Council chiefs take legal action against plans to put fluoride into tap water in Southampton and Hampshire

Council chiefs are taking legal action against plans to put fluoride into tap water in Southampton and Hampshire

Council chiefs are taking legal action against plans to put fluoride into tap water in Southampton and Hampshire

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

THE long-running row over putting fluoride into the drinking water of 200,000 Hampshire residents is heading for a court showdown, the Daily Echo can reveal.

Council chiefs are launching a legal challenge to the controversial scheme that could see the plan killed off in the High Court.

Plans to put fluoride into the tap water of homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams were given the go-ahead in 2009.

The plans, which were initiated by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), sparked fierce resistance from campaigners.

They say there are unanswered questions over the health issues around drinking fluoride in tap water and that the people affected should be the ones to decide whether it is introduced or not.

The SHA, which was axed by the Government last year, had always argued introducing it would benefit public health and its successor organisation Public Health England (PHE) had vowed to plough on with the plans.

But following legal advice, Hampshire County Council leader Roy Perry and Southampton City Council boss Simon Letts be-lieve the scheme no longer exists due to a failure to hand over vital documents from the SHA to PHE.

They have been left waiting for five months to find out what the Government and PHE’s appraisal of the situation is – and now they have been given a response in top level discussions between the leaders and PHE’s chief executive Duncan Selbie.

After taking their own legal advice Cllr Letts said PHE chiefs have told them that although they agree paperwork was not completed they still believe the fluoridation scheme does exist.

And with neither side willing to budge they are now set for a legal battle.

Cllr Letts said: “There are two legal views about fluoridation. Until those legal points are tested in a court we will be no further forward.

“Discussions are still ongoing so I don’t know in which court it will be resolved, it could potentially go to the High Court.

“But until there is a decision there will be no fluoride.

“At the very least this has given us time to assess all of our options and even if a court eventually rules against us I have already told PHE that a referendum should be held to determine whether it happens or not.”

Cllr Perry was unavailable for comment.

A spokesman for PHE would not confirm the threat of legal action, saying instead: “PHE is committed to working with partners on the key issue of oral health improvement, including the role of water fluoridation.

“PHE continues to give full and careful consideration to all the relevant factors relating to water fluoridation in Southampton and south west Hampshire and is still considering its position in relation to the scheme.”

Comments (55)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:50am Fri 10 Jan 14

hulla baloo says...

Easy answer is to make fluoride available, possibly through chemists, to those that want to add to their water.
Or is that too easy a solution?
Easy answer is to make fluoride available, possibly through chemists, to those that want to add to their water. Or is that too easy a solution? hulla baloo
  • Score: 42

8:35am Fri 10 Jan 14

Inform Al says...

Every time I stay in areas where the drinking water is artificially fluoridated I am ill with gastric problems, if I drink beer produced in the Midlands I get hangovers on as little as two cans, when I drink Kentish beer I have no problems.and when I stay in areas where the water is naturally lfuoridated I do not have problems. It's pretty obvious that I am allergic to something in the industrial waste used to fluoridate drinking water..I have offered the medical officer of health to undergo a biopsy to prove this but unsurprisingly he is not interested, perhaps Simon Letts should ask me to give evidence in the court case, at least I suspect they will order the biopsy
Every time I stay in areas where the drinking water is artificially fluoridated I am ill with gastric problems, if I drink beer produced in the Midlands I get hangovers on as little as two cans, when I drink Kentish beer I have no problems.and when I stay in areas where the water is naturally lfuoridated I do not have problems. It's pretty obvious that I am allergic to something in the industrial waste used to fluoridate drinking water..I have offered the medical officer of health to undergo a biopsy to prove this but unsurprisingly he is not interested, perhaps Simon Letts should ask me to give evidence in the court case, at least I suspect they will order the biopsy Inform Al
  • Score: 32

9:21am Fri 10 Jan 14

ToastyTea says...

why some people want bad teeth is beyond me.
why some people want bad teeth is beyond me. ToastyTea
  • Score: -34

9:40am Fri 10 Jan 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -32

10:42am Fri 10 Jan 14

tootle says...

Good dental health is about education of parents and good dentists who do not treat customers as cash cows. All the fluoride in the world will not ensure good dental health when children are given or buy bags of sweets on the way into school!
Good dental health is about education of parents and good dentists who do not treat customers as cash cows. All the fluoride in the world will not ensure good dental health when children are given or buy bags of sweets on the way into school! tootle
  • Score: 41

10:44am Fri 10 Jan 14

Linesman says...

I bet the legal teams will be rubbing their hands with glee.

Nice little earner that will boost their bank balances, paid for by the council-tax payers.
I bet the legal teams will be rubbing their hands with glee. Nice little earner that will boost their bank balances, paid for by the council-tax payers. Linesman
  • Score: -11

11:00am Fri 10 Jan 14

SilvanDryad says...

Nearly all toothpaste now contains fluoride so the only real problem those Southampton children with poor dental health have is idle and unconcerned parents, who don't supervise and encourage tooth brushing, but provide bottles full of ready-made juice drinks (or worse, Red Bull) to their under 5s in their buggies all day. These poor kids don't drink tap water!

Why should everyone else suffer compulsory medication to make up for the poor parenting of a few? And before people say "what about the chlorine in water?" - that is provided to make water safe to drink, not to make up for social deficiencies.
Nearly all toothpaste now contains fluoride so the only real problem those Southampton children with poor dental health have is idle and unconcerned parents, who don't supervise and encourage tooth brushing, but provide bottles full of ready-made juice drinks (or worse, Red Bull) to their under 5s in their buggies all day. These poor kids don't drink tap water! Why should everyone else suffer compulsory medication to make up for the poor parenting of a few? And before people say "what about the chlorine in water?" - that is provided to make water safe to drink, not to make up for social deficiencies. SilvanDryad
  • Score: 38

11:27am Fri 10 Jan 14

Ellwood says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost.
If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost. If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it. Ellwood
  • Score: 18

11:52am Fri 10 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
Every time I stay in areas where the drinking water is artificially fluoridated I am ill with gastric problems, if I drink beer produced in the Midlands I get hangovers on as little as two cans, when I drink Kentish beer I have no problems.and when I stay in areas where the water is naturally lfuoridated I do not have problems. It's pretty obvious that I am allergic to something in the industrial waste used to fluoridate drinking water..I have offered the medical officer of health to undergo a biopsy to prove this but unsurprisingly he is not interested, perhaps Simon Letts should ask me to give evidence in the court case, at least I suspect they will order the biopsy
The industrial waste that they get the fluoride from often has heavy metals such as mercury in it, not to mention hydrogen peroxide and many other incredibly toxic substances, even fluoride is quite toxic in itself, why else would fluoride being dumped into the sea, or even on land, be classed as an enviromental disaster? Companies are selling the fluoride from this toxic waste to local authorities and water companies as a cheaper alternative to disposing of it properly, under international law, fluorides of all forms are class 6 toxic substances, so why is the government, trying to poison the people? Can you remember how much per litre of water they would use? Any more than 1.5mg/L causes dental fluorosis and more than 4mg/L causes skeletal fluorosis and both amounts can be fatal.

