Friday, 10 December 2010

South Glos say no?

Comment from one of our Safe Water Campaign members:

Although I have not yet seen the printed document to confirm, I am reliably assured that the Director of Public Health for South Gloucestershire and his PCT (or equivalent) has decided against applying for a 'technical feasibility study', the normal opening round to engage with the water supplier in a prospective fluoridation scheme.

This means that as one of the four unitary authorities comprising CUBA (Counties that used to be Avon), he has effectively put the monty python foot on the whole scheme for 'Avon'.

Bristol Bath and North East Somerset North Somerset and South Gloucestershire will therefore be free from ideological, political and chemical interference by all pro-fluoridation propagandists. Somebody should propose a deafening round of applause; but for those members of the dental profession who have been heard to lament the dental health prospects for underprivileged children, they should now read all the background evidence that the NHS has suppressed and ask themselves whether the more appropriate Plan B of the Scottish pattern (or a better one), would safeguard young teeth, irrespective of the earnings potential of the pseudo-treatment of fluorosis and hypothyroidism. These are but two of the menu of serious side-effects of fluoride exposure, formerly dismissed, by many of those whom we have elected to govern us, as 'silly scare stories'

Saturday, 4 December 2010

Another letter in Western Daily

This letter was published last week in the Western Daily Press.
_______________________________________________________________

It was interesting to read of a possible solution to Alzheimer's Disease, discovered in the USA, with the assistance of laboratory rats. This could be the breakthrough for which we've all been waiting in the quest to defeat this distressing condition.

But, quick off the mark, we have experts predicting a prolonged delay in transferring the research to humans. While being aware that tests for human medical treatment need to be conducted rigorously, isn't it just possible that the experts (some of them, at least), are self-interested specialists whose careers depend upon the continuity of AD?

If this sounds cynical, let's look again at the work of Dr Phyllis Mullenix PhD of Boston, Massachusetts. Working in the 60s at the Forsyth Dental Institute, she established beyond doubt that artificially fluoridated water seriously compromises brain development, even in unborn children.

Actually, her research brief was to have confirmed that fluoride was as safe as was generally thought, so the results she obtained were unexpected and quite astonishing. Her discovery should, in the ethics of good science and good medicine, have rung alarm bells all over the USA.

Was she acclaimed and honoured for her important discovery? No; she was fired. Not only that,
her records, notes, tapes, etc were 'mysteriously' damaged but having had the foresight to publish her work before the dead hand of self-interest intervened, we have, on international record, an 'inconvenient truth'; one of many such scientific embarrassments which our Department of Health has made it its business to ignore in its unethical, illogical and illegal pursuit of 'fluoridation for all'

Let us hope our Alzheimers patients get a better deal.

Bernard J Seward

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Video of Southampton 2009 meeting

Film taken back in February 2009 shows the hearing where the evidence for and against fluoridation was discussed - and the South Central Strategic Health Authority came to their unanimous decision including the chairman to fluoridate Southampton. It ended in uproar from the audience who were mainly opposed. During the three month consultation 72% of those who responded voted no.

As noted on this blog in January 2011 a Judicial Review will decide if the consultation result is upheld so no further work to implement fluoridation has proceeded. In 2012 the Strategic Health Authority itself will be abolished and future fluoridation schemes will be decided by democratic Councils.

SCSHA when they ignored the wishes of the people and voted in fluoridation - see them at: http://hafvideos.blogspot.com/

As the blog site notes it is quite interesting for instance one member who supposedly had studied the evidence over the 3 months asked such a naive question as to whether fluorosis is permanent!

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Waiting for Judicial Review

Many of us are waiting for the Judicial Review re Southampton which is now to be heard in full on 19th & 20th January in London. This decision will have huge implications. If water fluoridation goes ahead there it opens the door to more attempts to fluoridate more of our water.

The Telegraph and Argus report that the 'Fluoride study first phase should be done by end of year'. The results of this study will look to see if fluoridation is technically possible and how much it would cost. This could also influence decisions.

Meanwhile the UK Councils Against Fluoridation website has been updated: www.ukcaf.org. A new entry is the letter to the EU Commissioner to enforce medicinal law on water fluoridation chemicals.

There are also very real concerns that the abolition of SHA's and PCT's and who will then take the decisions on fluoridation. Would local authorities have a role? If so there are issues like:
1. Local authorities do not employ doctors, toxicologists and other experts in the medical field.
2. It is not legal for an unqualified person such as a councillor to prescribe medication.
3. To take such a responsibility would mean that councillors would each have to have extensive personal liability insurance.

Friday, 1 October 2010

Safety of fluoridation questionned by EU

Safety of Water Fluoridation Questioned by EU Scientific Committee on Health Risks. The latest issue of Hampshire Against Fluoridation's newsletter reports that:

Water fluoridation has been described as 'a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage‘.

This is the opinion of the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) contained in a recent report on the scientific evidence on water fluoridation. Their report also concludes that: 'There is no obvious advantage in favour of water fluoridation compared to topical application which is the most effective method for prevention of tooth decay’.

These and other aspects of water fluoridation‘s safety were discussed at a special hearing in Brussels on 17th September. Hampshire Against Fluoridation‘s chairman, Stephen Peckham (husband of Anna who came recently to Stroud to share their campaigning experiences), was one of a number of international scientists, health and environmental campaigners who presented detailed evidence of the adverse effects of adding fluoride to drinking water.

The Committee‘s findings directly challenge the SHA‘s claim that fluoridation is ―safe and effective. While the SHA continues to promote 1ppm as an ̳optimum level‘ of fluoride in water, the Scientific Committee concluded that in areas where water contains fluoride at concentrations over 0.8ppm, chil- dren under 12 years will exceed the upper limits for fluoride ingestion. Stephen Peckham said: 'As Hampshire Against Fluoridation has always argued, the SHA have not properly considered the evidence. This timely scientific review demonstrates that water fluoridation will expose children to excess levels of fluoride. It is shocking that the SHA are ignoring this evidence.'

