Here's a personal view from one of our members in Bristol - letter sent to Western Daily:
Forcing care home patients to take their medication under conditions of systematic thuggery makes depressing reading. One hopes justice will prevail as a warning to all staff in care homes throughout the country.
However, the precedent for no-choice medication, even without prescription, has already been set by the National Health Service which claims the right to administer, without consent, a substance registered, not as a medication, but ranking Class 2 on The Poisons Register. It is in the same league as the no antidote weedkiller Paraquat, now banned from use under health and safety regulations. I refer to Hexafluorosilicic acid, or simply 'fluoride' to the uninformed health officials and ministers who persist in using the term. In mainstream politics, only the Green Party has displayed an uncompromised grasp of its threat to public health.
The pro-fluoridation precept: "It's safe, proven and effective at limiting childhood tooth decay" is a claim yet to be substantiated by unbiased, independent clinical trials.
"Don't argue! We're the experts; Fluoride is good for you." This was the essence of the decision by the South Central Strategic Health Authority to overturn the 72,000 NO votes at Southampton; votes cast by the well informed members of the public, concerned about the deleterious effects of fluoride on their and their childrens' health, as reflected by the well documented evidence the NHS pretends not to have seen.
That evidence has been proved strong enough to see the practice of fluoridation banned or abandoned in all mainland European cities bar one. The exception? The Spanish city of Bilbao. For what reason? Bilbao boasts a phosphate fertilizer plant and needs to dump its toxic, corrosive and radioactive waste material. It can't be landfilled or flushed into the sea.
What better way then, than one drop at a time into the public water supply. That's how it started in post war USA as a plug hole solution to the accumulation of gaseous hydrogen fluoride; the effluent from atomic bomb manufacture. The US Environmental Protection Agency was told to keep quiet about it in the interests of national security.
The childhood consumers of US fluoridated water are today the bed blocking elderly in care homes, stricken with cancer, but that fact rates as another 'see no evil' policy among the political governing fraternity, not to mention our NHS.
Yes folks, baseless claims and contrived ignorance in high places makes it all official.
Bernard J Seward
45 years research on Fluoridation
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Saturday, 18 August 2012
Another meeting
As an interesting aside one of our members wanted to see how wide the interest in fluoridation was locally so approached three chemists in the Stroud area - none had fluoridation tablets in stock and didn't even appear to know what was being talked about while the last chemist did put an order in - see photos. It seems there is very little demand for fluoridation tablets indeed! Not surprising perhaps considering the concerns around fluoridation.Anyway with little going on at the moment it seems likely we will not meet for 6 months when it will be our next AGM. Do get in touch if you are interested in getting involved with the group.
Saturday, 28 July 2012
Petition launched
West Midlands Against Fluoridation have emailed us saying:
The time has some to up the ante. A fluoridation consultation will be announced in the next few weeks by the DH so that we can all input into that process. In the meantime, together with postcards to the CEO of the NHS and a verbal assault on the CEO of Midlands and East Strategic Health Authority, a petition was launched today by Michael Clark of Birmingham Against Fluoridation.
http://www.change.org/petitions/your-water-is-poisonous
Please, please visit the site and sign the petition.
The time has some to up the ante. A fluoridation consultation will be announced in the next few weeks by the DH so that we can all input into that process. In the meantime, together with postcards to the CEO of the NHS and a verbal assault on the CEO of Midlands and East Strategic Health Authority, a petition was launched today by Michael Clark of Birmingham Against Fluoridation.
http://www.change.org/petitions/your-water-is-poisonous
Please, please visit the site and sign the petition.
Monday, 16 July 2012
Next meeting 3rd August
I know this blog has been quiet but we are meeting again 3rd August - do contact us if you would like to join the meeting.
Monday, 27 February 2012
EU committee meets
Here is an email sent by our group to some SW MEPs:
“Fluoridation not needed ….linked with adverse health effects ....no advantage over topical application of fluoride”
EU Commission February 2012*.
I would like to ask for your support for Petition 210 of 2007 against fluorosilicates being added to most Irish and some English drinking water (mainly affecting 6 million residents of the East & West Midlands & N. East England). There remains plans to extend the practice of fluoridation across parts of England - this is despite Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland & the Isle of Man all having rejected it.
The EU Commission issued a scientific risk assessment on fluoridation in May 2011. It has only this month followed up by re-publishing SCHER’s damning conclusions. See:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/index.htm
I am appealing for your personal support at the Petitions Committee as a UK MEP (11.am Tuesday 28th Feb in the Altiero Spinelli building of the European Parliament in room A3G3) to help persuade the EU Commission to act on its own risk assessment by implementing the measures needed to protect children from this crude and damaging treatment in Ireland and the UK.