Obviously I fully agree with you on this, they are trying to poison us for some reason.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Every time I stay in areas where the drinking water is artificially fluoridated I am ill with gastric problems, if I drink beer produced in the Midlands I get hangovers on as little as two cans, when I drink Kentish beer I have no problems.and when I stay in areas where the water is naturally lfuoridated I do not have problems. It's pretty obvious that I am allergic to something in the industrial waste used to fluoridate drinking water..I have offered the medical officer of health to undergo a biopsy to prove this but unsurprisingly he is not interested, perhaps Simon Letts should ask me to give evidence in the court case, at least I suspect they will order the biopsy[/p][/quote]The industrial waste that they get the fluoride from often has heavy metals such as mercury in it, not to mention hydrogen peroxide and many other incredibly toxic substances, even fluoride is quite toxic in itself, why else would fluoride being dumped into the sea, or even on land, be classed as an enviromental disaster? Companies are selling the fluoride from this toxic waste to local authorities and water companies as a cheaper alternative to disposing of it properly, under international law, fluorides of all forms are class 6 toxic substances, so why is the government, trying to poison the people? Can you remember how much per litre of water they would use? Any more than 1.5mg/L causes dental fluorosis and more than 4mg/L causes skeletal fluorosis and both amounts can be fatal. Obviously I fully agree with you on this, they are trying to poison us for some reason. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 21

11:53am Fri 10 Jan 14

sarfhamton says...

I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave sarfhamton
  • Score: -29

11:56am Fri 10 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

SilvanDryad wrote:
Nearly all toothpaste now contains fluoride so the only real problem those Southampton children with poor dental health have is idle and unconcerned parents, who don't supervise and encourage tooth brushing, but provide bottles full of ready-made juice drinks (or worse, Red Bull) to their under 5s in their buggies all day. These poor kids don't drink tap water!

Why should everyone else suffer compulsory medication to make up for the poor parenting of a few? And before people say "what about the chlorine in water?" - that is provided to make water safe to drink, not to make up for social deficiencies.
Mass medication is actually illegal, so anyone who puts fluoride in the water supply, is breaking international law.
[quote][p][bold]SilvanDryad[/bold] wrote: Nearly all toothpaste now contains fluoride so the only real problem those Southampton children with poor dental health have is idle and unconcerned parents, who don't supervise and encourage tooth brushing, but provide bottles full of ready-made juice drinks (or worse, Red Bull) to their under 5s in their buggies all day. These poor kids don't drink tap water! Why should everyone else suffer compulsory medication to make up for the poor parenting of a few? And before people say "what about the chlorine in water?" - that is provided to make water safe to drink, not to make up for social deficiencies.[/p][/quote]Mass medication is actually illegal, so anyone who puts fluoride in the water supply, is breaking international law. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 25

11:57am Fri 10 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

sarfhamton wrote:
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave[/p][/quote]You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 21

12:07pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Linesman says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.
Put your own house in order before your criticise others Ginge.

I suggest your post should have read:- You spelt "insane" incorrectly......"

Not that I agree with your comment.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave[/p][/quote]You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.[/p][/quote]Put your own house in order before your criticise others Ginge. I suggest your post should have read:- You spelt "insane" incorrectly......" Not that I agree with your comment. Linesman
  • Score: -12

12:09pm Fri 10 Jan 14

sarfhamton says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.
I rest my case
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave[/p][/quote]You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.[/p][/quote]I rest my case sarfhamton
  • Score: -13

12:13pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

sarfhamton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.
I rest my case
What case? You had no case to start with.
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave[/p][/quote]You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.[/p][/quote]I rest my case[/p][/quote]What case? You had no case to start with. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 7

12:24pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Inform Al says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
Other parts of the UK have succesfully implemented schemes that improve the health of at risk children without the nee3d to mass medicate people some of whom display allergic reaction to the industrial waste used to fluoridate the drinking water.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]Other parts of the UK have succesfully implemented schemes that improve the health of at risk children without the nee3d to mass medicate people some of whom display allergic reaction to the industrial waste used to fluoridate the drinking water. Inform Al
  • Score: 21

12:42pm Fri 10 Jan 14

BeyondImagination says...

The fluoride producers need new markets for their industrial waste now they can't sell it to Syria to make chemical weapons.
The fluoride producers need new markets for their industrial waste now they can't sell it to Syria to make chemical weapons. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 22

1:12pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Mary80 says...

Oh my lord if dental health is that bad why not just EDUCATE kids and parents on healthy eating rather than dumping crud into the water to solve the problem. It wouldn't cost anything just to tell them STOP EATING SO MUCH SUGAR. Why is it so hard to do this? Simple education to inform kids and parents to lay off sugar is a far better easier option than "oh lets just dump stuff in water". Pretty much like someone going to a doctor for a headache and they decapitate them.

*Rolls eyes*
Oh my lord if dental health is that bad why not just EDUCATE kids and parents on healthy eating rather than dumping crud into the water to solve the problem. It wouldn't cost anything just to tell them STOP EATING SO MUCH SUGAR. Why is it so hard to do this? Simple education to inform kids and parents to lay off sugar is a far better easier option than "oh lets just dump stuff in water". Pretty much like someone going to a doctor for a headache and they decapitate them. *Rolls eyes* Mary80
  • Score: 19

1:25pm Fri 10 Jan 14

soton-mike80 says...

Here's a thought for you all... When I was a child, my parents had my teeth painted with a hardening and anti-cavity serum. I believe that one of the reasons why I didn't have a single cavity until I was 19 years old was because of this. Would if not be more prudent to take this step instead of mass-medicating the population, and as some others have pointed out, especially as some people are allergic to the chemicals that they use in the Fluoride. I think that the general population needs to have their say BEFORE this junk is used to contaminate our water supply!
Here's a thought for you all... When I was a child, my parents had my teeth painted with a hardening and anti-cavity serum. I believe that one of the reasons why I didn't have a single cavity until I was 19 years old was because of this. Would if not be more prudent to take this step instead of mass-medicating the population, and as some others have pointed out, especially as some people are allergic to the chemicals that they use in the Fluoride. I think that the general population needs to have their say BEFORE this junk is used to contaminate our water supply! soton-mike80
  • Score: 19

1:36pm Fri 10 Jan 14

stay local says...

sarfhamton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.
I rest my case
I am very worried now, as I am aware that Oxygen can be toxic for the human body. Can be banned it from Southampton?
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave[/p][/quote]You spelled "insane" wrong because you would HAVE to be insane to want to consume a toxic substance and be illegaly medicated.[/p][/quote]I rest my case[/p][/quote]I am very worried now, as I am aware that Oxygen can be toxic for the human body. Can be banned it from Southampton? stay local
  • Score: -8

1:36pm Fri 10 Jan 14

BeyondImagination says...

sarfhamton wrote:
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
You must be quite insane to believe you can speak for most people, sane or otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave[/p][/quote]You must be quite insane to believe you can speak for most people, sane or otherwise. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 20

2:46pm Fri 10 Jan 14

tootle says...

sarfhamton wrote:
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
Funny that - my son has decided he will not be living here if Fluoride is added to the water. No he is not about to join David Icke in a cave or elsewhere - he just doesn't want to risk any possible side effects from the fluoride. His health being what it is I can hardly blame him.
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave[/p][/quote]Funny that - my son has decided he will not be living here if Fluoride is added to the water. No he is not about to join David Icke in a cave or elsewhere - he just doesn't want to risk any possible side effects from the fluoride. His health being what it is I can hardly blame him. tootle
  • Score: 13

3:02pm Fri 10 Jan 14

vpharm says...

They don't put peanut oil in water do they bas many people are allergic so why put fluoride in the water as many people are allergic to that as well?
If people want fluoride then give them a pack of tablets!