Over-exposure to fluoride in the UK and Eire was a key concern. Despite the SHA and PCT brushing-off such concerns, the EU Scientific Committee took very seri- ously the problem of excess ingestion, argu- ing that there is an urgent need for further research. They were particularly worried about bone cancer in young boys – a concern dismissed by the SHA in their consultation document. At the hearing, Professor, Stephen Peckham and John Graham.

Vyvyan Howard, a leading international researcher in molecular bioscience at the University of Ulster, argued that if regulatory approval for fluoridation chemicals was being sought today based on the data presented to the hearing by SCHER, the chances of obtaining it were extremely remote.

US based Ellen and Paul Connett from the Fluoride Action Network and Dr Ziegelbecker from Austria joined representatives from the National Pure Water Association, HAF, VOICE of Concern for the Irish Environment, Dr Jennifer Luke and Professor Vyvyan Howard. Also in attendance were a leading supplier of fluoride toothpastes in Europe and the Spanish company producing and supplying fluorosili- cates to Ireland. The only UK pro-fluoridation attendees were the chairman of the British Fluoridation Society and a representative of UK dental associations. No Department of Health or NHS representative attended despite their strong support for water fluoridation!

You can download a copy of the Scientific Committee‘s Preliminary Opinion on water fluoridation here.

Thursday, 30 September 2010

The Case Against Fluoride

A new book by Paul Connett is out - that is the same Paul Connett who is helping us fight the plans for an incinerator in Gloucestershire - See FoE email campaign here against incineration and my report re the Paul Connett evening here. A member of our Glos Safe Water Campaign also recently went down to hear Paul talk in Southampton (see left). You can see a video of that talk here. Anyway to the new book....

For the past 60 years, millions of people have unwittingly participated in a public health experiment using water fluoridation to reduce dental disease. But in a recently published book, this experiment is declared a failure. The Case Against Fluoride: how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there , Professors Connett, Beck and Micklem summarise the historical, political, ethical, toxicological, and epidemiological scientific data behind water fluoridation. The book concludes that, if proposed today, fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay would stand virtually no chance of being adopted, given the current status of scientific knowledge.

The Case Against Fluoride is an incisive, research-driven indictment of the government-sponsored practice of adding toxic chemicals to public drinking supplies. The authors examine mounting evidence that fluoridated water is unsafe to drink, wreaking havoc on the human body – affecting the brain, endocrine system, bones and kidneys.

The book reexamines the justifications for fluoride and finds a shocking lack of evidence that fluori- dated water has any proven dental or health benefits. After concluding that the risks far outweigh the benefits, the authors turn their attention to why this practice continues. Their investigation leads them – not surprisingly – to powerful corporate interests benefiting from these programs and professional organisations unwilling to change past endorsements. The book is very readable and packed with detailed information about the evidence on water fluoridation and the politics of fluoridation policy. While mainly focused on the USA, there are references to Southampton and the current fight locally to keep fluoride out of our water.

The authors:

Dr Paul Connett is the Director of the Fluoride Action Network. He holds a BS (Honours) degree from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in chemistry from Dartmouth College and is an Emeritus Profes- sor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University, Canton, NY, where his areas of expertise were environmental chemistry and toxicology.



Dr James S Beck is a Professor Emeritus of Medi- cal Biophysics at the University of Calgary and holds doctorates in medicine from Washington University School of Medicine and biophysics from the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley.

Dr H Spedding Micklem is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. He holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford.

Order your copy from OCTOBER BOOKS 243 Portswood Road, Southampton, SO17 2NG
Telephone: 023 8058 1030 Web www.octoberbooks.org Email info@octoberbooks.org

Keep complaining ......

We have continued to meet monthly...It is important that we keep up the pressure on the SHA — by April 2012 they will be abolished and re- sponsibility for fluoridation will pass to local councils (all of whom have objected to the decision). Despite this, the SHA is continuing to contest the Judicial Review, which will be held on 19th and 20th January 2011 — at a cost of £400,000.

If you are unhappy about the decision made to fluoridate Hampshire's drinking water, there are a number of effective ways you can complain. Governments have reassured us that fluoridation will only be implemented where there is strong local support. This did not happened in the Southampton area. 72% of the 2008 consultation respondents opposed water fluoridation. Write to Dr Harris the Chairman or Andrea Young the Chief Executive.

It is also really worth complaining to the Health Ombusdman but this has to be done in two stages: Write a letter of complaint to the South Central Strategic Health Authority outlining why you are unhappy with the decision and what you feel they did wrong. You may do this by email if more convenient.

Wait until you receive a reply, then if you are not satisfied, you can complain to the Parliamentary & Health Ombudsman by writing to your MP and asking them to pass on your complaint. Again, specify why you are unhappy, what you feel was wrong with the consultation and decision and what you feel should be done now.

Southern Central Strategic Health Authority
Rivergate House Newbury Business Park London Road Newbury RG14 2PZ http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/

Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman For further information see their website: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Saturday, 3 July 2010

Join Your Freedom debate

Below is the contribution submitted by Doug Cross to the new 'Your freedom' consultation by the new coalition government on the removal of unwanted legislation. You can join the debate and add your comments.

The topic is 'Remove fluoride from the national water supply' - http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/@@search?text=fluoridation, and this comment is published at http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/remove-flouride-from-the-national-water-supply

Please go to this location and support the proposal - you will need to register (very simple) - once you have done so you can comment and vote for proposals. At the moment there are very few comments and votes against fluoridation, so we need as many votes as possible.

Doug's comment:

Repeal all legislation permitting or regulating water fluoridation

Water fluoridation is a medicinal intervention aimed at the prevention of dental caries. It therefore employs a medicinal product - fluoridated water - that is subject to regulation under the Medicines Act 1968 as amended. In fact the Regulator (MHRA) persistently and perversely refuses to comply with its statutory duty to subject fluoridated water to the mandatorystrict regulation applied to all other pharmacological products, despite the clear decision of Lord Jauncey in 1983 that it is subject to s130 of the Medicines Act.

