

Like previous AGMs we had our introductory song from Rob and Jehanne Mehta - Brown Spotted Teeth - we also elected officers - I've now stepped down from Secretary after quite a number of years - I will stay involved but we now have a new committee established.

Anyway Stephen talked about what maybe imposed on us here in Glos and how they fought the campaign against water fluoridation in Hampshire. Amazingly despite massive opposition for fluoridation there, including from Hampshire County Council and other Councils, the Health Authority still unanimously voted for fluoridating their water supply.

The latest news is that Hampshire campaigners have won the right for Southampton City Council to discuss fluoridation again at Court Leet - see here - that Council was the only body that supported fluoridation and the Health Authority have repeatedly quoted them despite all others opposing.....we are hoping that councillors who voted for fluoridation there might reconsider now that they know the polls came out so against fluoridation. The results of that will be known within 2 months and will hopefully be useful for the judicial review.....

Yes the other news is that the go-ahead has been given for a judicial review - see here - it should happen Jan or Feb next year. This is to look at the process - when MPs voted they clearly wanted public views to be taken into account yet the advice from theDepartment of Health ignored this and so the Health Authority there can ignore their own consultations showing the public don't want water fluoridated. We'll see - we are all hoping commonsense will prevail. It is utterly outrageous that the health authority can dismiss the views of the population and elected bodies in such a fashion.

Stephen's talk was wonderfully informative and knowledgeable - and without any sensation or nonsense that some campaigners occasionally get carried away with - he covered stuff like the York Review and their clear statements that it could not say whether fluoride was safe or effective - yet this is what health folk claim the York review said - amazingly it is the only review that the authors have had on occasions to issue statements saying the reviews findings were being misused.

Anyway it is late now but we learnt much from Hampshire's experiences and hope to ensure that there is no way that the people of Gloucestershire get compulsorily medicated with fluoridated tap water in the future. At our next meeting we will be looking at the next steps we need to take - join us - we need the help to build an effective campaign - call on 01453 763943 for more info.

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

West Midlands Against Fluoridation launch website

After a few months in the formation, West Midlands Against Fluoridation finally went live this week. They know there are a few glitches and would welcome suggestions for improving the site.
The url is:

Saturday, 3 October 2009

Closure of St Peter's Hospice

Letter, (slightly edited) appeared in Evening Post last week:

Dr Fox of the St John's Lane Health Centre speaks probably for hundreds, if not thousands, of Bristolians when he says the closure of St Peter's Hospice at Knowle will be a major loss to the South Bristol Community.

How far could that grossly overpriced consultancy job on a new name for the Museum of Bristol have financed the salvation of that institution?

Then add the £10 million or so, earmarked from NHS funding to promote fluoridation in our area - an unethical and arguably illegal interference with our right not to be compulsorily treated; and a plan which nobody needs, or wants, or is prepared to pay for.

And if anyone in politics and the health services wishes to argue about kiddies' tooth decay, how does preserving, on average, half a tooth per child per year - teeth soon to be lost anyway as children grow up - stack up against the reputation of human love, care and compassion offered to the terminally ill? In this respect, St Peter's represents the gold standard; an immeasurable asset to our sick and their loved ones. Yet another failed test of our convoluted priorities!


Missed opportunity on 'Any Questions'

Another letter to the Daily Telegraph:

One of the questions, on BBC Radio 4’s “Any Questions?” on Friday evening, concerned Living Wills and their legal effect with regard to the delicate issue of self-determined suicides.

The members of the panel included journalist Matthew Parris and the Health Secretary, Andy Burnham.

Parris who took first stab at answering the question stated quite emphatically, “You can’t treat somebody against their will.”

It would have been a golden opportunity for another of the panel members, Eric Pickles for example, to have jumped at Andy Burnham, reminding him that he, of all people, was doing just that in pressing ahead with water fluoridation – mass medication par excellence.

Treating countless numbers of ‘somebodys’ against their individual right not to be treated en masse; and doing it regardless of validated evidence of its downside effects; of majority public opinion and the outcome of any public consultations, has besmirched any notion of Burnham being seen as an ethical or honest health broker.

Being as he has no medical or other scientific qualifications,it begs the question as to why he was appointed to that cabinet position at all, unless it was specifically to steam-roller this act of public betrayal in the interests of what used to be called Labour Party Democracy.

Bernard J Seward

Friday, 2 October 2009

Sunflowers growth?

Letter to the Daily Telegraph:

On my Bristol allotment I have grown sunflowers with 15 and 18 inch (381 and 457mm) heads which needed staking to support their weight.

Stephen Dorey of Gloucestershire asks whether his water supply might influence his impressive multiple headed plants.

Not yet, Mr Dorey; but if Health Secretary Andy Burnham persists with his manic obsession to get more of of our supplies fluoridated, you will definitely see a difference.

It was the Dutch Bulb Growers Association which successfully petitioned to have fluoridation stopped in Holland because of its serious effect on its prime exports; daffs, tulips gladioli and lilies.

Extrapolated across English gardens, the agricultural landscape, environment and eco-system, we should all see a difference;
for the worse.

Bernard J Seward

Monday, 28 September 2009

AGM talk on 10th October


Come and hear a talk by Stephen Peckham from 'Hampshire Against Fluoridation' about what maybe imposed on us in the South and West.

Details: 11.30am Saturday 10th October 2009 at The School of Art and Science, Lansdown, Stroud (opposite the library). The talk will be followed by the AGM of the Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire.

Philip Booth, Secretary of the Safe Water Campaign said: "Stephen Peckham is an active campaigner with the 'Hampshire Against Fluoridation' group and seen how despite massive opposition for fluoridation there, including from Hampshire County Council, the Health Authority still unanimously voted for fluoridating their water supply. Stephen is a health service researcher and has published widely on health services, public health, ethics and health policy. We hope to learn from Hampshire's experience to ensure that there is no way that the people of Gloucestershire get compulsorily medicated with fluoridated tap water."

Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire - Further information Tel. 01453 872915


Rob Mehta, Chairperson reports ahead of our AGM:

During the last year since May 2008 , our main concern has been what is happening in Southampton as regards the proposed fluoridation of mush of the drinking water supplies.
The legal consultation process ran from September to December 2008 during which time there were a series of "drop in" events in different parts of Southampton and three public meetings chaired by Peter White from the BBC radio 4 programme "you and yours" with representatives from both sides of the fluoride debate. Rob Mehta attended two of these meetings on Oct.20th and Dec.3rd at the Southampton football stadium.

The mood of both these meetings was predominantly against fluoridation and the pro-fluoridation team led by no less than the chief dental officer Barry Cockcroft ,was very unconvincing; merely quoting questionable statistics and having no real answers to much of the medical evidence fluoridation; presented by Dr Paul Connett from the U.S.A..
The "Hampshire against fluoridation" group was well represented at the meetings and helped by their efforts 72% of people responding to the public consultation were against fluoridating the water supplies. Hampshire County Council were also unanimously against yet still the South Central Strategic Health Authority unanimously voted for fluoridating the water supply!!!!!!!