Don't medicate everyone as by law flouride is a medicine & medicating against the will of people is tantamount to assault & against EU human rights law!
They don't put peanut oil in water do they bas many people are allergic so why put fluoride in the water as many people are allergic to that as well? If people want fluoride then give them a pack of tablets! Don't medicate everyone as by law flouride is a medicine & medicating against the will of people is tantamount to assault & against EU human rights law! vpharm
  • Score: 13

3:11pm Fri 10 Jan 14

hantslass says...

Fluoride is poison . why add more rubbish to the water, we dont want it and dont need it. its just another way to get rid of these toxins by adding them to our water systems. fluoride in toothpaste should be enough if the so called experts think its good for teeth. i was talking to a lady in whiteparish whos grandson who lives in bath has brown spikes of teeth and she feels its the fluoride in the water that has caused it . its about time S.H.A should get real and realize they cant get away with all this mass poisoning. so come on people say NO TO FLUORIDE.
Fluoride is poison . why add more rubbish to the water, we dont want it and dont need it. its just another way to get rid of these toxins by adding them to our water systems. fluoride in toothpaste should be enough if the so called experts think its good for teeth. i was talking to a lady in whiteparish whos grandson who lives in bath has brown spikes of teeth and she feels its the fluoride in the water that has caused it . its about time S.H.A should get real and realize they cant get away with all this mass poisoning. so come on people say NO TO FLUORIDE. hantslass
  • Score: 14

3:19pm Fri 10 Jan 14

hantslass says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Every time I stay in areas where the drinking water is artificially fluoridated I am ill with gastric problems, if I drink beer produced in the Midlands I get hangovers on as little as two cans, when I drink Kentish beer I have no problems.and when I stay in areas where the water is naturally lfuoridated I do not have problems. It's pretty obvious that I am allergic to something in the industrial waste used to fluoridate drinking water..I have offered the medical officer of health to undergo a biopsy to prove this but unsurprisingly he is not interested, perhaps Simon Letts should ask me to give evidence in the court case, at least I suspect they will order the biopsy
The industrial waste that they get the fluoride from often has heavy metals such as mercury in it, not to mention hydrogen peroxide and many other incredibly toxic substances, even fluoride is quite toxic in itself, why else would fluoride being dumped into the sea, or even on land, be classed as an enviromental disaster? Companies are selling the fluoride from this toxic waste to local authorities and water companies as a cheaper alternative to disposing of it properly, under international law, fluorides of all forms are class 6 toxic substances, so why is the government, trying to poison the people? Can you remember how much per litre of water they would use? Any more than 1.5mg/L causes dental fluorosis and more than 4mg/L causes skeletal fluorosis and both amounts can be fatal.

Obviously I fully agree with you on this, they are trying to poison us for some reason.
totally agree with you companies are trying to dispose of their toxic waste to the public ,it is cheaper than trying to dispose of it any other way. bloody making money out of it bet they drink expensive bottled water.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Every time I stay in areas where the drinking water is artificially fluoridated I am ill with gastric problems, if I drink beer produced in the Midlands I get hangovers on as little as two cans, when I drink Kentish beer I have no problems.and when I stay in areas where the water is naturally lfuoridated I do not have problems. It's pretty obvious that I am allergic to something in the industrial waste used to fluoridate drinking water..I have offered the medical officer of health to undergo a biopsy to prove this but unsurprisingly he is not interested, perhaps Simon Letts should ask me to give evidence in the court case, at least I suspect they will order the biopsy[/p][/quote]The industrial waste that they get the fluoride from often has heavy metals such as mercury in it, not to mention hydrogen peroxide and many other incredibly toxic substances, even fluoride is quite toxic in itself, why else would fluoride being dumped into the sea, or even on land, be classed as an enviromental disaster? Companies are selling the fluoride from this toxic waste to local authorities and water companies as a cheaper alternative to disposing of it properly, under international law, fluorides of all forms are class 6 toxic substances, so why is the government, trying to poison the people? Can you remember how much per litre of water they would use? Any more than 1.5mg/L causes dental fluorosis and more than 4mg/L causes skeletal fluorosis and both amounts can be fatal. Obviously I fully agree with you on this, they are trying to poison us for some reason.[/p][/quote]totally agree with you companies are trying to dispose of their toxic waste to the public ,it is cheaper than trying to dispose of it any other way. bloody making money out of it bet they drink expensive bottled water. hantslass
  • Score: 12

3:30pm Fri 10 Jan 14

befriendly says...

This country is, allegedly, a democracy so can the echo organize a poll to see who does and doesn't want it.
This country is, allegedly, a democracy so can the echo organize a poll to see who does and doesn't want it. befriendly
  • Score: 6

3:45pm Fri 10 Jan 14

hantslass says...

befriendly wrote:
This country is, allegedly, a democracy so can the echo organize a poll to see who does and doesn't want it.
I think you will find there was a poll and most of southampton said no to fluoride there were petitions everywhere in southampton and i'm talking thousands of people said NO but S.H.A Still insisted on adding it, we the public it seems dont count, its because the public DONT want fluoride in our water is the reason this debate is continuing.
[quote][p][bold]befriendly[/bold] wrote: This country is, allegedly, a democracy so can the echo organize a poll to see who does and doesn't want it.[/p][/quote]I think you will find there was a poll and most of southampton said no to fluoride there were petitions everywhere in southampton and i'm talking thousands of people said NO but S.H.A Still insisted on adding it, we the public it seems dont count, its because the public DONT want fluoride in our water is the reason this debate is continuing. hantslass
  • Score: 11

3:46pm Fri 10 Jan 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Ellwood wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost.
If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.
But this is my point.

I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision).

When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means.

Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support.

My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job.

Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.
[quote][p][bold]Ellwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost. If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.[/p][/quote]But this is my point. I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision). When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means. Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support. My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job. Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -13

3:59pm Fri 10 Jan 14

bigfella777 says...

Linesman wrote:
I bet the legal teams will be rubbing their hands with glee.

Nice little earner that will boost their bank balances, paid for by the council-tax payers.
Exactly well spotted, at a time when we are supposed to be watching the budget there is suddenly hundreds of thousands of pounds for legal fees and that is OUR money!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I bet the legal teams will be rubbing their hands with glee. Nice little earner that will boost their bank balances, paid for by the council-tax payers.[/p][/quote]Exactly well spotted, at a time when we are supposed to be watching the budget there is suddenly hundreds of thousands of pounds for legal fees and that is OUR money! bigfella777
  • Score: -2

4:00pm Fri 10 Jan 14

hantslass says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Ellwood wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost.
If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.
But this is my point.

I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision).

When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means.

Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support.

My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job.

Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.
America started with this fluoridating their water but most of american counties have now banned it due to health reasons, maybe thats why this soft country is taking all there waste instead, no -one knows what goes on behind closed doors,
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost. If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.[/p][/quote]But this is my point. I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision). When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means. Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support. My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job. Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.[/p][/quote]America started with this fluoridating their water but most of american counties have now banned it due to health reasons, maybe thats why this soft country is taking all there waste instead, no -one knows what goes on behind closed doors, hantslass
  • Score: 8

4:21pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Inform Al says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Ellwood wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost.
If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.
But this is my point.

I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision).

When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means.

Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support.

My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job.

Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.
Did you in your straw poll inform the prospective victims that it is not fluoride that is added to the water but industrial waste containing fluoride. When we were asked years ago on this matter we were asked if we objected to fluoride being added to the water, industrial waste was not mentioned.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost. If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.[/p][/quote]But this is my point. I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision). When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means. Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support. My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job. Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.[/p][/quote]Did you in your straw poll inform the prospective victims that it is not fluoride that is added to the water but industrial waste containing fluoride. When we were asked years ago on this matter we were asked if we objected to fluoride being added to the water, industrial waste was not mentioned. Inform Al
  • Score: 11

4:40pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ellwood says...

FoysCornerBoy says... But this is my point.

Yes I took that to be the case FCB. I get the impression from your comments (and I'm happy to be corrected here obviously), that you believe that the costs of evaluating the legitimacy of this proposal to be prohibitive?

My view is that there is a fundamental principle at stake here & the cost involved... however great or small, is beside the point.
If it should become necessary (and it looks as though it will ) that this case is to be brought before the highest court in the land, at some charge to the Council/Taxpayer, then as unfortunate and unpalatable to some as this may be, that is how this debacle should be resolved.
Enforced medication.......(le
t's not beat about the bush here) should never...ABSOLUTELY NEVER be allowed to be brought about by methods of circumvention, that removes public opinion and denies people from having a voice.
FoysCornerBoy says... But this is my point. Yes I took that to be the case FCB. I get the impression from your comments (and I'm happy to be corrected here obviously), that you believe that the costs of evaluating the legitimacy of this proposal to be prohibitive? My view is that there is a fundamental principle at stake here & the cost involved... however great or small, is beside the point. If it should become necessary (and it looks as though it will ) that this case is to be brought before the highest court in the land, at some charge to the Council/Taxpayer, then as unfortunate and unpalatable to some as this may be, that is how this debacle should be resolved. Enforced medication.......(le t's not beat about the bush here) should never...ABSOLUTELY NEVER be allowed to be brought about by methods of circumvention, that removes public opinion and denies people from having a voice. Ellwood
  • Score: 12

4:42pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Gozza1 says...

Mary80 wrote:
Oh my lord if dental health is that bad why not just EDUCATE kids and parents on healthy eating rather than dumping crud into the water to solve the problem. It wouldn't cost anything just to tell them STOP EATING SO MUCH SUGAR. Why is it so hard to do this? Simple education to inform kids and parents to lay off sugar is a far better easier option than "oh lets just dump stuff in water". Pretty much like someone going to a doctor for a headache and they decapitate them. *Rolls eyes*
It's even easier than that - eat all the sugar you like, just brush your teeth afterwards!
But no, we mustn't make poor little Wayne and Waynetta do anything they don't want to, even if it's good for them - just put junk in the water that few people want instead.
(by which I mean, the majority of people who have expressed an opinion are against fluoridation)
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Oh my lord if dental health is that bad why not just EDUCATE kids and parents on healthy eating rather than dumping crud into the water to solve the problem. It wouldn't cost anything just to tell them STOP EATING SO MUCH SUGAR. Why is it so hard to do this? Simple education to inform kids and parents to lay off sugar is a far better easier option than "oh lets just dump stuff in water". Pretty much like someone going to a doctor for a headache and they decapitate them. *Rolls eyes*[/p][/quote]It's even easier than that - eat all the sugar you like, just brush your teeth afterwards! But no, we mustn't make poor little Wayne and Waynetta do anything they don't want to, even if it's good for them - just put junk in the water that few people want instead. (by which I mean, the majority of people who have expressed an opinion are against fluoridation) Gozza1
  • Score: 10

4:52pm Fri 10 Jan 14

knuckle dragger says...

I think the reason for this is so those who don't want the fluoride will buy a device to take it out of the water which will give the economy a boost.
I think the reason for this is so those who don't want the fluoride will buy a device to take it out of the water which will give the economy a boost. knuckle dragger
  • Score: -3

4:56pm Fri 10 Jan 14

SotonGreen says...

How the public health can be held to ransom by a bunch of conspiracy theorists and flat earthers is beyond me. For the council to now waste our precious taxes on a court case to prevent the government from improving our health is utter madness.
How the public health can be held to ransom by a bunch of conspiracy theorists and flat earthers is beyond me. For the council to now waste our precious taxes on a court case to prevent the government from improving our health is utter madness. SotonGreen
  • Score: -12

4:58pm Fri 10 Jan 14

tootle says...

Gozza1 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Oh my lord if dental health is that bad why not just EDUCATE kids and parents on healthy eating rather than dumping crud into the water to solve the problem. It wouldn't cost anything just to tell them STOP EATING SO MUCH SUGAR. Why is it so hard to do this? Simple education to inform kids and parents to lay off sugar is a far better easier option than "oh lets just dump stuff in water". Pretty much like someone going to a doctor for a headache and they decapitate them. *Rolls eyes*
It's even easier than that - eat all the sugar you like, just brush your teeth afterwards!
But no, we mustn't make poor little Wayne and Waynetta do anything they don't want to, even if it's good for them - just put junk in the water that few people want instead.
(by which I mean, the majority of people who have expressed an opinion are against fluoridation)
Love it. My dear little Wayne and Waynetta had their teeth cleaned for them until it was judged they could do it PROPERLY themselves at which point they were supervised until cleaning teeth was an ingrained habit. Even at secondary school they were sent back until teeth were actually cleaned!. Result!.
[quote][p][bold]Gozza1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Oh my lord if dental health is that bad why not just EDUCATE kids and parents on healthy eating rather than dumping crud into the water to solve the problem. It wouldn't cost anything just to tell them STOP EATING SO MUCH SUGAR. Why is it so hard to do this? Simple education to inform kids and parents to lay off sugar is a far better easier option than "oh lets just dump stuff in water". Pretty much like someone going to a doctor for a headache and they decapitate them. *Rolls eyes*[/p][/quote]It's even easier than that - eat all the sugar you like, just brush your teeth afterwards! But no, we mustn't make poor little Wayne and Waynetta do anything they don't want to, even if it's good for them - just put junk in the water that few people want instead. (by which I mean, the majority of people who have expressed an opinion are against fluoridation)[/p][/quote]Love it. My dear little Wayne and Waynetta had their teeth cleaned for them until it was judged they could do it PROPERLY themselves at which point they were supervised until cleaning teeth was an ingrained habit. Even at secondary school they were sent back until teeth were actually cleaned!. Result!. tootle
  • Score: 3

4:59pm Fri 10 Jan 14

hantslass says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
The fluoride producers need new markets for their industrial waste now they can't sell it to Syria to make chemical weapons.
we are now taking on syrias toxic poison as our government says our experts know how to dispose of it safely? i feel there is a lot of money to be made out of this they are putting our people at risk no poisons can be SAFELY DISPOSED OF . where does it end up then???
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: The fluoride producers need new markets for their industrial waste now they can't sell it to Syria to make chemical weapons.[/p][/quote]we are now taking on syrias toxic poison as our government says our experts know how to dispose of it safely? i feel there is a lot of money to be made out of this they are putting our people at risk no poisons can be SAFELY DISPOSED OF . where does it end up then??? hantslass
  • Score: 10

4:59pm Fri 10 Jan 14

SotonGreen says...

The point the whackjobs keep making about forced medication is entirely specious. The public on that basic should also never eat bread as that also has additives quite sensibly put in the improve the health of expectant mothers.
The point the whackjobs keep making about forced medication is entirely specious. The public on that basic should also never eat bread as that also has additives quite sensibly put in the improve the health of expectant mothers. SotonGreen
  • Score: -14

5:32pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Inform Al says...