Your constituents may like to follow proceedings which are to be webcast on this link
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/homeCom.do?language=EN&body=PETI
“Fluoridation not needed ….linked with adverse health effects ....no advantage over topical application of fluoride”
EU Commission February 2012*.
I would like to ask for your support for Petition 210 of 2007 against fluorosilicates being added to most Irish and some English drinking water (mainly affecting 6 million residents of the East & West Midlands & N. East England). There remains plans to extend the practice of fluoridation across parts of England - this is despite Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland & the Isle of Man all having rejected it.
The EU Commission issued a scientific risk assessment on fluoridation in May 2011. It has only this month followed up by re-publishing SCHER’s damning conclusions. See:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/index.htm
I am appealing for your personal support at the Petitions Committee as a UK MEP (11.am Tuesday 28th Feb in the Altiero Spinelli building of the European Parliament in room A3G3) to help persuade the EU Commission to act on its own risk assessment by implementing the measures needed to protect children from this crude and damaging treatment in Ireland and the UK.
Your constituents may like to follow proceedings which are to be webcast on this link
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/homeCom.do?language=EN&body=PETI
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Southern Water admits it is still trying to figure out where fluoridated water will be delivered
Down in Southampton The Echo had a full front page coverage yesterday with a headline proclaiming: "Southern Water admits it is still trying to figure out where fluoridated water will be delivered." This is totally astonishing - what level of incompetence? Campaigners have warned for years that these proposals have huge problems in terms of implementation even if they did have support and weren't linked to health risks.Indeed the issue facing Southern Water is one we have raised locally with Severn Trent - areas of water delivery do not coincide with Health Authorities and in times of drought water from different areas needs to be transferred - it all makes a mockery of the Government's plan and insistence that people will be consulted. See more re Southampton's opposition to fluoridation plans here.
See the article below and here: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9546176.Fluoridation_may_spread_outside_consultation_area/
Wednesday 22nd February 2012 in News By Jon Reeve , Education Reporter
Water bosses have admitted fluoride might have to be added to the tap water of people who have never been asked their opinion on the controversial process if the scheme is to work, the Daily Echo can reveal. Campaigners believe the Hampshire project could become illegal if authorities attempt to introduce fluoridated water in areas not included in the original consultation on the plans.
Southern Water has said it is still trying to work out where the affected water would actually be delivered to under the proposal to add the chemical to drinking water across two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. But the utility firm said it can make no promises areas outside of the initial proposals would not be included in the network receiving fluoridated supplies because of the way water is distributed.
Opponents of fluoride say they believe it would make the scheme illegal and are now assessing their legal options.
Hampshire Against fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said he also believes Southern Water’s admission it is still assessing how and where the scheme would work, as well as how much it will cost, wrecks South Central Strategic Health Authority’s claims fluoridation is a cost-effective way of reducing tooth decay in children.
This weekend marks the third anniversary of the SHA board’s controversial unanimous decision to approve fluoride in Hampshire despite 72 per cent of respondents to a public consultation saying they opposed the plans.
Mr Peckham said: “We are three years on and we don’t know what the scheme will involve or how much it will cost. It’s absurd. Nothing’s in place, no contracts have been signed. It just shows it hasn’t been properly thought through. If they’re still trying to work out its feasibility how can they have already approved a scheme as feasible, it seems a little late to be looking into it now.”
Southern Water was first asked by the SHA to begin work on introducing fluoridation after the board’s decision in February 2009 based on a scheme identified in an initial feasibility study in 2008.
That project was put on hold a few months later when a legal challenge was lodged against the SHA’s actions. But when a High Court judge last year rejected that judicial review the water firm was once again asked to re-start its work.
Senior customer relations adviser Sharon Collins said the company is now carrying out “a further feasibility study which will deal with the specific investment and operational requirements for this scheme”. But she admitted it is not known whether it will actually be possible to run the project as thought in 2008, which was identified as schemes one and seven.
She said: “This study will take into account a review of the distribution system within the area, having regard to current arrangements and any future changes. Accordingly, at this time, I am unable to give my categorical assurance that only the post code areas defined in schemes one to seven of the original ‘high level’ feasibility study will receive a fluoridated water supply.”
Mr Peckham said that raises the prospect of the scheme potentially becoming illegal by falling foul of the Water Act, which says a water company must accept a request from health chiefs to fluoridate supplies “within the area specified in the arrangements”.
And he said this isn’t the first time it has been suggested fluoridation could affect areas not in the original plans.
Mr Peckham said: “Caroline Nokes was told at one point that Romsey would end up with fluoridated water at some point, but that it wouldn’t be a problem. But it will become a legal issue because the Act is very clear that it says ‘within’ – it doesn’t matter if (somewhere outside the consultation area) only gets it four times a week, or even once a week, they should have been consulted. It could put the SHA in a very difficult position. If fluoridated water goes outside these areas they have breached the consultation structures because the key word is ‘within’.”