Scale of the defective legislation on fluoridation.

The Water Fluoridation Act 1985 was reinforced by the fluoridation provisions of Chapter IV of the Water Act 1991. Subsequently this was again strengthened by Section 58 of the Water Act 2003, which for the first time gave Strategic Health Authorities the power to order water undertakers to fluoridate their product. There have been numerous additional Statutory Instruments dealing with aspects of fluoridation since then, covering the prospective future imposition of fluoridation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Particularly controversially, shemes that were in operation before 1985 have been given retrospective protection against legal challenges and are regulated identically to new projects.

Supremacy of medicinal law.

As a medicinal intervention, fluoridation must be regulated solely under medicinal legislation. Since this pre-dates the fluoridation legislation, the latter is in breach of pre-existing and superior legislation. In addition, medicinal law takes precedence over food law . The 2005 ruling of the European Court of Justice re Warenvertriebs and Orthica dealt with the regulation of the class of products that include ‘near-water drinks with added minerals’. The Court stated that all such products must be regulated solely under medicinal legislation, and the rulings of the Court must be implemented in English law.

As a ‘medicinal water’ therefore, the provisions of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 do not apply to fluoridated water. In addition, the use of medicinal waters in the processing of foods is prohibited under the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995, reinforced by the ECJ ruling on functional drinks.

The supply of fluoridated water to the public, except in bottled form and with a relevant medicinal product licence, and its use in any commercial production of processed foods, is therefore unlawful. All existing fluoridation legislation must be declared incompatible with both European and English law regarding medicinal interventions and medicinal products, and with food safety legislation, and repealed as quickly as possible.

Liability of suppliers of fluoridated water.

The indemnity offered by the government to water undertakers against liability for civil claims applies both to new and pre-existing schemes. In the case of the latter, water undertakers have been aware for years that the fluoridation legislation under which they continue to operate is in violation of medicinal legislation, since I released and distributed my analysis of the relevant legislation in 2000. They should have instructed their legal advisers to challenge the government’s fluoridation legislation, with the objective of reducing their liability for the medical damage caused to the public by their product. Since they did not do so, their legal position must be subject to scrutiny, and the government’s improper offer of indemnity abolished.

Fortunately, public opposition to fluoridation has prevented any new schemes from being implemented since the 2003 Act was passed, so water undertakers who have not yet complied with orders to fluoridate their product are not yet liable for any consequential damages that would have occured should thay have done so. However, water undertakers operating existing schemes may supply fluoridated water to presently unfluoridated areas in the event of an emergency (such as the current drought in Cumbria), and may do so without public consultation or consent. This facility must be abolished immediately - if such emergencies occur, water undertakers must be ordered to stop fluoridating their product for the duration, pending repeal of the existing fluoridation legislation under which they currently operate.

For a full explanation of the issues involved, see

A review of the status of water fluoridation within the European Community. http://www.ukcaf.org/files/legal_analysis_of_fluoridation_in_eu_-_updated_14t.pdf

The implications of the European Court of Justice decision on the regulation of 'functional drinks' with regard to the practice of water fluoridation. http://www.ukcaf.org/files/ecj_ruling_on_functional_foods.pdf

The application of human rights legislation to the practice of water fluoridation. http://www.ukcaf.org/files/human_rights_and_fluoridation.pdf

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Letter to Daily Telegraph

This is a follow up to today's letter from a chap in Essex commenting on the inability of farmers to remove and bury dead lambs from scavenge by eagles.

To: Daily Telegraph
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:05 AM
Subject: EU Regulations

If EU regulations oblige us to dispose of dead farm animals only in licensed facilities,
whatever happened to the earlier EEC regulations requiring fertiliser, glass and aluminium
manufacturing wastes to be treated likewise?

It does contrast rather grotesquely with our NHS enthusiastically endorsing their addition
to our drinking water supplies in the name of public (dental) health.

We, the public, must say no to fluoridation without equivocation.

Bernard J Seward
Member : Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Sunday, 13 June 2010

Letter to new Government

Letter sent to new Coalition Government health ministers and our local MP: Andrew Lansley, Earl Howe, Paul Burston, Simon Burns, Anne Milton and Neil Carmichael.

Rob Mehta (Chair)
“Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire”
Stroud

Dear

The previous government’s water bill of 2003 allowed for the fluoridation of public water supplies to be implemented on the request of a Primary Care Trust (P.C.T.) to the appropriate Strategic Health Authority (S.H.A.) , if after a ” Public Consultation” the S.H.A ruled in favour. Strict guidelines are laid down for public consultation which include a fair presentation of both sides of the arguments.

As you will know the South Central Strategic Health Authority voted unanimously to fluoridate the drinking water of parts of Southampton and South Hampshire, even after 72% of consultation responses from 10,000 people were against fluoridation.

The glossy brochure issued by NHS South Central , even after some modification following protests of strong bias in favour of fluoridation from the “Hampshire against Fluoridation” (H.A.F.) group, still contained bias and major errors in critical areas such as the decayed ,missing, or filled teeth (d.m.f.), quoted as 1.76 for the average 5 year old in Southampton, compared to the national average of 1.47 teeth. The NHS Dental Epidemiology Programme for England Oral Health Survey for 5 year old children 2007/2008 showed the d.m.f. in Southampton to be on a par with the “national average”. The suggested costing was also found to have been underestimated. The ultimate devaluation of the brochure was on page 3 paragraph 1.7 which stated “This document……sets out all the facts about fluoridation”.

The chief dental officer of the previous government issued documents strongly recommending P.C.T.’s to push for the fluoridation of water supplies and the then government was prepared to spend millions of pounds on implementing this.

This policy of enforced medication of the population we consider to be morally indefensible and in no way in keeping with a modern democratic country.

We warmly welcome the move of the new coalition government towards greater individual freedom and responsibility and given the increasing volume of evidence of the harmful effects of fluoridation, we would be very interested to hear what revised policies or changes in the law you are proposing in this important area of public health?