SotonGreen wrote:
The point the whackjobs keep making about forced medication is entirely specious. The public on that basic should also never eat bread as that also has additives quite sensibly put in the improve the health of expectant mothers.
Yes, and that has been shown to have caused an increase in Folic Acid induced bowel cancer in North America. If pregnant women need folic acid they can get it from their doctors without killing innocent pensioners.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: The point the whackjobs keep making about forced medication is entirely specious. The public on that basic should also never eat bread as that also has additives quite sensibly put in the improve the health of expectant mothers.[/p][/quote]Yes, and that has been shown to have caused an increase in Folic Acid induced bowel cancer in North America. If pregnant women need folic acid they can get it from their doctors without killing innocent pensioners. Inform Al
  • Score: 10

5:44pm Fri 10 Jan 14

BeyondImagination says...

SotonGreen wrote:
How the public health can be held to ransom by a bunch of conspiracy theorists and flat earthers is beyond me. For the council to now waste our precious taxes on a court case to prevent the government from improving our health is utter madness.
Adding fluoride to your drinking water will lower your IQ even further whilst making you more compliant to the wishes of your masters. It will not do anything to improve your teeth or those of the poorest children in Southampton.
If Southampton loses the case it will make it much more difficult for other authorities to resist government pressure to fluoridate drinking water when other countries are reducing or removing fluoride because of the known health risks.
Although fluoride can be removed with a reverse osmosis filter, the process uses 3 times as much water to remove all the good and bad minerals. Users then have to take mineral supplements to stay healthy.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: How the public health can be held to ransom by a bunch of conspiracy theorists and flat earthers is beyond me. For the council to now waste our precious taxes on a court case to prevent the government from improving our health is utter madness.[/p][/quote]Adding fluoride to your drinking water will lower your IQ even further whilst making you more compliant to the wishes of your masters. It will not do anything to improve your teeth or those of the poorest children in Southampton. If Southampton loses the case it will make it much more difficult for other authorities to resist government pressure to fluoridate drinking water when other countries are reducing or removing fluoride because of the known health risks. Although fluoride can be removed with a reverse osmosis filter, the process uses 3 times as much water to remove all the good and bad minerals. Users then have to take mineral supplements to stay healthy. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 12

5:47pm Fri 10 Jan 14

freefinker says...

SotonGreen wrote:
How the public health can be held to ransom by a bunch of conspiracy theorists and flat earthers is beyond me. For the council to now waste our precious taxes on a court case to prevent the government from improving our health is utter madness.
I’m no conspiracy theorist or flat-earther, full stop. And I don’t like being on the same side as southy when it comes to debating the merits of this proposal. And I accept that the administration of fluoride, topically in toothpaste, can prevent some tooth decay. But, but, but.

1) This IS forced medication and as such it is totally unethical.
2) The data for dental cavities in this area had shown a marked reduction from when this proposal was first put forward. This has been achieved without fluoridisation.
3) Education programmes, in particular the recent Scottish campaign, have shown great success in further decreasing dental cavities in children.
4) Introducing this chemical via our water supplies means the dose we each receive is not quantified. Those drinking more water (or bathing more often) will receive the greatest dose. Small children and in particular babies feeding on ’formula milks’ will receive doses that the US authorities state could be injurious to health.
5) The systemic use of this chemical (i.e. dosing our water supplies) is far, far less efficient than applying fluoride topically.
6) The effects of this chemical on other parts of the body when administered systemically have been little studied, but there is some evidence that it is deleterious to health.

It is for all these reasons and more, that I oppose fluoridisation of our water supplies. Education is the answer, both in good dental practice for children and in highlighting the huge quantities of sugar in the junk food and drink that is marketed at our young.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: How the public health can be held to ransom by a bunch of conspiracy theorists and flat earthers is beyond me. For the council to now waste our precious taxes on a court case to prevent the government from improving our health is utter madness.[/p][/quote]I’m no conspiracy theorist or flat-earther, full stop. And I don’t like being on the same side as southy when it comes to debating the merits of this proposal. And I accept that the administration of fluoride, topically in toothpaste, can prevent some tooth decay. But, but, but. 1) This IS forced medication and as such it is totally unethical. 2) The data for dental cavities in this area had shown a marked reduction from when this proposal was first put forward. This has been achieved without fluoridisation. 3) Education programmes, in particular the recent Scottish campaign, have shown great success in further decreasing dental cavities in children. 4) Introducing this chemical via our water supplies means the dose we each receive is not quantified. Those drinking more water (or bathing more often) will receive the greatest dose. Small children and in particular babies feeding on ’formula milks’ will receive doses that the US authorities state could be injurious to health. 5) The systemic use of this chemical (i.e. dosing our water supplies) is far, far less efficient than applying fluoride topically. 6) The effects of this chemical on other parts of the body when administered systemically have been little studied, but there is some evidence that it is deleterious to health. It is for all these reasons and more, that I oppose fluoridisation of our water supplies. Education is the answer, both in good dental practice for children and in highlighting the huge quantities of sugar in the junk food and drink that is marketed at our young. freefinker
  • Score: 14

5:53pm Fri 10 Jan 14

SotonGreen says...

The sad fact is freefinker through ignorance, laziness and yes through the inability to afford it through the poverty imposed on the most vulnerable in our society by this feckless shower of posh boys now in charge of our once great nation a significant number of our children have no access to topically applied toothpastes and will suffer unnecesscarily in later life as a result.
The sad fact is freefinker through ignorance, laziness and yes through the inability to afford it through the poverty imposed on the most vulnerable in our society by this feckless shower of posh boys now in charge of our once great nation a significant number of our children have no access to topically applied toothpastes and will suffer unnecesscarily in later life as a result. SotonGreen
  • Score: -12

6:14pm Fri 10 Jan 14

BeyondImagination says...

SotonGreen wrote:
The sad fact is freefinker through ignorance, laziness and yes through the inability to afford it through the poverty imposed on the most vulnerable in our society by this feckless shower of posh boys now in charge of our once great nation a significant number of our children have no access to topically applied toothpastes and will suffer unnecesscarily in later life as a result.
The even more sad fact is that fluoridating our drinking water will not help them either.
Some of the poorest areas will not be included in the scheme and there is lots of evidence to show water fluoridation is ineffective. Make fluoride toothpaste available in schools and make teeth cleaning after meals part of the school daily routine. Once the young children are taught to clean their teeth properly it will stay with them for life and pass down to the next generation.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: The sad fact is freefinker through ignorance, laziness and yes through the inability to afford it through the poverty imposed on the most vulnerable in our society by this feckless shower of posh boys now in charge of our once great nation a significant number of our children have no access to topically applied toothpastes and will suffer unnecesscarily in later life as a result.[/p][/quote]The even more sad fact is that fluoridating our drinking water will not help them either. Some of the poorest areas will not be included in the scheme and there is lots of evidence to show water fluoridation is ineffective. Make fluoride toothpaste available in schools and make teeth cleaning after meals part of the school daily routine. Once the young children are taught to clean their teeth properly it will stay with them for life and pass down to the next generation. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 14

6:26pm Fri 10 Jan 14

freefinker says...

SotonGreen wrote:
The sad fact is freefinker through ignorance, laziness and yes through the inability to afford it through the poverty imposed on the most vulnerable in our society by this feckless shower of posh boys now in charge of our once great nation a significant number of our children have no access to topically applied toothpastes and will suffer unnecesscarily in later life as a result.
.. so, I have to have this chemical administered to me, against my will, because of, to put it colloquially, chavs? Sorry, I don’t buy it. Fluoridated toothpaste can be bought for a quid in most supermarkets. How much do these families spend of products full of unnecessary sugars? A lot, lot more. That’s why we need education for the few, not forced medication for us all.