At the time of going to press the SHA had failed to answer questions from the Daily Echo over whether it believes the scheme could operate legally outside of the area consulted, or if it has made any contingency plans for Southern Water concluding the initial proposals are unworkable.
In a statement the authority said: “The fluoridation consultation was based on a high level feasibility study conducted by independent water engineers. To progress to the next stage of implementation Southern Water need to do a more detailed technical assessment. Further information should be available in the next three months on the outcomes of this next phase.”
Water bosses have admitted fluoride might have to be added to the tap water of people who have never been asked their opinion on the controversial process if the scheme is to work, the Daily Echo can reveal. Campaigners believe the Hampshire project could become illegal if authorities attempt to introduce fluoridated water in areas not included in the original consultation on the plans.
Southern Water has said it is still trying to work out where the affected water would actually be delivered to under the proposal to add the chemical to drinking water across two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. But the utility firm said it can make no promises areas outside of the initial proposals would not be included in the network receiving fluoridated supplies because of the way water is distributed.
Opponents of fluoride say they believe it would make the scheme illegal and are now assessing their legal options.
Hampshire Against fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said he also believes Southern Water’s admission it is still assessing how and where the scheme would work, as well as how much it will cost, wrecks South Central Strategic Health Authority’s claims fluoridation is a cost-effective way of reducing tooth decay in children.
This weekend marks the third anniversary of the SHA board’s controversial unanimous decision to approve fluoride in Hampshire despite 72 per cent of respondents to a public consultation saying they opposed the plans.
Mr Peckham said: “We are three years on and we don’t know what the scheme will involve or how much it will cost. It’s absurd. Nothing’s in place, no contracts have been signed. It just shows it hasn’t been properly thought through. If they’re still trying to work out its feasibility how can they have already approved a scheme as feasible, it seems a little late to be looking into it now.”
Southern Water was first asked by the SHA to begin work on introducing fluoridation after the board’s decision in February 2009 based on a scheme identified in an initial feasibility study in 2008.
That project was put on hold a few months later when a legal challenge was lodged against the SHA’s actions. But when a High Court judge last year rejected that judicial review the water firm was once again asked to re-start its work.
Senior customer relations adviser Sharon Collins said the company is now carrying out “a further feasibility study which will deal with the specific investment and operational requirements for this scheme”. But she admitted it is not known whether it will actually be possible to run the project as thought in 2008, which was identified as schemes one and seven.
She said: “This study will take into account a review of the distribution system within the area, having regard to current arrangements and any future changes. Accordingly, at this time, I am unable to give my categorical assurance that only the post code areas defined in schemes one to seven of the original ‘high level’ feasibility study will receive a fluoridated water supply.”
Mr Peckham said that raises the prospect of the scheme potentially becoming illegal by falling foul of the Water Act, which says a water company must accept a request from health chiefs to fluoridate supplies “within the area specified in the arrangements”.
And he said this isn’t the first time it has been suggested fluoridation could affect areas not in the original plans.
Mr Peckham said: “Caroline Nokes was told at one point that Romsey would end up with fluoridated water at some point, but that it wouldn’t be a problem. But it will become a legal issue because the Act is very clear that it says ‘within’ – it doesn’t matter if (somewhere outside the consultation area) only gets it four times a week, or even once a week, they should have been consulted. It could put the SHA in a very difficult position. If fluoridated water goes outside these areas they have breached the consultation structures because the key word is ‘within’.”
At the time of going to press the SHA had failed to answer questions from the Daily Echo over whether it believes the scheme could operate legally outside of the area consulted, or if it has made any contingency plans for Southern Water concluding the initial proposals are unworkable.
In a statement the authority said: “The fluoridation consultation was based on a high level feasibility study conducted by independent water engineers. To progress to the next stage of implementation Southern Water need to do a more detailed technical assessment. Further information should be available in the next three months on the outcomes of this next phase.”
Unfortunately no mention was made of Saturday's Public Meeting on Water Fluoridation which is to be held at: Solent University Conference Centre Above Bar, Southampton 25th February 2pm Panel Discussion with Dr. Julian Lewis MP, Cllr David Harrison, Arshad Sharif Chair of Muslim Council of Southampton, Stephen Peckham Chair of HAF. Please come along and support us we need to be seen to be active to keep the pressure on those who wish to forcibly medicate us. Free admission, All welcome. www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.blogspot.com
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Another fluoride song
Gloucestershire has it's own anti-water fluoridation song - see here - well now here comes another fluoride protest song....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