Yours sincerely,

Rob Mehta

Friday, 21 May 2010

Icelandic Volcanic Ash Poses Fluoride Contamination Risk

Healthier Life website has an article on the volcanic ash:

We’ve all heard the news and some of us may even have been affected by the eruption of the Eyjafjallaj√∂kull volcano in Iceland. Yet, most people probably remain unaware that fluoride, from the volcanic ash, has been identified as posing a big risk to human and animal health...

This threat comes from the fluoride, in volcanic ash, contaminating our drinking water and as a result of animals, such as cattle and sheep, consuming ash deposited on grass and soil. With the volcano erupting a second time in a month there are fears that this risk may be bigger than first thought.

See rest of article here.

Write to Clegg re water fluoridation

West Midlands Against Fluoridation have the following statement on their website: Following Nick Clegg's speech in the House of Commons (19th May), there is light on the horizon! The first thing that has to be done is for all anti-fluoridationists to write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking his team to consider the repealing of Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 along with two other dependent pieces of legislation. The reason for this request will be apparent to all anti-fluoridationists but in order to make it easy for those less clued up on the legislative aspects, a suggested letter is attached as a link.

Comment on new government

Bernard Seward writes:

Gerri Peev, writing in the Daily Mail Wednesday 19th : Our reforms will roll back the Big Brother state, pledges Clegg: "It is time for a wholesale 'big bang' approach to political reform. This Government is going to transform our politics over the state." The Government ..." will be proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state. We will do something no government ever has: We will ask you which laws you think should go."

In view of an earlier statement by Mr Clegg concerning his intolerance of 'mass medication' dare we hope at last for a glorious sunset of the practice of mass fluoridation of our water supplies? Sold to us originally with dollar-funding by the US to justify a procedural convenience in the fly-tipping of a dangerous military waste chemical, its accompanying pseudo science has become the gospel of dental health in an untested, unproven and formerly illegal travesty of medical ethics.

Knowing this, tens of thousands of Southampton citizens, and its councillors, voted recently against having fluoride added to its tap water supplies, but a dozen members of its Strategic Health Authority overturned the vote by deciding unanimously in favour of it; and this was the outcome of a so-called public consultation, also funded by the NHS.

Would it be that they were frightened of their own status being threatened since Professor Michael Lennon of the state-funded British Fluoridation Society had said, "When all is said and done, I shall expect members to stand tall to their social responsibilities and to vote this through against the opposition..." Spoken like a war-time POW camp commandant with just about as much regard for individual human rights. The Nanny State has spoken - again!

It will be interesting to see where Labour leadership candidate Andy (pro-fluoride) Burnham MP stands on this, if or when the screws go on.

Bernard J Seward,

Lifetime fluoridation researcher
Member : National Pure Water Association.
Bristolians Against Fluoridation
Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Monday, 19 April 2010

Council Leader assures debate on water fluoridation

Frances Roden, leader of Stroud District Council, in her reply to Rob Mehta, chair of the "Safe Water campaign for Gloucestershire", on questions about the dangerous effects of fluoridation, stated that if ever fluoridation of our water supplies in this area was proposed, the SDC would "consider their response very carefully".

Legally, the public have to be consulted before a Strategic Health Authority can require a water company to fluoridate water supplies and Frances Roden agreed that this would appear to strengthen the power of the SHA. In the Southampton area fluoridation has been proposed and now approved despite the fact that 72% of the population expressed opinions against fluoridation in the consultation process.

Rob Mehta, chair of "Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire", said:"We welcome the commitment by Frances Roden for a future debate if Stroud is threatened by water fluoridation and are confident that the local population will reject it when they understand what it means".

Frances also confirmed that at present there is no intention by the local PCT to request fluoridation of our water supplies.

Rob Mehta. chair of "Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire", said "Fluoridation is a government measure intended to try to reduce decay in children's teeth. Its main basis was the "York Review" of 2000 which suggested an improvement after fluoridation of about 15% {shown by some studies to be merely a delay of decay by about a year} but also admitting to 12% dental fluorosis {a psychologically disturbing discolouration of the teeth} serious enough to require expensive cosmetic treatment. There is also much evidence to suggest that fluoridation can have dangerous effects, especially to babies via bottle feeding. We should also have the human right to decide what medication we take into our bodies".

Rob Mehta added "Water fluoridation amounts to mass medication without consent".

All fifty one members of the SDC were circulated by the "Safe Water Campaign" with a number of disturbing questions about fluoridation.

Of the twelve replies received , 6 were from the Green Party, 4 from the Conservative Party, 2 from the Liberal Democrats, 0 from the Labour Party and 0 from independent councillors.
Nine of the twelve responses were against fluoridation including all Green Party members, whilst the other three councillors would like further investigation and discussion.

Rob Mehta, Chair, Safe Water Campaign, 47 Bisley Old Road, Stroud, GL5 1LY

Sunday, 4 April 2010

BDA election nonsense

The British Dental Association has come out with their manifesto - see below the section that repeats much nonsense about fluoride eg:

- about Manchester and Birmingham - in fact the best areas for tooth health in the UK are not fluoridated at all. The quote by BDA is also misleading as it does not take into account for instance the greater expenditure on dental care in the Birmingham area, not does it quote the age range of the sample of children chosen. The longer term effects of fluoridation may not be visible immediately. Even the Government's own review says the evidence is not conclusive.

- the so-called consultation they mentioned ignored the vast majority of people - thousands of people and Councils clearly stated they didn't want fluoride added - indeed 72% of the people who responded to the public consultation on the Southampton scheme opposed it - how can they say it gained much local support? I'm afraid that is a bare faced lie.

- lastly they talk about recognising the benefits - again the Government's own review says more research is needed. Chair, Professor Sheldon, stated that "the review did not show water fluoridation to be safe".

I wont repeat all the arguments here suffice to say the BDA are one again spinning their nonsense.

5. Stop the rot: harness the potential of fluoride to prevent tooth decay Fluoridated water has the potential to reduce significantly the number of children in the UK who needlessly suffer tooth decay. Two areas of Britain, the West Midlands and some of the East Coast, already enjoy the benefit of fluoride in their water supplies. In non-fluoridated Manchester, five-year-old children suffer approximately three times as much tooth decay as their peers in Birmingham. The Water Act in 2003 recognised the positive contribution fluoride makes to improving dental health, placing the onus on water companies to fluoridate their water supplies where local consultation supported the implementation of the measure. In 2008 South Central Strategic Health Authority carried out consultations on proposals to introduce fluoride to water supplies in Southampton and South West Hampshire. Despite gaining much local support, progress on the proposal stalled, pending a judicial review of the decision. The government that is elected in 2010 must recognise the contribution fluoride makes to preventing tooth decay, pledge to support strategic health authorities who wish to consult their residents on proposals to introduce fluoridation, and back evidence-based, targeted schemes such as fluoride varnishing.

Tuesday, 23 March 2010

Launch of Fluoride Analysis and Database Service

Have you ever wondered if there's fluoride in your favourite bottled water, wine, tea, beer, cider, etc? A new Fluoride Testing Service for the UK and Ireland which is hosted by West Midlands Against Fluoridation begins now. See here:
www.wmaf.org.uk/index.php?content=content&parent=41&read=41&keyword=

Wednesday, 10 March 2010

Green Leader challenges others on water fluoridation

This news release went out today.

OPPOSITION PARTIES CHALLENGED BY SOUTHAMPTON’S GREEN EURO-MP ON WATER FLUORIDATION PLAN

Caroline Lucas MEP has written to the health spokespeople of the two Opposition parties demanding to know whether or not they would scrap the plan to fluoridate Southampton’s drinking water when most of the people affected oppose it.

In her letter to Tory Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, the Green Euro-MP for Hampshire and the South East said: “During a recent visit to Hampshire, your leader, David Cameron, was reported as saying that ‘I have always taken the view that [fluoridation] is something that should be decided locally and I don't believe in compulsory fluoridation of water…In the last vote we had, I think I voted against that idea. But if there is a local process in place and a local decision can be made, I think that seems a fair way of doing it’.

“Given that 72% of the people who responded to the public consultation on the Southampton scheme opposed it, I would like to know whether or not your Party would allow this scheme to go ahead regardless of the controversy.”

Sandra Gidley, Shadow Health Minister for the Liberal Democrats, is also put on the spot about the issue.

Caroline Lucas and the Green Party have led opposition to drinking water fluoridation, warning that it amounts to mass medication without consent. Lucas says:

“The science is simply not good enough yet to feel confident about putting this chemical into drinking water supplies, leaving a whole population exposed to it – including babies and the unborn. The Strategic Health Authority (SHA) itself acknowledges that the scheme could lead to an increase in dental fluorosis in children. Further health effects are also a major concern.”


Notes to Editors

1. The water fluoridation scheme will supply approximately 195,000 residents with fluoridated water. The areas that will receive fluoridated water are: Central Southampton, Lordshill, Freemantle, Polygon, Totton, parts of Eastleigh, Weston, Shirley, Portswood, St Denys, Netley, Aldermoor, Millbrook, Bassett and Woolston. See http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/fluoridation/

2. Hampshire MPs’ opinions on the issue: The two Labour MPs in Southampton, Alan Whitehead and John Denham, are in favour of fluoridation, when the public consent issue is resolved. Julian Lewis, Conservative MP (New Forest), is strongly against, and the two Liberal Democrat MPs, Sandra Gidley (Romsey) and Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) are also against fluoridation.

Monday, 1 March 2010

Greens dental policy rejects water fluoridation

Greens later today will launch their dental health policy for the general election - this is some of their press release stuff below - as yet no other political party has specifically rejected water fluoridation.

Fair, free and effective: Green Party proposals for the dental health service

On Monday 1 March the Green Party will launch a dental health policy which the Greens believe will enjoy widespread public support and boost the party’s hopes of a general election breakthrough.

The Greens are committed to the founding principles of the NHS – including free dental healthcare, which they say could be provided for an extra £1.8 billion a year.

A party spokesperson said today, “£1.8 billion a year is a trifling sum for a huge improvement in Britain’s dental health service. Everyone who wants one should have access to an NHS dentist, and we must end the scandal of British children in the twenty-first century suffering the pain and misery that come with poor teeth.”

The Greens dismiss water fluoridation as a “cheap, tacky, sticking plaster solution with side-effects.” They say that “mass medication of doubtful efficacy and potential side-effects is no substitute for a proper dental healthcare strategy. We need to be teaching new parents how to look after their toddlers’ teeth, and teaching young children from nursery onwards all about how to look after their own teeth properly.

“And in addition, we need everyone to have access to the right professional support, which means guaranteeing free access to an NHS dentist for everyone who wants it.”


A summary of the new briefing to be launched on Monday is below. Full copies of the briefing, and advance copies of the Green Party’s full 2010 general election briefing on health, are available from the press office: press (at) greenparty.org.uk

Summary of: Fair, free and effective: Green Party proposals for the dental health service

1. Currently, only half the UK population is provided with free dental healthcare. NHS dentistry charges are a regressive tax: they hit the poor hardest and prevent many from accessing dental care.

2. Access to dentists should not depend on where you live. But getting access to an NHS dentist is difficult and there is wide variation across the country:

• Between 55% and 60% of NHS practices are not taking new NHS patients.
• Some Primary Care Trusts have no NHS dentists taking on new patients.
· Most areas have around 55 dentists per 100,000 people. But some have as few as 25, while others have over 100.

3. Less than half of the UK adult population and only around two thirds of children are visiting NHS dentists. The percentage of children who have visited NHS dentists within the previous 24 months has fallen in recent years – a worrying sign.

4. Some areas have opted for the addition of fluoridation chemicals to tap water in a bid improve dental health. The Green Party says:

· The use of fluoridated water to improve dental health is not a viable solution – it’s more like “sticking plaster with side effects”.
· Any (slight) benefit from fluoride in drinking water has to be weighed against the increased risk of osteosarcoma and dental fluorosis.
· Mass medication may breach the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – it’s unethical to medicate people without their consent.
· The use of fluoridation demonstrates a failure to tackle the underlying problems of dental health provision.

5. The Green Party wants:

· Free basic dental care available to all.
· Everyone to have access to an NHS dentist if they want one.
· An end to fluoridation of our tap water.
· A comprehensive dental health strategy including proper education for children and their parents.

6. Assuming that some people will wish to remain private, to provide free dental care to 75% of the population would only cost the NHS an extra £1.8 billion a year.

Friday, 26 February 2010

Letter to Western Daily Press

Cristal Sumner, CEO of the British Homeopathic Society, says there is plenty of evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic treatment..."with 100 randomised controlled trials; and many more on outcome responses which reflect on how patients feel."

By contrast, there has never been any randomised controlled trials underpinning the claimed benefits of adding poisonous waste fluorosilicate compounds (fluorides) indiscriminately to our drinking water.

Nevertheless, our Secretary of State for Health, and many others before him holding that office, have enthusiastically endorsed the practice.

Bernard J Seward

Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Restore real democratic accountability

Letter to the Daily Telegraph:

Mr Clarence Barrett, writing in support of the restoration of real democratic accountability, says "...it is vital that those who are making decisions which affect communities are those elected by the people and not publicly-funded employees with no such mandate."

Well said, Mr Barrett; and I can think of no example, better fitted to illustrate your point, than that of the Strategic Health Authority members in Hampshire, all twelve of them, who voted unanimously that the people of Southampton should have the toxic compound 'fluoride' added to their tap water when a petition and a poll had accumulated a community resistance vote in excess of 20 thousand.

Bernard J Seward

Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Blackburn hairdresser prompts letter to press

Letter to the Daily Telegraph:

Here's an interesting dichotomy!

For forty years, a Blackburn mens' hairdresser has been recycling his salon's floor sweepings as compostable material for his own garden.

I would certainly endorse the benefits, though with dog hair extracted from our vacuum cleaner.

The Blackburn barber has now been told he is in breach of the law which classifies discarded hair locks as trade waste, to be carted off by the local council to landfill.

By what law is the trade waste from phosphate fertiliser manufacture H2SiF6, a compound containing traces of heavy metals, corrosives and radionuclides, classified as being suitable
for addition to our public water supplies, with the approval of health authorities succumbing to UK NHS pressure to establish fluoridation schemes?


Bernard J Seward
Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Monday, 1 February 2010

Formal request to Health Service Ombudsman

Here is a letter we recently sent to David Drew MP based on a letter by other campaigners:

Dear Mr Drew,

Water Fluoridation In England

I am asking is that you forward this letter on to the Health Service Ombudsman with a formal request, as an MP, to investigate this matter.

“The Medicines Directive was enacted in the EU in 1965, and transcribed into English law in 1968. The 1968 Medicines Act has been in full force for the last 41 years, and makes it a criminal offence to place on the market any product that either has specific pharmacological effects or that is 'presented' as having such effects unless it has a licence. Subsequent European Court of Justice rulings have made it utterly unambiguous that 'presented' includes describing the product in such a way that 'the averagely intelligent person gains the impression that the product has medicinal properties’. Therefore, claiming that fluoride - in any form - prevents tooth decay, renders all such products marketed with the intent of giving the public that impression as being medicinal products are subject to licensing. All brands of fluoridated toothpaste are required to have (and do have) medicinal licences.

The 2005 European Court of Justice ruling on functional drinks dealt with all drinks, including 'near-water drinks with added minerals', that appear to be both nutritious (foods) and medicinal. As explained above, 'medicinal' includes medicinal by function and/or by presentation. The ECJ has already ruled that a product may be medicinal by presentation even if it is generally regarded as a food, and even if it has no known medicinal properties. So it is entirely irrelevant whether fluoridation is actually effective or not - the very act of claiming that it is medicinally effective makes it sufficient to require the MHRA to carry out the relevant licensing procedure, and if the product does not meet the required standards of safety and efficacy, ban its supply to the public.

The MHRA attempts to divert scrutiny of the 2005 ECJ ruling by claiming that it only applies to products that are completely medicinal by function. It thereby implies that the functional drink ruling applies only to drinks that have a specific physiological, or 'functional' effect (which of course is the reason for adding fluoride in the first place. This appears to be an ‘own goal’.

This is quite wrong: the MHRA is trying to confuse the unfortunate use of the description 'functional'. A drink may be 'functional' not merely because it has a specific physiological 'function', but also because it is medicinal by presentation. So the 2005 ECJ ruling must apply to fluoridated water, since it covers all drinks that appear to fall under two sets of law, one of which is medicinal.

The MHRA persists in claiming that this product is not a medicine. Even if this were true, it is still way out of its depth and legally incompetent. There are only two classes of consumable products – foods and medicines – with poisons being legally classified as non-consumable products. Whilst it is possible to drink a product such as bleach, it is emphatically neither a drink nor 'consumable'. So the MHRA's position is that if fluoridated water is not a medicine then it must come under the food regulations, and should be controlled under the Drinking Water Quality Regulations.

No. It is a criminal offence to make any medicinal claim for a food (including additives and minerals) and if any medicinal claim is made for a food (and this also includes food supplements), then the seller must be prosecuted under the Food Safety Regulations.

In a prosecution on Wednesday, 5 February, 2003, a healer was fined over medicinal claims http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2729123.stm
A businessman who sold products claiming to cure diseases such as arthritis and cancer has been fined £2,000.. Spiritual healer Ian Perkins, 56, from Hammersmith, west London, admitted 14 charges under the Food Safety Act and one charge of breaching the 1939 Cancer Act. He was charged under food labelling regulations for not complying with the proper checks on any food claiming to have medicinal properties. Swindon Magistrate's Court heard how the town's trading standards officers had come across Mr Perkins's web site for his company, 'Nature's Gold', last May. The firm, run by Mr Perkins and his wife, sold a variety of food supplements which it was claimed could treat, prevent or cure a range of diseases and conditions, including cancer. There was no evidence presented in Court relating to the veracity of these claims. Prosecuting, Phillip Worth told the court: "The prosecution views these offences very seriously because people who are suffering from such illnesses are a particularly vulnerable group. "And you have a high obligation indeed to them." Mr Perkins was also ordered to pay £1,552 costs.
So, if the MHRA refuses to prosecute the DH over its illegal promotion of the 'food' fluoridated water as having medicinal properties, why is the DH (or, indeed, the Water Companies) not then prosecuted under UK foods legislation?

As far as the position of fluoridated water as a functional drink under the ECJ ruling and the European Medicines’ Directive is concerned, the ruling refers to the class of products that appear to fall under both nutrition and medicines legislation. As far as I am aware, no specific ruling exists at that level on this precise product, but it is my interpretation that this ruling must include fluoridated water. It is a near-water drink because it contains an added mineral – fluoride – which is intended to medicate.

The issue is, of course, mostly about what should food and drinks manufacturers using fluoridated water do about the contamination of their raw material with the mineral fluoride. The fluoride 'mineral' is in fact derived from a prohibited source (fluorosilicates are not permissible sources, under the food additives and minerals legislation). Therefore the addition of fluorosilicates to any food, including water, under the pretext that it is a 'mineral', is itself illegal.

This is not about whether one supports water fluoridation or not: it is about whether the government agencies are obeying the law and it is about public safety. This is serious enough to close down the MHRA which is a public disgrace for failing to abide by the law and putting the public at serious risk of health damage and sometimes death, for which there is already abundant information from health research studies.

Thank you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely

Rob Mehta,
on behalf of the Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Letter to Evening Post: listening to China

Letter to Evening Post by one of our supporters - also next Safe Water meeting in Stroud is 1st Feb - contact us for details.

R King of Fishponds says, “Brown (Gordon Brown) should listen to China and get some ideas on how to run this country….” Could be good advice!

One idea he needs to confront is the dichotomy between millions more of us having poisonous silicofluorides in our water supplies on the pretext of better dental health for our children; and their on-going record of school achievement.

The Chinese have found a correlation between high levels of fluoride, even naturally occurring Calcium fluoride, and depression of IQ scores. It can be a pre-natal condition and is irreversible for life.

19 points on the scale can separate the accomplished academics from the ‘easy riders’ and in China that is simply not acceptable. In the Peoples’ Republic, all must excel; and the annual graduate output can tolerate no compromise.

In India, similarly affected, measures are in hand to remove all fluorides before they reach the consumers.

As recently as last year, Gordon Brown said “I want British education to be the best in the world.”

So lets make a start on it Gordon, by cancelling all fluoridation schemes and shelving plans for more; including the Avon counties and Hampshire which have surfaced within recent misguided NHS strategies.

Then he should reinvest the £42 million, set aside for pointless public consultations, in real health measures while clawing back the tens of thousands of pounds that he, as chancellor, handed over to the bigoted arch-promoter, The British Fluoridation Society.

Bernard J Seward

Member :
Bristolians Against Fluoridation
Hampshire Against Fluoridation
Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire

Friday, 22 January 2010

Paraquat, fluoride, Southampton decision and more

Who, among the gardening fraternity, remembers Paraquat weedkiller?

We can only remember it as it is now banned from sale and use; and quite right too because it is a very poisonous chemical with no known antidote.

Occasionally, however, a case of accidental exposure makes the news where it has been foolishly decanted into an un-labelled bottle or flask and left for years on a shelf from which it may be mistakenly identified as a health or leisure drink.

Even putting the bottle to one's lips, then hastily discarding it, has led to fatal consequences.

So how would you feel about that poison, or another quite like it, listed as Class 2 under the Poisons Act 1972, being added, with the blessing of our National Health Service, to your tap water?

Don't answer that question for the moment. Consider another which has already been put thousands of people in, or around cities or regions where the public health administration, urged by the UK Department of Health, plans to introduce a water fluoridation scheme.

Q. Would you agree to have fluoride added to your drinking water so that children can have better teeth?

That, on its own, seems like a reasonable proposition but anyone ticking the YES box puts their own life and health; and that of their nearest and dearest, severely on the line. It also compromises their long-standing right to refuse medication; that or anything else the state may decide upon in the future.

The 'fluoride' (fluorine compound) to be used for that purpose H2SiF6, a fluorosilicate, stands alongside Paraquat in the poisons register. Knowing that, would you still tick the YES box? 72,000 people in Southampton recently said they wouldn't by voting NO to the fluoridation scheme proposed for their city, via a public petition prefaced by a printed declaration reliably attributed to Gordon Brown, "The people must be allowed to decide..."

Those well-informed Hampshire residents and water consumers were not allowed to decide because their health policy decision-makers, the South Central Strategic Health Authority members - all 12 of them - rode roughshod over their vote and decided for themselves that a NO answer was unacceptable; and that fluoridation just had to be good news for everyone, including, of course, the children, even highly vulnerable infants.

In the county of Cumbria, a leaked document revealed that its Director of Public Health had actually instructed his health officials to vote in favour, regardless of public opinion; a crooked 'mailed fist' strategy, hurried along by our Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham, who has told authorities to 'get on with it' without awaiting the outcome of public opinion surveys. Not exactly a vote winner in the democratic election stakes but Burnham's crude outburst and the irony of it has seemingly passed unnoticed.

One of the features of the fluoride legislation was that each Primary Care Trust should request a feasibility study with the water supply company. This can turn out to be a meaningless gesture because once that request has been filed, the commitment becomes obligatory; a 'done deal'. Second thoughts, like those which occurred to the PCT members at Portsmouth who decided against being tied to Southampton's scheme, fearing long term pollution of The Solent, but wished to be re-consulted, were given a frosty response by the SHA; their chairman being de-selected from office. That was his reward for exercising democratic choice; the same treatment dispensed to Southampton folk who had exercised their own brand of democratic choice.

Since then, a surprise has surfaced. Using the Freedom of Information Act, a Southampton citizen has discovered the figures given for decayed, missing and filled teeth in that city were different from those published in the consultation document. Southampton's dental health statistics fall well inside the NHS limits and that city has no need of a fluoridation scheme. Poisonous chemicals do not need to be added to its otherwise clean, uncontaminated water supply. One wonders to what kind of song sheet the SHA sings that it should insist on forcing its hand on the matter?

Concurrently, as reported in the Dursley Gazette 29.10.2009, children in South Gloucestershire have some of the healthiest teeth in the country. Let us hope that its public health director Dr Chris Payne feels disinclined to be carried along on the wave of betrayal of public opinion by applying for a feasibility study simply to stay friends with neighbouring authorities who have swallowed the Government rhetoric inherited from the USA. That is where fluoridation was launched in 1946 as a military atomic waste disposal route; a classic case of secretive fly-tipping to avoid hugely expensive neutralisation charges. Massive cancer deaths followed.

Three award-winning scientists have described fluoridation as "probably the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century" a contention endorsed by 13 Nobel Prizewinners in chemistry, biology and toxicology. The Government - our Government, uniquely in the whole of the European Union, pretends it knows nothing of these facts and critiques and continues to violate medical ethics with its anti-democratic and crazy mission to poison us all; children being the emotive fall-guys to justify the crime.

The case for fluoridating Bristol, even if it is shown to be feasible, may be up for the most intense public scrutiny and protest, given the record of good dental health in South Gloucestershire and attempted fraud on the South Coast...

Bernard J Seward

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Vote in poll re Fluoridation in Southampton

There is a new poll in Southampton regarding fluoridation - it is vital we stop it there - if not it will make it more likely that the whole country will face fluoridation of water supplies - See article and vote here.

Tuesday, 19 January 2010

Fluoride in our beer

Another personal view from Bernard Seward to the Telegraph:

Photo: Safe Water Campaign's beer mat

Cllr Andrew Wickham says we should lower the cost of draught beer to encourage pub patrons to drink socially. I agree, but let's also see a relaxation of the smoking ban.

After all, there's no point in the Department of Health (or Stealth) preaching concern about the health risks of tobacco consumption all the while it is planning to poison millions more of us with water supply fluoridation schemes.

It should be remembered too that fluoride in the water usually means fluoride in our beer, especially concentrated in the brewing process.

Bernard J Seward
Member : Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Monday, 18 January 2010

Another letter to Telegraph

Another letter to the Telegraph from one of our supporters:

Can we be assured that Professor David Nutt and his fellow members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs will have something honest and unambiguous to say about disodium fluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid, the toxic, corrosive and radioactive waste chemical agents being used as unwanted additions to some of our water supplies?

It's no good for the armchair experts at the NHS to say that fluorine compounds do not constitute medication when the declared intention for their use, inhibiting children's tooth decay, so obviously confirm that they do. This is a legal precept which has recently been aired in the European Court of Justice and for which a judgement is anticipated.

Irrespective of whether or not the scientifically un-substantiated claims made for the fluoridating agents proved positive or negative, their use as a prophylactic (preventive) medicinal intervention, en masse, without individual consultation, diagnosis, presciption and signed consent; and the long-held patient's right of refusal, it is beyond reasonable limits of legal interpretation that they should be authorised for that purpose by unelected health officials, briefed by a misinformed Government and in defiance of public opinion.

Do you agree?

Yours sincerely

Bernard J Seward

Friday, 15 January 2010

China stopped water fluoridation - so should we

Dr Emma Derbyshire champions the consumption of water by school children as an aid to their cognition performance, memory and visual attention.

She should, though, be aware that scientific studies in China have recorded a negation of all those personal assets, plus a depression in IQ scores of up to 19 points among children exposed to state-fluoridated water.

As a result, China has stopped all its fluoridation schemes.

The condition if its children's teeth - the alleged motive for the schemes - comes second to their intellectual development.

Who would argue against that? Ask our Health Secretary, Andy Burnham.

Bernard J Seward

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Letter to Daily Telegraph

Another of Bernard's letters to papers:

I am surprised that concern is being voiced about alien chemicals found in 9 out of 10 peoples' bodies.

BPA, mimicking the effect of oestrogen to cause early puberty and trigger obesity is congruent with the effects of the fluorosilicate chemicals being used to poison the drinking water of nine million British and Irish citizens; and over sixty million Americans.

Our otherwise well-respected Nuffield Health Council and the less respected British Fluoridation Society say simply, "No evidence of harm."

So what's all the fuss about? Has somebody dared to look under the carpet?

Bernard J Seward

Sunday, 3 January 2010

Letter to local press: pedalling drugs is slow murder

Letter sent to Evening Post, Stroud News and Bath Chronicle from one of our supporters - meanwhile our next monthly meeting is 11th Jan at 12.30 - call us for details:

Sir, - In the correspondence columns of the Daily Telegraph recently, a reader quite rightly says, "Pedalling drugs is tantamount to committing slow murder and should be punished as such"

Would he apply that same yardstick to the deliberate contamination of our water supplies, by an autocratic Health Secretary, with a life-threatening industrial waste chemical, once claimed, but now disproved, as a dental health benefit for children?

The catalogue of serious health conditions associated with tap water fluoridation includes IBS, hyperactivity, dementia, depressed IQ, depressed immunity and thyroid function, arthritis, bone fractures and cancers (osteosarcomas), genetic damage including DNA distortion, environmental Lead absorption and kidney failure.

Evidential negative studies run to thousands, internationally confirmed, validated and peer-reviewed; but our Government is now a lone voice in Europe proclaiming "No evidence of harm."

So what penalty do the blinkered ministers, MPs and NHS officials deserve for leading us all into a painfully reduced life expectancy by continuing to promote fluoride as a health benefit?

Bernard J Seward