What’s more even in fluoridated areas there are still many children with dental cavities. It is their sugary diets and lack of good dental practice that ‘overpowers’, shall we say, any good that fluoridated water may bring. Only education will solve this, not the laziness of forced medication.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: The sad fact is freefinker through ignorance, laziness and yes through the inability to afford it through the poverty imposed on the most vulnerable in our society by this feckless shower of posh boys now in charge of our once great nation a significant number of our children have no access to topically applied toothpastes and will suffer unnecesscarily in later life as a result.[/p][/quote].. so, I have to have this chemical administered to me, against my will, because of, to put it colloquially, chavs? Sorry, I don’t buy it. Fluoridated toothpaste can be bought for a quid in most supermarkets. How much do these families spend of products full of unnecessary sugars? A lot, lot more. That’s why we need education for the few, not forced medication for us all. What’s more even in fluoridated areas there are still many children with dental cavities. It is their sugary diets and lack of good dental practice that ‘overpowers’, shall we say, any good that fluoridated water may bring. Only education will solve this, not the laziness of forced medication. freefinker
  • Score: 10

8:05pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

hantslass wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Every time I stay in areas where the drinking water is artificially fluoridated I am ill with gastric problems, if I drink beer produced in the Midlands I get hangovers on as little as two cans, when I drink Kentish beer I have no problems.and when I stay in areas where the water is naturally lfuoridated I do not have problems. It's pretty obvious that I am allergic to something in the industrial waste used to fluoridate drinking water..I have offered the medical officer of health to undergo a biopsy to prove this but unsurprisingly he is not interested, perhaps Simon Letts should ask me to give evidence in the court case, at least I suspect they will order the biopsy
The industrial waste that they get the fluoride from often has heavy metals such as mercury in it, not to mention hydrogen peroxide and many other incredibly toxic substances, even fluoride is quite toxic in itself, why else would fluoride being dumped into the sea, or even on land, be classed as an enviromental disaster? Companies are selling the fluoride from this toxic waste to local authorities and water companies as a cheaper alternative to disposing of it properly, under international law, fluorides of all forms are class 6 toxic substances, so why is the government, trying to poison the people? Can you remember how much per litre of water they would use? Any more than 1.5mg/L causes dental fluorosis and more than 4mg/L causes skeletal fluorosis and both amounts can be fatal.

Obviously I fully agree with you on this, they are trying to poison us for some reason.
totally agree with you companies are trying to dispose of their toxic waste to the public ,it is cheaper than trying to dispose of it any other way. bloody making money out of it bet they drink expensive bottled water.
Yeah, though unfortunately for them, bottled water often has fluoride in it as well.
[quote][p][bold]hantslass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Every time I stay in areas where the drinking water is artificially fluoridated I am ill with gastric problems, if I drink beer produced in the Midlands I get hangovers on as little as two cans, when I drink Kentish beer I have no problems.and when I stay in areas where the water is naturally lfuoridated I do not have problems. It's pretty obvious that I am allergic to something in the industrial waste used to fluoridate drinking water..I have offered the medical officer of health to undergo a biopsy to prove this but unsurprisingly he is not interested, perhaps Simon Letts should ask me to give evidence in the court case, at least I suspect they will order the biopsy[/p][/quote]The industrial waste that they get the fluoride from often has heavy metals such as mercury in it, not to mention hydrogen peroxide and many other incredibly toxic substances, even fluoride is quite toxic in itself, why else would fluoride being dumped into the sea, or even on land, be classed as an enviromental disaster? Companies are selling the fluoride from this toxic waste to local authorities and water companies as a cheaper alternative to disposing of it properly, under international law, fluorides of all forms are class 6 toxic substances, so why is the government, trying to poison the people? Can you remember how much per litre of water they would use? Any more than 1.5mg/L causes dental fluorosis and more than 4mg/L causes skeletal fluorosis and both amounts can be fatal. Obviously I fully agree with you on this, they are trying to poison us for some reason.[/p][/quote]totally agree with you companies are trying to dispose of their toxic waste to the public ,it is cheaper than trying to dispose of it any other way. bloody making money out of it bet they drink expensive bottled water.[/p][/quote]Yeah, though unfortunately for them, bottled water often has fluoride in it as well. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

8:12pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Ellwood wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost.
If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.
But this is my point.

I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision).

When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means.

Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support.

My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job.

Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.
Fluoride compounds are class 6 toxins, hazardous to human health and classed as a marine pollutant, 1.5mg/L will cause dental fluorosis and 4mg/L will cause skeletal fluorosis, resulting in britle bones, weight loss, other side effects, all of which can lead to death, the stuff also causes other diseases, especially since the fluoride source means the fluoride also has other nasty things in it like mercury, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, lead and sulphur.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost. If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.[/p][/quote]But this is my point. I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision). When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means. Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support. My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job. Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.[/p][/quote]Fluoride compounds are class 6 toxins, hazardous to human health and classed as a marine pollutant, 1.5mg/L will cause dental fluorosis and 4mg/L will cause skeletal fluorosis, resulting in britle bones, weight loss, other side effects, all of which can lead to death, the stuff also causes other diseases, especially since the fluoride source means the fluoride also has other nasty things in it like mercury, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, lead and sulphur. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 7

10:55pm Fri 10 Jan 14

COYRlukeCOYR says...

So.... if Fluoride is good for your teeth... why do we drink it? explain big fans of the toxic waste? I for one DO NOT WANT IT IN MY WATER. I WANT FRESH CLEAN WATER. Toothpaste I can just about bare, but water... **** off.
So.... if Fluoride is good for your teeth... why do we drink it? explain big fans of the toxic waste? I for one DO NOT WANT IT IN MY WATER. I WANT FRESH CLEAN WATER. Toothpaste I can just about bare, but water... **** off. COYRlukeCOYR
  • Score: 7

10:57pm Fri 10 Jan 14

COYRlukeCOYR says...

COYRlukeCOYR wrote:
So.... if Fluoride is good for your teeth... why do we drink it? explain big fans of the toxic waste? I for one DO NOT WANT IT IN MY WATER. I WANT FRESH CLEAN WATER. Toothpaste I can just about bare, but water... **** off.
I dont drink water and clean my teeth with it... it goes down my throat? if your Human I guess it is the same yeah? idiots.
[quote][p][bold]COYRlukeCOYR[/bold] wrote: So.... if Fluoride is good for your teeth... why do we drink it? explain big fans of the toxic waste? I for one DO NOT WANT IT IN MY WATER. I WANT FRESH CLEAN WATER. Toothpaste I can just about bare, but water... **** off.[/p][/quote]I dont drink water and clean my teeth with it... it goes down my throat? if your Human I guess it is the same yeah? idiots. COYRlukeCOYR
  • Score: 1

9:02am Sat 11 Jan 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Ellwood wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost.
If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.
But this is my point.

I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision).

When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means.

Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support.

My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job.

Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.
Fluoride compounds are class 6 toxins, hazardous to human health and classed as a marine pollutant, 1.5mg/L will cause dental fluorosis and 4mg/L will cause skeletal fluorosis, resulting in britle bones, weight loss, other side effects, all of which can lead to death, the stuff also causes other diseases, especially since the fluoride source means the fluoride also has other nasty things in it like mercury, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, lead and sulphur.
So where is the evidence of all these catastrophic side effects in those parts of the country (e.g. Birmingham) which introduced fluoride to their water supplies thirty years ago? I can't accept that the NHS and most informed medical opinion (at home and abroad) will be oblivious to this. I'm afraid I can't accept some of the wilder conspiracy theories that seem to flourish within the anti-movement. There are some important issues here like ethics,equalities and efficacy and I'm interested in rational debate on these. Sadly - with one or two notable exceptions - this is lacking here with individual posters adopting very entrenched positions and not prepared to listen to other points of view.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost. If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.[/p][/quote]But this is my point. I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision). When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means. Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support. My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job. Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.[/p][/quote]Fluoride compounds are class 6 toxins, hazardous to human health and classed as a marine pollutant, 1.5mg/L will cause dental fluorosis and 4mg/L will cause skeletal fluorosis, resulting in britle bones, weight loss, other side effects, all of which can lead to death, the stuff also causes other diseases, especially since the fluoride source means the fluoride also has other nasty things in it like mercury, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, lead and sulphur.[/p][/quote]So where is the evidence of all these catastrophic side effects in those parts of the country (e.g. Birmingham) which introduced fluoride to their water supplies thirty years ago? I can't accept that the NHS and most informed medical opinion (at home and abroad) will be oblivious to this. I'm afraid I can't accept some of the wilder conspiracy theories that seem to flourish within the anti-movement. There are some important issues here like ethics,equalities and efficacy and I'm interested in rational debate on these. Sadly - with one or two notable exceptions - this is lacking here with individual posters adopting very entrenched positions and not prepared to listen to other points of view. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -9

9:46am Sat 11 Jan 14

Dan Germouse says...

The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies. Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the ethical principle of informed consent, is entirely indiscriminate, results in the random dosing of residents since the fluoride dose received from water and other sources is uncontrolled, and is environmentally irresponsible because the vast majority of tap water is not ingested, so the environmental load is vastly greater than it needs to be. Medicating public water supplies means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised.

Medicating public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals is especially egregious, because fluoride is a cumulative toxin with a half life in the body of around 20 years, there was no good quality scientific research which indicated that forced-fluoridation was anything but dangerous and useless in the 1940s and there still isn't any, the best quality scientific research which has been conducted indicates that forced-fluoridation is in fact both dangerous and useless, the fluoridation chemicals which are used are industrial grade rather than pharmaceutical grade, and fluoride is not biodegradable. The forced-fluoridation experiment is immoral, illegal, irrational, archaic, pseudoscientific, and not worth the risk.

The following are some good sources of information: the Fluoride Action Network website, Declan Waugh's work, the books The Case Against Fluoride and The Fluoride Deception, the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride.
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/
http://ffwireland.bl
ogspot.com.au/
http://www.enviro.ie
/downloads.html
http://www.scribd.co
m/doc/121795065/Chri
stopher-Bryson-The-F
luoride-Deception
http://www.nap.edu/c
atalog.php?record_id
=11571
http://www.fluorider
esearch.org/
The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies. Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the ethical principle of informed consent, is entirely indiscriminate, results in the random dosing of residents since the fluoride dose received from water and other sources is uncontrolled, and is environmentally irresponsible because the vast majority of tap water is not ingested, so the environmental load is vastly greater than it needs to be. Medicating public water supplies means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised. Medicating public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals is especially egregious, because fluoride is a cumulative toxin with a half life in the body of around 20 years, there was no good quality scientific research which indicated that forced-fluoridation was anything but dangerous and useless in the 1940s and there still isn't any, the best quality scientific research which has been conducted indicates that forced-fluoridation is in fact both dangerous and useless, the fluoridation chemicals which are used are industrial grade rather than pharmaceutical grade, and fluoride is not biodegradable. The forced-fluoridation experiment is immoral, illegal, irrational, archaic, pseudoscientific, and not worth the risk. The following are some good sources of information: the Fluoride Action Network website, Declan Waugh's work, the books The Case Against Fluoride and The Fluoride Deception, the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride. http://www.fluoridea lert.org/ http://ffwireland.bl ogspot.com.au/ http://www.enviro.ie /downloads.html http://www.scribd.co m/doc/121795065/Chri stopher-Bryson-The-F luoride-Deception http://www.nap.edu/c atalog.php?record_id =11571 http://www.fluorider esearch.org/ Dan Germouse
  • Score: 6

11:04am Sat 11 Jan 14

Inform Al says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Ellwood wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost.
If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.
But this is my point.

I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision).

When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means.

Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support.

My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job.

Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.
Fluoride compounds are class 6 toxins, hazardous to human health and classed as a marine pollutant, 1.5mg/L will cause dental fluorosis and 4mg/L will cause skeletal fluorosis, resulting in britle bones, weight loss, other side effects, all of which can lead to death, the stuff also causes other diseases, especially since the fluoride source means the fluoride also has other nasty things in it like mercury, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, lead and sulphur.
So where is the evidence of all these catastrophic side effects in those parts of the country (e.g. Birmingham) which introduced fluoride to their water supplies thirty years ago? I can't accept that the NHS and most informed medical opinion (at home and abroad) will be oblivious to this. I'm afraid I can't accept some of the wilder conspiracy theories that seem to flourish within the anti-movement. There are some important issues here like ethics,equalities and efficacy and I'm interested in rational debate on these. Sadly - with one or two notable exceptions - this is lacking here with individual posters adopting very entrenched positions and not prepared to listen to other points of view.
Perhaps a lesson in reality is what you need. It was after a stay in Birmingham that I was diagnosed with coeliac desease, however when not in a fluoridated area I can eat food containing gluten with no adverse effect. Southern Irelkand has been fluoridated for the last 50 years and guess where the biggest percentage of population in the British Isles that have coeliac desease is. The powers that be must be aware of what is happening to people who are allergic to this industrial waste put into the water, but are more concerned with disposing of the industrial waste.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost. If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.[/p][/quote]But this is my point. I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision). When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means. Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support. My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job. Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.[/p][/quote]Fluoride compounds are class 6 toxins, hazardous to human health and classed as a marine pollutant, 1.5mg/L will cause dental fluorosis and 4mg/L will cause skeletal fluorosis, resulting in britle bones, weight loss, other side effects, all of which can lead to death, the stuff also causes other diseases, especially since the fluoride source means the fluoride also has other nasty things in it like mercury, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, lead and sulphur.[/p][/quote]So where is the evidence of all these catastrophic side effects in those parts of the country (e.g. Birmingham) which introduced fluoride to their water supplies thirty years ago? I can't accept that the NHS and most informed medical opinion (at home and abroad) will be oblivious to this. I'm afraid I can't accept some of the wilder conspiracy theories that seem to flourish within the anti-movement. There are some important issues here like ethics,equalities and efficacy and I'm interested in rational debate on these. Sadly - with one or two notable exceptions - this is lacking here with individual posters adopting very entrenched positions and not prepared to listen to other points of view.[/p][/quote]Perhaps a lesson in reality is what you need. It was after a stay in Birmingham that I was diagnosed with coeliac desease, however when not in a fluoridated area I can eat food containing gluten with no adverse effect. Southern Irelkand has been fluoridated for the last 50 years and guess where the biggest percentage of population in the British Isles that have coeliac desease is. The powers that be must be aware of what is happening to people who are allergic to this industrial waste put into the water, but are more concerned with disposing of the industrial waste. Inform Al
  • Score: 8

12:03pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Health nut says...