We have supported the Hampshire group financially and met up with two of their members to discuss the situation. They are trying to question the legality of the consultation process and have had a meeting with the parliamentary group UKCAF (see article by Lynne Edmunds).

Report from Southampton Campaign

Lynne Edmunds reports here on the meeting organised by "Southampton and district Anti-Fluoridation Campaign" Tuesday 09\06\2009.

Meeting chaired by the latter group's organiser\chair....John Spottiswood. Present at top table, Caroline Place and Anna Peckham of the Southampton group\ local M.P.'s Sarah Gidley-Lib Dem ; Alan Whitehead-Lab ; Julian Lewis- Con..

The hundred strong audience came from far afield in the U.K. and from Ireland. The National Pure Water Association was represented by several very active members. Others represented local campaigning groups, including Lynne Edmunds of the committee of the Avon , Glos. and Wilts. anti-fluoride group who has compiled the account of the meeting below.

The meeting lasted close on two hours, with a great deal of information and opinion offered from the floor. At the start Caroline Place announced that the petition handed in at 10 Downing Street earlier in the day (protesting at the health authority's decision....despite a 70% plus rejection rate by the local population to go ahead and fluoridate the water supply) currently totalling 15000 and numbers of signatures are still rising.

John Spottiswood confirmed that an application had been made for a judicial review of the government's stance on fluoridation ( linked to the European court of justice's decision in 2005 that fluoride could not have the legal status of a food* but was a medicine and hence would have to have all the detailed conditions and related legislation applied before a decision could be taken on whether it is legal to employ it as mass medication.

If legal aid is not forthcoming then a fighting fund of a minimum £200,000 would be needed to ensure this legal decision was applied.

The European Court ruled that any food that also has a medicinal function must be regulated as a medicine. They said that this included fluoridated water. It also ruled that fluoridated water may not be used for processing food and any exporting of food treated in this way to EEC states is illegal unless it has a medicinal licence. (This could affect large areas originating exports in the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and New Zealand.)

*This decision -The opposite of what the government has asserted for several years after the European court pronounced!!!!!-was uncovered by the United Kingdom Councils against Fluoridation. An application has been made by UKCAF to the government's medicines and health products regulatory agency which is constantly informed of European legal pronouncements.

It was reported that an early day motion on the status of fluoride as a medicine and its implications for any attempt at mass medication with it is circulating in parliament and everyone was asked to pressurise their M.P. to sign it.

Lib. Dem. M.P. Sandra Gidley pledged to try to put down a question on the above for Prime Minister's question time. A conservative councillor in the Southampton area is making a complaint to the local authority ombudsman about the phoney consultation exercise despite its legal status in the fluoridation section of the water act.

Conservative M.P. for the Southampton area reported that he would raise a question about the government campaign too fluoridate- at the regular question time held by the health service.

A regional delegate warned against assuming stringent safety over the amount of fluoride added to public water supplies, citing a situation in Australia where an overdose of 39 to 40 times the legal amount was added despite a process of three failsafe procedures- not for the first time (Australia is the only country other than Britain continuing to push for a major extension of fluoridation).

Delegates were told that the new health minister Andy Burnham was vice-president of the pro fluoride fluoridation society. The times " outed" him this month (June 09) and he then announced he was standing down!

Horrendous statistics about the increase in levels of fluorosis in children in the Republic of Ireland were reported by an Irish delegate. He reported that in 1984 the level of fluorosis was 5% and by 2002 this reached 37%. A major increase was being found among young teenagers.

Another delegate told us that in the south and west `midlands dentists had been instructed- if they found fluorosis on childrens' teeth to mark them in their reports as "sound" and not to record the fluorosis.(The York review put the levels of fluorosis of "aesthetic concern" where water had been fluoridated as between 7% and 17% of the population.)

(The British government has categorised fluorosis as a "cosmetic" condition and instructed dentists to refuse to treat it on the NHS).

So the victims have to pay the heavy cost of treating it and alleviating the visual effect (as well as the toxicity of the victim's system which its presence indicates) not just once but repeatedly since they continue to imbibe the "poison" which is causing the fluorosis.
(In 1999 government papers recorded that fluorosis was the result of "system toxicity").

Other people pointed out at the meeting that under current legal circumstances forcing fluoride on people was a civil wrong under common law and that each water company should be warned of this and threatened with legal action if it co-operated in bringing it in under current European law. (As a legally defined medicine , it has to go through the extensive conditions and checks which all medicines have to before being labelled as legal to dispense).

Friday, 18 September 2009

Health Minister's double-speak

Letter to Western Daily Press:

Isn't it more than slightly incongruous to credit Health Secretary Andy Burnham with having 'graciously' extended our choice of GP, while he has ungraciously told local health authorities to ride roughshod over protest and public consultation in his demonic haste to see us all poisoned through our tap water with hexafluorosilicic acid?

Bernard J Seward

Monday, 31 August 2009

Letter to The Citizen re 2007 Nuffield Conference

Letter sent to The Citizen last week:

When the report Public Health – Ethical Issues was launched at a meeting of the Nuffield Health Council in London in November 2007, every person, body or stakeholder who had made a submission was invited to be present.

Obesity, Drug Abuse and Smoking were study areas which spawned much discussion, each augmented study group of the Council commenting upon its findings and recommendations. Fluoridation, left until the end, followed more or less that pattern, but when the group leader, Professor Jonathan Montgomery of Southampton University rose to speak, he said, “We know it (fluoridation) conflicts with the right of the individual not to be compulsorily treated, but in the absence of evidence of harm, that right can be set aside.”

I was stunned because I had hoped that Nuffield – a name synonymous (in my book) with the highest standards of public and private health - would have taken all the evidence on board to put the proverbial bomb under the false claims and spin which have characterised fluoridation since it began in post war USA. Instead, it was being used as yet another coat of whitewash, possibly to underpin a new round of fluoridation scheme proposals. With Southampton in the (low energy?) spotlight and now Bristol, it seems I guessed right!

When the chairman asked for questions, there was an eerie silence among the 300 or so attendees. I hadn’t intended to speak because I knew there were executive members of the National Pure Water Association present, but since they failed to say anything and the topic session looked like terminating without critical comment, I raised my hand and was offered the roving microphone.

I asked how fluoridated water could be defended as being safe when, by raising its temperature as when cooking or making beverages in aluminium vessels, the ppm levels of aluminium fluoride would rise by factors of 100s, even up to possibly 800 for as long as it took to heat a pan of potatoes.

I wasn’t allowed to continue because the chair, Lord Krebs, deliberately created an uproar - a rumpus among the panellists, terminating the meeting, despite being buttonholed by what seemed to be a substantial number of attendees, evidently unimpressed by his style of summarily closing the proceedings.

It was not a good day for health service democracy!

Bernard J Seward
Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Glos and Wilts

Wednesday, 5 August 2009

Letter to Bristol press

Safe Water Campaign member writes to Bristol press:

As a former lecturer, having contributed to the practice of "handing on the inherited culture" or, as one of my cynical colleagues once put it, "casting artificial pearls before real swine", may I offer congratulations to the pupils and their teachers in the Bristol and Avon area who are turning former despair into triumph with respect to the Sats tests.

Let us hope this encouraging trend will continue upwards but on a long term perspective there could be a cloud on the horizon.

Should Bristol, South Gloucestershire; and Bath and North East Somerset fall victims to water fluoridation schemes, on evidence from the Peoples Republic of China there will be a depression of I Q scores among the young. Not only is the fluoridating agent a neurotoxin, but its one acknowledged visual outcome is dental fluorosis, an ugly, socially repulsive condition of the teeth, regardless of whether they are more decay resistant.

It was the degree of fluorosis that was found to tally with the I Q scores which alerted the Chinese health and education authorities, and caused all fluoridation schemes to be shut down permanently. No compromises there in the race to dominate the global knowledge economy.

The 2000 UK Government study, 'The York Review' found fluorosis to affect 42 per cent of consumers, 12 per cent really seriously. This would translate in Bristol alone to something approaching five and a half thousand children of school age disadvantaged both by appearance and inhibited intellectual skills.

Can we afford to allow this to happen when the claimed 'benefit' projected for our neighbours in Hampshire, also threatened at this time in spite (real bureaucratic spite) of a massive public NO vote, amounts to no more than 0.6 of a tooth per child per year?

Bernard J Seward

Friday, 31 July 2009

Fluoride overdose incident

There has been another fluoride incident just come to light this week - too much fluoride was put into the water supply after a new dosing system at Severn Trent Water failed. The Drinking Water Inspectorate said a fault happened at the pumping station which supplies 29,000 homes between Bridgnorth and Wolverhampton last June - read report at:

Thursday, 30 July 2009

Bristol Anti-Fluoridation Campaign launching soon

By several accounts the first meeting of the Bristol Anti-Fluoridation Campaign on Tuesday was a success with some 18 people attending. This new group set about considering it's aims and already plans publicity material and stalls - and talking of stalls the Safe Water Campaign was again on the streets in Stroud on aturday collecting signatures and providing info re water fluoridation.

Anyhow the first few meetings in Bristol will be fortnightly to get the group up and running so the next will be held upstairs at the Stag and Hounds, Old Market Street, on Tuesday 11th August at 7.30pm.

Monday, 27 July 2009

Nothing Like a Guiness Beer with a Fluoride Chaser

Here's an old story that was doing the rounds again this year - infact the Park Royal Brewery closed in 2005 - however fluoride is still being added to water in Dublin - and here we are still trying to stop it being added - two years ago we had campaign beer mats warning of the threat to beer.

Nothing Like a Guiness Beer with a Fluoride Chaser
by Treacy Hogan
Environmental Correspondent at

GUINNESS gives you a good pint and fluoride, much to the annoyance of a Dublin nun spearheading an anti-fluoride campaign. Guinness Ireland has disclosed that Dublin stout can have as much as six times the fluoride level of stout brewed in London.

The reason: the Park Royal Brewery in London uses unfluoridated water in a treatment process that further reduces the natural background level of fluoride to 0.1 parts per million.

Following a number of queries from the public, Guinness Ireland wrote to one consumer on March 27 explaining that Dublin uses town water which is fluoridated at a typical level of 0.75 parts per million.

“Thus it is possible that Dublin stout has six times the fluoride level of London stout,” said the company. The company said the high quality water was fluoridated, along with every other public supply in the country, following a Supreme Court decision obliging the authorities to add fluoride.

However, a statement issued by the Fluoride Free Water Group campaign care of Sr Rachel Hoey, who is attached to St Raphaela’s Convent, Stillorgan, Dublin, yesterday stated there are increasing health concerns about total fluoride intake.

It said the agent used to fluoridate water was called hydrofluosilicic acid, which it claimed was a toxic waste product of the fertiliser industry.

The group said most of Europe had rejected artificially fluoridate water, with bans in Denmark, Sweden and Holland. “Therefore, these countries will be surprised to learn that they are drinking artificial fluoride in imported Irish stout.”

The group quoted the union representing scientists, lawyers and other professionals at the US Environment Protection Agency.

It said their review of evidence over the last 11 years indicated a causal link between fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Recent epidemiology studies had linked fluoride exposures to lower IQ levels in children.

However, Tom Leahy, deputy city engineer with Dublin Corporation, said he was satisfied there was no risk to public health.

Sunday, 19 July 2009

Bristol meeting

Robin Whitlock of Keep Bristol water fluoride free writes from the Facebook site:

Hello guys, its time now that we got a 'real time' version of this group together, so I'm basically calling a meeting for Tuesday 28th July. Please do try and make it if you can, and if at all possible, please also post a message on the group wall to say whether you can make it or not, just so I can get a rough idea of numbers. The venue will be in the upstairs room at the Stag and Hounds Pub, Old Market - thats just around the corner from the Evening Post building. Please also spread the word among concerned friends. Cheers everyone.

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

Letter to Bristol Evening Post

A personal view from one of our Safe Water Campaign members:

Vic of Bristol's on-line comment on Dawn Primarolo's declared anger with respect to all MP's (without exception) being targeted in the expenses revelations, makes a good number of points. In addition to his list of one-size-fits-all comparisons, I would have added: Indiscriminate medication for all - via fluoride - without consent or prescription because some (only some) children have dodgy teeth.

Well, we can forget that one now because the European Court of Justice has said STOP. Fluoride and food products (like 'functional health drinks') made with artificially fluoridated water are to be classified as 'medicinals' and thus subject to the rigorous testing common to all other prescription and retail drug products. Since that re-classification also includes the mains water 'topped-up' with industrial fluorides, it means that all fluoridation schemes, including those going back beyond 1964, in the UK and Southern Ireland must be shut down.

There are serious trade implications involved. Fluoride-water-processed food and drink products normally imported from fluoridating countries like South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and even Canada and the USA will be banned from the EU unless they can pass the 'medicinals' licensing requirements.

The ECJ ruling was dated 2005, so our largely pro-European Government has been illegally witholding key information likely to upset existing trading agreements. Our food and drink exports would be up for censure; possibly banned completely in all other EU member states. Water suppliers would then become targeted by business interests for agreeing to fluoridate at the behest of health authorities regardless of public opinion and the law which says they must not.

Who's head will roll over this dilemma? Perhaps Dawn should get together with all her Bristol pro-fluoride Labour colleagues to decide which of them will be the 'whipping boy'. The water supply companies meanwhile, need to reconsider their potential liability and public relations positions very carefully.

Bernard J Seward

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Lucas challenges Government on water fluoridation


Green MEP for the South East Caroline Lucas has challenged the Secretary of State for Health Andy Burnham over his position as vice president of the British Fluoridation Society – at a time when health authorities in Southampton were giving the green light to a “mass medication” water fluoridation scheme.

The Health Secretary was instrumental in proposing the inclusion of compulsory water fluoridation in the Government’s 2003 Water Act. He resigned from this position in recent weeks, but Dr Lucas MEP today joined with UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF) to question why Mr Burnham’s links with the Society were not included in his register of interests, despite strict Parliament regulations stating such interests must be declared.

Dr Lucas MEP said: “It is of great concern that the Health Secretary was able to closely align himself with a body whose sole business it is to promote water fluoridation, at the same time that he was due to make key decisions about the future of the UK’s water supply. Parliament’s regulations on MPs’ interests are supposed to prevent alliances which can fundamentally inform policy – but clearly they are not fit for purpose.”

Earlier this year, the Green MEP warned that the region’s health authorities were setting a “reckless precedent" for future fluoridation schemes in the South East with their decision to press ahead with fluoridation plans in Southampton.

Although 72% of people in Southampton voted against fluoridation in a poll conducted by the Strategic Health Authority, the SHA is pressing ahead with the scheme. A legal case regarding the highly criticised consultation process has been announced and legal aid has been obtained by the person bringing the case against South Central SHA.

Dr Lucas MEP commented: "The ill-advised decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton demonstrates contempt for the views of many local people - and for the evidence against fluoridation itself.

"Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, and some studies have indicated links between fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems.

"The scheme in Southampton amounts to a mass medication of the population. I have made a formal complaint to the European Commission regarding the failure of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to properly classify hexafluorosilic acid, used in fluoridation of drinking water under the UK Water Act 2003, as a medicinal product. The correct classification would likely mean the UK’s water fluoridation schemes would contravene EU law.

“In place of mass fluoridation, the UK Government could be improving the health of our teeth through targeted schemes such as providing free toothpaste for poor families. This decision in Southampton sets a reckless precedent for future fluoridation plans in the South East, and we must be vigilant of further attempts to affect our water in this way."

For more information on UK Councils Against Fluoridation, visit

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Cancer study suggests fluoride is a contributing factor

A new cancer study from India suggests that fluoride is a contributing factor to osteosarcoma, or bone cancer - but just how much fluoride intake causes the uncommon disease is not clear. See more here.

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Letter in Evening Post

This letter just got star billing in the Bristol Evening Post:

In a recent reply to my letter concerning the hazardous nature of the chemical additive used to ‘top-up’ the relatively harmless calcium fluoride found in most water sources, Jeremy Williams, Corporate Affairs Director for Bristol Water, sought to clarify the legal position. “In the past,” he said, “health authorities could ask water companies to fluoridate, but the companies could refuse. Under new legislation, the health authorities have the power to compel companies to fluoridate, after local public consultation.”

It is important for us to understand that the public consultation is not an option; it is built in to the legislation. During a 2008 on-line Labour Party health phone-in, Health Minister Alan Johnson, attempting to pacify a woman asking awkward questions, declared, “Nobody will be forced to have fluoride…we are going to consult.” He could just as easily have said “We are obliged to consult” because that is now the law in this country.

We have seen how that law has been interpreted in round one of the new wave of fluoridation strategies. The people of Southampton, in terms of protest letters, angry exchanges with health officials in focus groups; and 12 thousand signatures on a petition headed ‘Say No to Undemocratic Fluoridation’, firmly said NO to it. The total weight of opposition came out at 72 per cent and that, in all commonsense justice under the law, should have been the end of it, especially as the petition form carried the rider:

‘Gordon Brown said it is vital that local people make the choice themselves.’

However, 12 unelected members of the Strategic Health Authority voted YES to compulsory fluoridation and its Chairman, announcing the outcome on BBC Radio said “We are absolutely convinced”… referring to the alleged benefits of fluoride on dental health. The fact that a large proportion of well-informed local people were not convinced, absolutely or by any comparable measure, meant nothing to him and his members.

Since the public consultation is part of the law, I submit that the spirit of that particular law, giving the people the right to choose, underscored by a statement from our Prime Minister, has been severely compromised, and on that basis the water company cannot be legally obliged to proceed with feasibility studies pending a fluoridation scheme. To continue co-operation with the SHA in what is effectively an illegal activity against the wishes of its customers, incurs, for the officials concerned, the risk of individual prosecution. That liability could well devolve upon the scientists and technicians charged with the task of adding and regulating the fluoridating agent. A fluoridation scheme for the island of Guernsey, I was informed last week, was abandoned because the technical personnel refused to handle the chemical.

B J Seward
Safe Water Campaign

Sunday, 26 April 2009

Hampshire anti-fluoridation campaigners come to Stroud

Here is some of our press release from our meeting which was a very useful and inspiring evening:


Health bosses voted in February to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton despite the County Council and 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the plan. The move concerns Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire members who see it as a step closer to fluoridation locally. Caroline Place and Anna Peckham from Hampshire Against Fluoridation (i) travelled up on Wednesday 22nd April to share their campaign with Gloucestershire activists.

Cllr Philip Booth, Secretary of the Safe Water Campaign, which has over 1,500 Gloucestershire supporters and meets each month in Stroud, said: "The Hampshire campaign was hugely successful in getting the message across, but the health authority has refused to listen to the scientific evidence. They have also ignored the will of the people: 72% didn't want it and yet they still are going ahead. It is deeply unethical and sadly will lead to attempts to introduce fluoridation in other parts of the country. We learnt lots from these two Hampshire campaigners about how we can build a campaign to ensure water fluoridation does not happen here."

The Hampshire decision is the first time a health trust in England has been allowed to introduce fluoridation under the new law that this Government has brought in. NHS Bristol have announced last month that they are now considering the fluoridation of Bristol’s drinking water.

Philip Booth added: "When Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas raised concerns about the fluoridation scheme with the European Commission last year, it admitted that the potential risks from water fluoridation are not yet fully understood. Is it really wise to expose people to a mass-medicating process that has never been risk-assessed? 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. Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, and some studies have even indicated links between fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems.

A recent Freedom of Information request (ii) by the Green party revealed that 76% of Southampton's NHS dentists are not taking new patients. And the controversial Southampton decision came on the very day that new dentistry data was released, which showed that less than half of adults are using NHS dentists and the proportion of children accessing NHS dentistry in Southampton has fallen by 2.4% over the past two years (iii).

Philip Booth added: "Trying to fix NHS dentistry problems by unethical and potentially illegal mass medication is simply wrong. Southampton needs to fix its access to dentistry. Having less than a quarter of its dental practices taking on new patients means that many poorer people are forced to go without dental care. The new statistics have also shown the proportion of children accessing NHS dental care is falling. We need a proper dental health strategy founded on education, good diet and access to free dental health care. In place of mass fluoridation, the UK Government could be using targeted schemes such as providing free toothpaste for poor families - resorting to a technofix that won't solve the problem but will breach everyone's universally-acknowledged human right not to be medicated without their consent is just plain wrong."

Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and an advisory board member of the York review said: "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."


(i) See:
(ii) FOI response to the Green Party dated 3rd Feb 2009 showed that of Southampton PCT's 25 NHS dental practices only 6 were accepting new patients in December 2008.
(iii) See: here.

Photos: from Wednesday Rob Mehta (Safe Water Campaign chair) with our visitors Caroline Place and Anna Peckham plus in the group photo:
Back row left to right - Anna Appelmelk, Tony Burton, Philip Booth, Bernard Seward
Front row left to right - Anna Peckham, Lynne Edmunds, Caroline Place, Louise McLellan

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Avebury and dog meat

Letter from Bristol member to Southampton Echo:

In the fantasy world of creative prose which fraudulently conceived the NHS propaganda booklet underpinning the Hampshire fluoridation consultation, the almost unremembered figure of Lord Avebury (a failed Liberal politician), being described as "the well-known supporter of human rights" was cited as having "pointed out" that fluoridation was NOT mass medication. There was no reference to any source by which he would have reached that conclusion; and nothing further about it at all. It was a case of "a noble Lord had said it; it was a gold-plated assurance, therefore no further discussion was needed."

Avebury might have been better remembered for drawing to himself a measure of public ridicule for declaring his intention to leave his body, not to medical science, but to a dog-meat factory. Sir Clement Freud, at that time, was hosting dog meat advertisements on ITV and his reference, on a radio comedy show, to 'nourishing Avebury meaty chunks' brought the proverbial house down.

Couldn't the NHS have done better than to choose a titled crackpot to convince us of the fraud it was mandating upon us?

Bernard J Seward

Monday, 20 April 2009

Government fixing consultations?

The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer. This illustrates perfectly why the 70% public vote against fluoridation in Southampton was brushed aside - and why the same could happen in Bristol, Gloucestershire and elsewhere. See Telegraph here and more re the ridiculous consultation in Southampton here. Join us this Wednesday at 5.30 to here more in Stroud - call 01453755451 for more info.

Friday, 10 April 2009

Hampshire campaigners to help us

Here is our press release that went out today about our meeting on 22nd April:


Health bosses voted in February to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton despite the County Council and 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the plan. The move raises concerns for the Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign who see it as a step closer to fluoridation locally.

Cllr Philip Booth, Secretary of the Safe Water Campaign, which has over 1,500 Gloucestershire supporters and meets each month in Stroud, said: "The Hampshire campaign was hugely successful in getting the message across, but the health authority has refused to listen to the evidence. They have also ignored the will of the people: 72% didn't want it and yet they still are going to do it. It is deeply unethical and sadly will lead to attempts to introduce fluoridation in other parts of the country. We hope to learn from these two Hampshire campaigners so that we can ensure water fluoridation does not happen here."

The Safe Water Campaign will meet at 5.30pm in Stroud on 22nd April. Please call Rob Mehta on 01453 763943 if you would like to attend.

The Hampshire decision is the first time a health trust in England has been allowed to introduce fluoridation under the new law that this Government has brought in. NHS Bristol have announced last month that they are now considering the fluoridation of Bristol’s drinking water.

Philip Booth added: "This is clearly a human rights issue: no one should be medicated without their consent. Furthermore the Government's own scientific review found very little evidence to show that fluoridation of our water supplies improves dental heath. Moreover, its chair, Professor Sheldon, stated that 'the review did not show water fluoridation to be safe'. Many people have real health concerns about adding fluoride to our water."

Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and an advisory board member of the York review said: "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."

Philip Booth concluded: "Poverty and the over-availability of addictive, sugar-rich foods are significant causes of tooth decay. But the Government is unlikely to challenge the profitable position of the major food manufacturers and retailers who benefit at the expense of our children's health - and teeth. Better dental care and education is also needed, but that too is hampered by higher dental charges for adults as the Government has overseen dentistry move into the private sector - and for many in Gloucestershire finding a dentist at all is a serious challenge."

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

Fluoride and DNA

One view re fluoride and DNA from one of the Safe Water members in Bristol - sent as a letter to the Daily Telegraph:

Robert Colville is wrong to label DNA as an infallable way to sort the innocent from the guilty.

DNA tests can be irreproducible for many reasons, and comparisons are never foolproof. One well-documented way in which DNA sequences can become disrupted is via the ongoing consumption of artificially fluoridated drinking water (or via ongoing exposure to any other internalisable fluoride source, including fluoride-polluted air). This is linked with the ability of the fluoride ion, even at the very low levels involved, to inhibit the enzymes which are essential for the repair of damaged or broken DNA strands.

Somebody should have reminded Health Secretary Alan Johnson about this before he commissioned more worthless fluoridation consultations. Denying the people their individual right not to be 'treated' with fluoridation chemicals - on the highly contentious basis of demonstrable juvenile dental benefits, or for any other reason - is not the stuff of a free society and is almost certainly illegal under fundamental EU Human Rights legislation. This is a matter that cries out to be tested in Court at the earliest possible opportunity, even if it makes crime detection only marginally less reliable!

Bernard J Seward
Bristol BS9 4QP


I quote the references as I find them in Groves B
Fluoride - Drinking Ourselves to Death
Newleaf 2001

Klein W. et al
DNA repair and environmental substances
Angaw Bader - Klimaheclkunde 1977 24(3) 218-23

Mohammed A, Chandler ME
Cytological effects of sodium fluoride on mice
Fluoride 1982; 15(3) 110-18

US National Institute of Environmental Sciences
In cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberration
Zeiger E, Shelby MD, Witt KL
Genetic Toxicity of Fluoride
Environ Mol Mutagen 1993; 21:309-18

Monday, 6 April 2009

Response to Daily Mail re compulsory fluoridation


In response to Mr Anthony Plant’s letter of 17/03/09

The dental profession itself acknowledges that in fluoridated areas the incidence of dental fluorosis (systemic fluoride poisoning) is 48%, of which 12.5% is of cosmetic concern. and hence likely to cause severe psychological damage. This of itself, when set against the claimed 15% reduction of decayed missing or filled teeth (which over 50 studies have shown to be merely the delay of decay for about a year) would certainly be more than enough in the case of most tested medicines to have fluorides banned from public use.

In the 40 years or so that the Birmingham area has been fluoridated, alongside the hugely increased spending on dental care, there has been no systematic research to prove the safety of fluoride in the water. The population of the West Midlands may thus be unsuspecting guinea pigs on which to test a chemical shown by international research to have a distinct dumbing down effect.

Fluoride is a cumulative poison which can even be absorbed through the skin. At a dilution of 1 part per million the effect (in most cases) may not be dramatic, however, serious scientific studies suggest many damaging effects- e.g. lowering of I.Q.(20 plus studies), increased incidence of cancer in teenage boys, thyroid damage, kidney damage, brittle bones et alia.

In 1977 fluoridation was terminated throughout the entire country of Chile due to a clear increase in infant mortality. A report stated that poorly fed children were especially at risk.

In 1972 in fluoridated Gateshead a total of 34 babies under the age of 12 months died, (8 being cot deaths). This was 50% above the national average!!

Is this what we want?

Rob Mehta – Safe Water Campaign for Avon Glos. and Wilts.
Stroud GL5 1LY

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

Sign petition

To sign the Prime Minister's website petition against fluoridation go to:

Please forward this message to as many people as possible

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

The 'consultation' with only one answer

One of our Safe Water Campaign members has phoned Mr Johnson on several occasions to provide info and encourage an article on the Hampshire decision - see also blog entry before this one.

Why ask people what they think if you then do the opposite, wonders Philip Johnston. See article in Telegraph here.

When a public body says it is to carry out a consultation exercise, what does that suggest to you? Naively, I once believed that it involved asking people what they thought about a particular policy, setting out all the facts in an objective fashion, and if those likely to be affected did not like what they saw to drop or modify the original plan. It turns out, however, to mean nothing of the sort.

Ask the people of Southampton and its environs in south-west Hampshire. They have just been the subject of a "consultation" on whether to add fluoride to their water supply. There were 10,000 responses, 78 per cent of which were opposed. The local health authority carried out a telephone poll, which also showed a majority against. But it is going ahead anyway. Not only is this an affront to any concept of local decision-making, it is a breathtaking piece of social authoritarianism. Whether or not fluoride helps reduce tooth decay is irrelevant. Medication should not be added to the water supply; and especially when the people who drink it say they do not want it.

The history of this episode is especially revealing about the way the public has become utterly disenfranchised in a world where bureaucrats arrogantly assume they know what is good for the rest us. Although many people believe they already have fluoride in their tap water, only around six million actually do. Most of them live in the West Midlands and the North East, where artificial fluoride was first added about 40 years ago and around half a million are in areas where fluoride occurs naturally in the water. Successive governments have always wanted to increase coverage, believing it would be good for dental health. But the water companies did not want to fluoridate the supply, fearing they would be sued. They also did not consider public health to be their responsibility.

Matters came to a head in the early Nineties when health authorities in the North East, claiming the support of 70 per cent of the local population, proposed a fluoridation scheme, only for it to be rejected by Northumbria Water. So the Government decided to change the law. The 2003 Water Act gave the 28 strategic health authorities in England and Wales the power to order fluoridation, with water companies indemnified against any legal liabilities. There was one proviso: there would have to be a thorough consultation before proceeding. If artificial fluoride is safe, what do the water companies need to be indemnified against? Furthermore, the law was changed to prevent the water companies thwarting the wishes of local people; yet it is now being used to do the precise opposite. This is democracy EU style: you can give any answer so long as it's yes.

What is a consultation for? This one was carried out purely and simply because the legislation said it had to be. The process was heavily skewed in favour of acceptance. The local health authority and the Government bombarded the people of Southampton with scientific information purporting to show that fluoridation was safe and efficacious. Yet still a substantial majority did not want it to happen.

The reason is pretty obvious. They did not like the idea of forced mass medication. The Government maintains that because fluoride is preventative this is not medication, but that is just casuistry. On that basis, why not put statins or anti-depressants in the water? Supporters say that chlorine is added without anyone making a fuss; but that is to make the water safe to drink, which is a different matter altogether. Fluoride can be obtained from toothpaste should people wish it.

With some justice, opponents say the consultation exercise was a sham and the health authority was intent on proceeding come what may. The arrogance of this decision is quite astonishing. The facts were put out for people to see and the issue was straightforward enough: do you want fluoride or not? More than three quarters said no, which is a pretty conclusive proportion opposed by any measure. But then again, what do the local people know? They are obviously too stupid to understand the concept of adding a substance to the water supply; and they only have to drink it.

Opponents say there are potential health risks from fluoridation, including bone cancer and hip fractures in older people. Supporters say this is rubbish and that it is safely used in other countries. But this debate is now something of a sideshow set against the refusal to acknowledge the strength of local feeling against the proposal. It is possible to argue against enforced medication whether or not it is good for us. And when people, presented with both sides of the case, make it clear that, on balance, they would rather not have an artificial substance added to their water, it is outrageous simply to ignore them and carry on regardless.

It is apparent that Southampton is the vanguard of an attempt to fluoridate the whole of England (Scotland decided not to pursue fluoridation more than four years ago). It is reported that health authorities in the North West, Derbyshire, Bristol, and Kirklees in West Yorkshire are among those preparing to press ahead with similar proposals. But if you live there, don't worry. You will all be consulted first.

Thursday, 26 February 2009

Fluoride to be forced on us

Fluoride will be added to tap water in Southampton after health bosses voted it through earlier today despite massive protests. Some 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposed the plan. This is undemocratic and unjust and it will also means that Gloucestershire's water supply is another step closer to being fluoridated - already Bristol are looking at it - see Glenn Vowles blog here.

It is extraordinary that despite the opposition the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) unanimously backed the move. It is the first time a health trust in England, rather than water companies, has been allowed to introduce fluoridation under the new law that this Government has brought in.

Southampton City Council was in favour but the larger Hampshire County Council was against the plan, which is designed to cut tooth decay and which will affect 200,000 people.

John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation and a Green party spokesperson, said: "I think it is absolutely disgraceful, they have refused to listen to all the evidence we have given them. They have ignored the will of the people, 72% didn't want it and yet they still are going to do it. It is deeply unethical. We think it's illegal and are thinking what we do next, maybe taking it to the courts in Europe."

See questions and answers re fluoridation here. I have already spoken today with other local Safe Water Campaign members about stepping up the campaign locally and looking at further ways we can support those in Hampshire to reject this undemocratic, unjust move - let us hope there is a mass refusal to pay water bills by the 72% of the people who rejected fluoridation.

Monday, 23 February 2009

UK Councils Against Fluoridation website updated

The updated site includes Doug Cross's letter to the Chairman of South Central SHA. They have also the link to hear the ITV programme 'Whats in your mouth' where Chief Dental Officer Barry Cockcroft and Peter Ward Chief Exec BDA discuss mercury amalgam fillings. Peter Ward tries to stop the filming, you will enjoy it

There is also confirmation from Australia that the declaration from Anna Bligh Governor of Queensland is true! You have to read the story and even then it is hard to believe!

Decision draws closer for Hampshire

South Central SHA have published papers for their Board meeting to be held at St Mary's Stadium, 2pm, 26 February:

See more including press coverage here - 72% said no to fluoridation in their surveys - how can they support a decision to go ahead with fluoridation. Let's hope they announce good news on Thursday.

Saturday, 14 February 2009

Letter to Allotment holders in Bristol

May I, on behalf of my fellow allotmenteers throughout Bristol and 'Avon' bring this important piece of research to your attention. It highlights just one of many unsuspected side-effects of introducing toxic chemicals into our water supplies, ostensibly to correct dental health inequalities among children, but liable to precipitate a whole raft of serious health conditions regarded as hospital bed-blockers. If you want a full perspective on this, I suggest you log on to the web-site of the National Pure Water Association at

I would hope that you would not be influenced unduly by our Director of Public Health, Dr Hugh Annett. He and I both took part in a Radio Bristol phone-in on this subject and it became very clear that he has been briefed by the NHS to do the same 'hard sell' on fluoride for Bristol as has been done at Southampton with highly biased propaganda for which a final decision is currently awaited. (26th Feb is forecast). Following the public consultation launched by South Central Strategic Health Authority, Hampshire County councillors voted unanimously to reject fluoridation. There will be trouble there if the unelected SHA goes against the council's vote and pushes it through.

Just for the record Steve, fluoride (fluorosilicic acid) is more toxic than lead; and the concentration of the fluoride they want to put in our water will be fifty times the claimed 'safe' level for the added fluoride, 1.0ppm This figure is arrived at by dividing 1.0ppm by the World Health Organisation's published maxima for lead in the environment : 0.02ppm In the words of actor Michael Caine, "Not a lot of people know that." I've followed the fluoride debate for over 40 years and I guess I know a bit more about it than Dr. Annett; inconveniently for him, I'm afraid.

Bernard Seward, Southmead

Saturday, 7 February 2009

Flouride can be added to food

See Philip Booth's blog on this here.

Friday, 30 January 2009

Public consultation is a sop to democracy

Letter sent to Daily Telegraph:

With reference to a possible public consultation for the Bristol and Avon area on the contentious question of fluoridation, our democratically-elected councillors and MPs should be aware of recent news from anti-fluoridation campaigners in Cumbria. Their public health director has instructed members of the Primary Care Trust to vote in favour of having fluoride.

If this policy is par for the course, dictated from the Department of Health, it looks as though Gordon Brown has dusted off his 'clunking fist' and passd it over to Health Secretary Alan Johnson.

Any public consultation on this issue will be nothing more than an expensive empty gesture; a sop to democracy, delivered by a bureaucratic fascist government predisposed to poison our water supplies, nationwide.

Does anybody recall hearing about this in an election manifesto?

Bernard J Seward

Monday, 26 January 2009

Dentist calls on health professionals to look at research

Here is a comment left on Safe Water Campaign member Philip booth's blog Ruscombe Green from a dentist - video is worth a look:

As a Dentist for 31 years, I promoted fluoridation for the first 25 and was convinced fluoridation was effective. Looking once again at the evidence was like a knee in the gut.
Fluoridation/fluoride supplements do not show effectiveness in lower decay or lower dental expenses in fluoridated communities. We are ingesting too much fluoride and the medical risks are lethal for some (osteosarcoma, diabetes, cancer, mental retardation, etc.).

Consider mother's milk. Contains 0.004 ppm fluoride. 250 times less than fluoridated water used to make infant forumal. Is nature flawed? Is mother's milk flawed. CDC and ADA recommend infant formula not be made with fluoridated water. How do you medicate everyone in water and expect infants not to be over-medicated?

15 mg of fluoride is considered lethal for some children and 5 mg/Kg of fluoride is considered lethal. The most lax state laws I've seen define a poison as a substance as a poison if it causes death at 50 mg/Kg or less. By state laws, fluoride is a poison.

Poisons can be prescribed as legend drugs if they are FDA approved. Fluoride supplements for ingestion have never been approved by the FDA.

Read your toothpaste tube. Drug Facts: (variable wording) use a pea size, if more than used for brushing is swallowed, contact the poison control center.

The question begs, how much fluoride is in a pea size of toothpaste which the FDA is so concerned about? 1/4 mg. I was shocked. 1/4 mg is the same amount of fluoride as found in one glass of fluoridated water. And the fluoride in fluoridated water is an industrial waste product with toxins in it, not pharmaceutical grade.

Fluoridation is one of public health's 10 greatest blunders of the 20th Century.m

Doe v Rumsfield 2005 the court ruled even in time of war a person cannot be medicated against their will with a drug which has not been approved for the purpose it is being given.

Fluoride has never been approved by the FDA and fluoridation has not been approved to dispense the drug/poison/substance.

For more, look at my short video and also and

Fluoridation has been rejected by most countries of the world based on lack of benefit, toxicology and ethics.

So what was I seeing for 25 years when I was so convinced the teeth looked hard with less decay in fluoridated areas? Actually I was seeing more the effect of socioeconomics than fluoride. Increase wealth and we increase health. Just so happened the weathy people were getting the fluoridation.

You might also like reading my editorial in "Fluoride".

Especially note the early concern on increased complete cusp fractures in fluoridated areas. Harder teeth=more fractures?

Much more could be said. Keep your eyes open. Bill Osmunson DDS,MPH

Monday, 19 January 2009

Where does fluoride come from?

Another letter from a member to press:

The recent Irish contaminated animal-feed scandal found the dioxin – polychloride-biphenol - 200 times above the Food Standards Agency limit, in some Irish beef and pork products with these being whipped off the shelves in an instant. This may seem dramatic, but a teaspoon of neat hexafluorosilicic acid (added fluoride) would probably finish you off in under an hour. Try accumulating the same amount in your kidneys over several decades, along with the expected general health problems in the meantime.

Many folk in the Black Country and beyond have already been going through this process for twenty years or more because for every million particles of water there is at least one particle of this cumulative toxin issuing from the taps. That is the central fact behind water fluoridation. Young children and their dental welfare are smokescreens for an evil strategy which doesn’t address dental inequalities at all but can actually make teeth brittle, pitted, and off-colour, along with a raft of orthopaedic problems. Why no concern at the top for this?

The Scottish Executive has slammed the door firmly shut against tap water fluoridation - achieving better dental heath for Scottish children via their education system. Not so for England. We have a Health Secretary spending £42million on hard-selling communities what several internationally celebrated scientists, including Nobel Prizewinners, have called ‘the greatest scientific fraud of the (20th) century’. Even the Food & Drug Administration in the U.S.A. has stated that babies should not consume fluoridated tap-water or anything made with it.

What will it take to reveal fluoridation to be an extension of its true origin?

In post war U.S.A it was the outcome of a waste disposal experiment to get the Defense Department off the hook in its quest to find an economic method of disposing of a non-biodegradable, toxic, corrosive and radioactive waste.

Then it was Uranium enrichment waste, followed by Aluminium smelter waste; now it is Fertiliser manufacturing waste. The principal is the same; the risks to heath are the same; the publicly-funded fraud is the same.

Bernard J Seward (Bristol) and John Wilkes, (Staffordshire)

Sunday, 18 January 2009

Stop misleading us on fluoride

Publish Post
Here is another letter to local press:

To those dental experts who continue to insist that 'fluoride' is not hazardous to human health because it is already in the water; the extra addition being only a means of bringing the level up to what is called an 'optimal' for inhibiting youngsters' tooth decay. I would say 'Wake up and stop misleading us..!"

If you persist, then please show us where, in nature, we will find phosphate rock being continuously eroded and dissolved in concentrated Sulphuric acid. This is precisely the industrial process by which those raw materials act to produce phosphate fertiliser, the fumes given off by the reaction, if liberated by accident, constitute a Hazardous Health Hazard.

This is what Ms Rebecca Hanmer, a spokesperson for the US Environmental Protection Agency had to say about it: "Recoving fluorosilicic acid as scrubber liquor from fertiliser effluent provides a solution to two long-standing problems; Air pollution is avoided and utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to treat the communities."

Dr William J Hirzy, a US senior professor of dentistry had this to say about her statement: "In the air, its a hazard; In the lakes its a hazard; in the river its a hazard, but in our drinking water, its a dental health benefit. That's amazing."

What I find amazing is the way in which that and numerous other negative quotations from eminently qualified dentists, physicians, scientists, lawyers and high court judges have been virtually ignored by the British medical establishment in its stubbornly ridiculous claim that 'fluoridation is safe, proven and effective.'

We might add, "Not because it is, but because we say it is. Trust us; we're the experts."

Bernard J Seward

Saturday, 17 January 2009

Letter in Evening Post

Letter published in Evening Post from one of our members:

On the same day you published my letter on the anomaly of unregulated fluoride dosing through our water supply, being proposed by Dr Hugh Annett, our local Director of Public Health, I received a document inviting me to take part in a GP Patient Survey.

It requests me, via a box-ticking exercise, to give my views on a number of issues of common interest in personal health care. Starting with ease of access to surgeries and health centres, appointments procedures and choice of practitioner, it asks about my experience of confidentiality, standard of care received and even really pointed questions of confidence and trust.

Then there are questions about my satisfaction (or otherwise) of plans for the management of personal health problems, including a list of actual or potential serious health conditions. Also included are terms like ‘discussion’ and ‘agreement’; and more about home care and access to it.

It is a classic feedback exercise to which I am pleased to have been invited to contribute, but which stands quite apart from the one aspect of remedial health for which patient feedback is not being sought, encouraged, or even permitted. That is the claimed benefit of better dental health via us all, without exception, having an additional fluorine compound in the most basic of life’s necessities, our tap water.

Irrespective of whether or not there is any health advantage in us having it, the principle of mass medication via a no-alternative, no-choice route of treatment, especially where no individual need exists or is diagnosed, runs contrary to all the care and concern elements of health maintenance professed to be the target of this apparently honestly conceived patient survey.

In the regrettable absence of any facility for personal comment, I would nonetheless feel inclined to write:

No medication without individual consultation, thank you!

This hitherto universal right enjoyed by patients is under threat from the Government for reasons which it clearly has intended to keep under wraps.

Better dental care for children is a smokescreen for something else, revealed by international evidence which is being systematically ignored. No other country in Europe fluoridates its water supplies. Why are we still promoting it?

Bernard J Seward

Friday, 16 January 2009

Wallace, Gromit and fluoride

Letter to Evening Post:

If Wallace and Gromit are being 'persuaded' to focus their communication skills towards home energy-saving techniques, why not enlist the pair's services to help combat childrens' tooth decay?

Instead of tipping poisonous fluorosilicate chemicals into our naturally fluoridated water on the pretext of improving the figures for decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft), the responsibility for dental health can be handed back to the families of the children said to be at risk.

After all, as I once told a meeting of the former Bristol Community Health Council:

The primary responsibility for my own health rests with me. My second line of defence is an opinion from my GP or other specialist. The manager of Bristol's waterworks comes a very poor third.

Fluoridation, at a stroke, deprives me (and all of us) of the freedom of choice we currently enjoy in health matters, while setting a dangerous precedent for further interference with our rights. This is something about which we all need to think seriously, when we are offered an opportunity to take part in a public consultation.

The Director of Public Health for Bristol, Dr Hugh Annetts; and his counterpart for South Gloucestershire, Dr Chris Payne would do well to get together in helping us to see a clearer path to the critically important decision upon which so much of our future health prospect depends. The outcomes of fluoride are by no means confined to teeth and all of them, I am sorry to say, are negative effects; and terminal in many cases.

We need to see a published risk assessment, but to the best of my knowledge, forged via forty or more years of personal research, no such assessment exists; not yet, despite a history of fluoride dosing of the people of the West Midlands and the North East since 1964.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but could this information deficit explain why the Medicines Control Agency, the Environment Agency , the Health & Safety Executive, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence all decline to comment? What is frightening them, apart, that is, from the diabolical chemical origins of the fluoridating agent which eats through glass, steel, copper, aluminium and concrete?

It frightens me, but I'm sure Wallace and Gromit, once they put their minds to it , and with aid of a plate of cheese sandwiches, will get it sorted.

Bernard J Seward
Member Avon Glos & Wilts Safe Water Campaign

Monday, 12 January 2009

Another letter to Daily Telegraph

A personal view in a letter to The Telegraph:

The publicly-funded British Fluoridation Society which seems to be the force behind a renewed drive to get more communities fluoridated needs to be challenged on a few fundamentals. In the Southampton consultation, cited by Julian Lewis MP, the statement that the water already contains some fluoride is probably true, but we are seldom told what kind of fluoride it is.

Where it does occur, it is universally Calcium fluoride at an average UK concentration of plus or minus 0.2ppm The average reader would then see the claim that ..."we are going add a liitle more..." as 'more of the same'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The complex 'cocktail' is di-Sodium fluorosilicate H2SiF6, a waste product of the fertilizer industry. Thus, 'fluoride' is the accepted colloquial term to all but those who have researched the subject for themselves. It is more poisonous than lead but BFS members would dismiss this as nonsense because, as so may of them have claimed, the 'optimally adjusted' level of 1.0ppm is 'just a tiny amount'; not a very scientific expression.

In the wake of a pre-Christmas recall of thousands of lead-painted toys imported from China, the World Health Organisation has riterated its standard for the maxima for lead in the environment as 0.02ppm Dividing 1.0 by 0.02 suggests that the Department of Health is quite comfortable with the notion of us all having a toxin of fifty times the maxima specified by the WHO through our taps, insisting it is safe, but with unlimited indemnities being granted to the water suppliers against claims of harm by consumers.

All other considerations apart, this does rather look as though the millions spent removing lead from motor fuel was an irrelevant waste of time and resources.

Bernard J Seward