ToastyTea wrote:
why some people want bad teeth is beyond me.
If you believe fluoride protects teeth then why drink it? If you want fluoride in your body (it blocks iodine uptake in the thyroid leading to disease), the use fluoride toothpaste and spit it out, hoping of course hoping you dont swallow any. Plenty of scientific proof (old and new stating it has no beneficial effect on the body, particularly the kind put into water - this is not scientific grade). Look at Ireland, very high rates of tooth decay yet they have fluoridated water.
[quote][p][bold]ToastyTea[/bold] wrote: why some people want bad teeth is beyond me.[/p][/quote]If you believe fluoride protects teeth then why drink it? If you want fluoride in your body (it blocks iodine uptake in the thyroid leading to disease), the use fluoride toothpaste and spit it out, hoping of course hoping you dont swallow any. Plenty of scientific proof (old and new stating it has no beneficial effect on the body, particularly the kind put into water - this is not scientific grade). Look at Ireland, very high rates of tooth decay yet they have fluoridated water. Health nut
  • Score: 11

1:52pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Ellwood wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton.

While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride.

This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation.

I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.
............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost.
If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.
But this is my point.

I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision).

When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means.

Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support.

My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job.

Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.
Fluoride compounds are class 6 toxins, hazardous to human health and classed as a marine pollutant, 1.5mg/L will cause dental fluorosis and 4mg/L will cause skeletal fluorosis, resulting in britle bones, weight loss, other side effects, all of which can lead to death, the stuff also causes other diseases, especially since the fluoride source means the fluoride also has other nasty things in it like mercury, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, lead and sulphur.
So where is the evidence of all these catastrophic side effects in those parts of the country (e.g. Birmingham) which introduced fluoride to their water supplies thirty years ago? I can't accept that the NHS and most informed medical opinion (at home and abroad) will be oblivious to this. I'm afraid I can't accept some of the wilder conspiracy theories that seem to flourish within the anti-movement. There are some important issues here like ethics,equalities and efficacy and I'm interested in rational debate on these. Sadly - with one or two notable exceptions - this is lacking here with individual posters adopting very entrenched positions and not prepared to listen to other points of view.
Here's a safety data sheet on the salt they would be likely to use to "fluoridate" our water, yes it's from Australia BUT Australia follow the EXACT same hazchem system that Britain follows and you will see, that it's highly toxic.
http://msds.orica.co
m/pdf/shess-en-cds-0
10-000031020201.pdf
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: For once I think the editorial in today's Daily Echo has got it right. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers have been spent over the past two decades in deciding if, when and how to implement a public health measure that is commonplace in many parts of the UK and overseas. Most of this money has lined the pockets of lawyers and 'communications' consultants (spin doctors) rather than address the real problems of dental health inequalities in Southampton. While the politicians, health managers and lawyers dither 500 children in Southampton (overwhelmingly from poorer households) are subjected to painful and costly dental surgery each year - something which our medical and scientific experts claim would be almost completely eradicated with the introduction of fluoride. This is a heavy and unacceptable price to pay for continued indecision. I hope that the Government makes the legal status of the current scheme clear. If a scheme does not exist then we are back to square one with any decision to introduce a new fluoride scheme falling to the relevant local authorities rather than the NHS. If however the lawyers agree that a scheme does exist then there are laid down procedures (prohibitively costly I guess) for consulting on cessation. I hope we don't have to wait too long for a definitive legal opinion from the Government.[/p][/quote]............... personally speaking, I would prefer that this PROPOSAL be most thoroughly and rigorously tested at all stages and on every single level that is deemed to be appropriate, well BEFORE it is implemented .....irrespective of the cost. If it means a court case, to satisfy the doubts of those that have expressed legitimate concerns, in regard to the justification and legality of this initiative... then so be it.[/p][/quote]But this is my point. I have never known an issue subject to so much costly public consultation. This topic has been on our local agenda for over twenty years. The original decision taken by the Strategic Health Authority in 2008 was taken to judicial review (with the taxpayers picking up the tab both through the legal aid and the costs incurred by the NHS to defend what was subsequently adjudged to be a perfectly lawful decision). When I spoke with a leading light of the Hampshire Against Fluoride about this he said that they knew that a judicial review would fail but they chose to use this tactic to delay implementation and put pressure on local politicians. The end presumably justifies the means. Unlike many people who post here I have a fairly open mind on the fluoride question. Whilst I think that a strong, scientific rationale been made for its introduction I understand that a voluble section of the local population remains unconvinced and that if this initiative is to succeed then there needs to be a reasonable degree of public support. My own straw polling in a few city centre pubs suggests that opinion is quite evenly divided with older, more opinionated people firmly opposed; younger people (most of whom are still to form a political opinion) more likely to support; and a third group (roughly half my survey population) honest enough to say that they haven't a clue, don't care or are happy to let the authorities get on with the job. Maybe Simon Letts is right to insist that we have a referendum of those people who will be directly affected. My hunch is - if this was conducted in a fair and balanced manner where all points of view were heard - there won't be a majority of the population either in favour of or against the fluoride proposal.[/p][/quote]Fluoride compounds are class 6 toxins, hazardous to human health and classed as a marine pollutant, 1.5mg/L will cause dental fluorosis and 4mg/L will cause skeletal fluorosis, resulting in britle bones, weight loss, other side effects, all of which can lead to death, the stuff also causes other diseases, especially since the fluoride source means the fluoride also has other nasty things in it like mercury, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, lead and sulphur.[/p][/quote]So where is the evidence of all these catastrophic side effects in those parts of the country (e.g. Birmingham) which introduced fluoride to their water supplies thirty years ago? I can't accept that the NHS and most informed medical opinion (at home and abroad) will be oblivious to this. I'm afraid I can't accept some of the wilder conspiracy theories that seem to flourish within the anti-movement. There are some important issues here like ethics,equalities and efficacy and I'm interested in rational debate on these. Sadly - with one or two notable exceptions - this is lacking here with individual posters adopting very entrenched positions and not prepared to listen to other points of view.[/p][/quote]Here's a safety data sheet on the salt they would be likely to use to "fluoridate" our water, yes it's from Australia BUT Australia follow the EXACT same hazchem system that Britain follows and you will see, that it's highly toxic. http://msds.orica.co m/pdf/shess-en-cds-0 10-000031020201.pdf Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 5

6:39pm Sat 11 Jan 14

CriticalunityDOTorg says...

sarfhamton wrote:
I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave
Theories? How about IRREFUTABLE RECENT HARVARD STUDIES PROVING ITS DETRIMENTAL TO HEALTH?! You seem like the one living in a cave.
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: I speak for most sane people who don't believe in mad conspiracy theories when I say just add it, if you don't like it then go and live with David Icke in a cave[/p][/quote]Theories? How about IRREFUTABLE RECENT HARVARD STUDIES PROVING ITS DETRIMENTAL TO HEALTH?! You seem like the one living in a cave. CriticalunityDOTorg
  • Score: 7

12:54am Wed 15 Jan 14

BeyondImagination says...

I don't trust Councillor Letts and the Labour group on this. Public Health England would bumble along in the same incompetent way as the SHA for years if left alone, weakening it's case by the day. This legal action could pave the way for the labour group to impose fluoridation on us.
I don't trust Councillor Letts and the Labour group on this. Public Health England would bumble along in the same incompetent way as the SHA for years if left alone, weakening it's case by the day. This legal action could pave the way for the labour group to impose fluoridation on us. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree