Send pictures to us
Send us your pictures and video by text, email or by uploading. Click here to find out how. »
|
|
|
|
Fluoride to be added to Hampshire's water?
1:01pm Wednesday 6th February 2008
Comments (43)
Click here to see a variety of studies into fluoridation.
WHEN it comes to a sparkling smile, the statistics show Southampton has nothing to be happy about.
Dental decay is rife and health bosses claim oral health campaigns have failed to improve the picture.
Consequently, we could all be drinking fluoridated water by the end of the year.
The controversial idea of adding more fluoride to our drinking water to help prevent tooth decay has been debated since the mid 1990s.
But a recent push by the local health care trust and yesterday's call from Health Secretary Alan Johnson for fluoride to be added to water supplies across the country means fluoride levels in our tap water could soon be boosted.
Mr Johnson wants strategic health authorities to use their powers to compel water companies to add the chemical.
He said: "I want the NHS to do much more to prevent rather than just treat disease.
"Fluoridation is an effective and relatively easy way to help address health inequalities, giving children from poorer backgrounds a dental health boost that can last a lifetime."
Just three weeks ago the Daily Echo revealed how Southampton girls as young as 11 were having their rotten and decayed front teeth removed and having false ones fitted.
Meanwhile a report compiled by Southampton City Primary Care Trust and Southampton City Council highlighted the dreadful state of children's teeth in the city where five-year-olds have more missing or filled teeth than the average for England.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is currently investigating the feasibility of fluoridation in Hampshire and, subject to a public c o n s u l t a t i o n , could order it to go ahead before the end of 2008.
This has angered critics who argue there is evidence that fluoride can lead to serious health problems such as bone cancer and mental illness.
John Spottiswoode, a member of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, the National Pure Water Association and the South-West Hampshire Green Party, said: "The benefits of water fluoridation are very debatable and there is evidence of some nasty side effects.
"It is a violation of our human rights to push a very nasty chemical into our bodies without choice via the water supply, even if it is believed to be medicinal."
Mr Spottiswoode claimed the only way to improve dental health is to spend more money on educating people on the importance of brushing their teeth and visiting a dentist.
He said: "In the short term, fluoridated water might show slight benefits but that is only because it has an effect on the tooth's surface. It is of no help when it goes into the body - it is a highly reactive chemical and can lead to bone problems and mental problems.
"Dental fluorosis is a symptom of the systematic poisoning of the body by fluoride. However there are many more worrying recent studies pointing to several health problems in the body.
"These range from skeletal fluorosis causing brittle bones to bone cancer, thyroid problems, brain damage and hypersensitive reactions."
But dental experts and Southampton City Primary Care Trust (PCT) would welcome fluoridated water.
The PCT has agreed to support fluoridation and has asked South Central SHA to investigate if it could be done.
The SHA is carrying out a study into the practicalities and cost of fluoridation and a public consultation will take place if the results are positive.
A spokesman for the SHA said: "We are currently reviewing the technical aspects of fluoridation and will be speaking to a range of health and patient stakeholder groups. We will then take a decision whether to go to a 12-week public consultation in the summer.
"It would then take no more than a couple of months for fluoride levels in the water supply to be adjusted."
The PCT believes fluoridation is the only way to improve local dental health and says previous NHS campaigns, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, have failed to help improve the situation.
A PCT spokesman said: "Child dental health in Southampton is poor. A shocking 42 per cent of children in the city who have experienced dental decay have an average of more than four decayed, missing or filled teeth.
"Water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure for preventing tooth decay and improving oral health over a lifetime.
"The west midlands and the north-east have had fluoridation schemes for many years with enormous benefits to the oral health of the population. The schemes are monitored very closely and there have been no negative effects reported."
A spokesman for the British Dental Association said children as young as five are having teeth removed under general anaesthetic because of decay.
He added: "Water fluoridation is a positive step in narrowing the health inequalities that currently exist."
Dental charity the British Dental Health Foundation is also backing the calls for fluoridation.
Chief executive Nigel Carter, who used to practice on the border of fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, said: "I have seen first hand the positive impact water fluoridation can have on dental health.
"It still amazes me that it was possible to tell from which side of the dividing main road a child came from simply by the state of their teeth, but the difference was massive."
For more on this story, see today's Daily Echo.
Click the links below for a range of reports into the risk and benefits of water fluoridation:
- The dental benefits of Water fluoridation
- An independent report into the risks of fluoridation
- Study of factors affecting dental health statistics
- Preventative Dental Treatments and
Dental Health Expenditure in Wolverhampton 1997 - 2002
- A summary of a York University study into water fluoridation
- Leaflet from National Fluoridation Information Centre (part 1)
- Leaflet from National Fluoridation Information Centre (part 2)
Your Say YourDaily Echo
mjd, winchester says...
10:15am Wed 6 Feb 08
Jack, Southampton says...
10:18am Wed 6 Feb 08
h. We consider that the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water is prophylactic treatment and is therefore in opposition to organic principles. As a result the Soil Association is opposed to the artificial fluoridation of water by water companies and also the legislation allowing this practice. We support the campaign by the National Pure Water Association for water companies to have the right not to fluoridate their water.
Fluoridation Doing More Harm Than Good, Studies Show
Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studies published from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities suggest that may be unnecessary for caries prevention." They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in 'optimally' fluoridated communities.
'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American
After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council (NRC) committee "concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid -- the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism," reports Fagin.
Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly, "The thyroid changes do worry me."
Anti-tamper, says...
10:24am Wed 6 Feb 08
Freddie Star, Hampser/I mean Hampshire says...
11:23am Wed 6 Feb 08
Dentist, says...
11:27am Wed 6 Feb 08
Freddie Star wrote:No it isn't. It is simply people eating the wrong food and not brushing their teeth.
"Dental decay is rife" Thats nothing to do with floride, its to do with a masive lack of funding for NHS dentists.
Barry Mung, Soton says...
11:34am Wed 6 Feb 08
Why don't health schemes like Denplan offer a discount for people living in areas of high natural fluoridisation?
There is NO wquality research to show that fluoridation lessens tooth decay; most of it is anecdotal.
Then there's the very real problem of dental fluorosis, which is worse than decay!
Robert Thorn, says...
11:35am Wed 6 Feb 08
Anti-tamper wrote:Presumably a reference to that excellent film "Soylent Green"?
Soylent water?
I certainly don't want the Government or any local health authority adding anything to my water.
What next - adding a sedative to water users in Millbrook? What about adding sleeping agents to the water supply of those in the University district? How about adding stimulants to water in the areas where lazy people are known to hang out?
It must not be allowed to happen.
Another dentist, says...
11:37am Wed 6 Feb 08
Dentist wrote:Just think, if people took basic care of their teeth we would all be out of a job.
Freddie Star wrote: "Dental decay is rife" Thats nothing to do with floride, its to do with a masive lack of funding for NHS dentists.No it isn't. It is simply people eating the wrong food and not brushing their teeth.
Like avoiding parking fines you can avoid a visit to the dentist by brushing regularly and eating properly.
Freddie Star, Hampster/Imean Hampshire says...
11:51am Wed 6 Feb 08
Dentist wrote:Are you telling me my teeth are`nt supposed to be light- brown in colour?What shade of brown are they supposed to be then ??
Freddie Star wrote: "Dental decay is rife" Thats nothing to do with floride, its to do with a masive lack of funding for NHS dentists.No it isn't. It is simply people eating the wrong food and not brushing their teeth.
Libertarian, Winchester says...
12:15pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Dentist wrote:It's both.
Freddie Star wrote:No it isn't. It is simply people eating the wrong food and not brushing their teeth.
"Dental decay is rife" Thats nothing to do with floride, its to do with a masive lack of funding for NHS dentists.
TLC, Southampton says...
12:21pm Wed 6 Feb 08
There will be thousands of parents who will not be able to allow their child to drink tap water again and be forced to buy bottled water if they do not want their children to drink fluoride. This is disgraceful, and an outrage.
Its also unaffordable for most parents who wish to stop their children drinking what is a poison, albeit in a low dose.
Its very simple to see why fluoride should not be added to water:
after all, why should we not swallow toothpaste, why is it meant to be rinsed away? because you shouldnt swallow the flouride
What are the health impacts? Well unfortunately a studies have shown links between fluoride and increased incidence of cancer.
It is not forgiveable to risk the deaths of some children just because some other parents are not that good at promoting oral hygiene of their children. At the end of the day childrens teeth fall out, and are replaced by adult teeth, if there are a few fillings so what.
It does not justify the risk of condemning others to death from osteosarcoma.
TLC, Southampton says...
12:31pm Wed 6 Feb 08
A study has shown that fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, but so far there is no evidence that the same is true for girls.
Research from 2005 suggested that boys who are exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19.
The sudy was conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health.
The effects were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain.
This was the first study examining the linkage between exposure to fluoride at this critical period of child development and the age of onset of bone cancer.
Osteosarcoma is not common, but it is particularly dangerous.
The death rate in the first five years after diagnosis is around 50%, and almost all survivors end up with limbs amputated, typically legs.
The Environmental Working Group (which is a respected Washington-based research organisation) reported that it had brought together a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has requested that fluoride in tap water should be included on the US govt's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
John, Southampton says...
12:44pm Wed 6 Feb 08
- the independent facts do not support 'massive' improvements to teeth when fluoride is in the water.
- it is extremely difficult to remove fluoride from the water. Most filters cannot do it, but very expensive reverse osmosis will.
- the government pays the British Fluoridation Society (a pressure group) thousand of pounds to produce documents for them. Is it a surprise that they use the wrong statistics and ignore the mountain of evidence of health problems from fluoride?
- most European countries either ban fluoride or refuse to put it in their water
- over 1400 professionals are calling fro water fluoridation to stop world-wide due to the serious health problems identified in recent research.
TLC, Southampton says...
12:51pm Wed 6 Feb 08
The pineal gland is responsible for a large range of regulating activities (it produces serotonin and melatonin).
High levels of fluoride in the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals produced by the pineal gland have been found in cadavers in the UK when tested . One study showed an average of 9000 ppm and rose as high as 21,000 in one example. These fluoride levels are at, or above, fluoride levels in the bones of victims of skeletal fluorosis
In an animal study melatonin production was found to be lower in animals treated with high levels of fluoride .
One hypothesis is that one of the four enzymes needed to convert the amino acid tryptophan (from the diet) into melatonin is being inhibited by fluoride. It could be one of the two enzymes which convert tryptophan to serotonin or one of the two which convert serotonin to melatonin.
What is the significance of this?
It could be very significant.
Melatonin is involved in the regulation of many activities and much work is ongoing investigating its possible roles in aging, cancer and many other biological processes.
May fluoride be found in the future to affect onset of puberty? depression? mental health? dementia? ageing? cancer? sleep problems?
It is clear there is much work yet to do, and that it is completely irresponsible to add what is essentially a poison albeit in low dosage to the water supply.
Saying no evidence has been found that there can be problems for human health is not good enough, and does not seem to be true, as even the most cursory web search shows the research into these matter and the concerns.
The precautionary principle should be employed, and this should not be added to our water.
TLC, Southampton says...
1:56pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Research shows that the effects
include:
Increased bone fractures.
Osteosarcoma (bone cancers) in young men.
Brain damage and Alzheimers disease.
Lead toxicity and more violent crime in
fluoridated areas.
Girls start menstruating earlier
Mens sperm cells are
damaged by fluorine.
Greater incidence of miscarriages.
Fluorine is toxic to the thyroid gland causing hypothyroidism. This can cause mental problems, hyperactivity and a lower IQ.
Ironically it also causes hypoplasia, defective tooth enamel.
1% of the population are hypersensitive to fluoride at 1 mg per
day. The exposure for people living in fluoridated areas is estimated to be between
1.6 and 6.6 mg per day.
At 1 ppm in water, fluoride inhibits DNA repair activity, and has been found to cause
genetic and chromosome damage.
Fluorine disrupts many crucial enzymes, sometimes at tiny trace levels of fluorine.
Big Clem, Southampton says...
2:22pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Curious, says...
3:50pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Big Clem wrote:Isn't it the case that Southern Water have to do what they are told?
Of course it is wrong. Do as I have, write to Southern Water with your objections as well.
margret geraghty, winchester says...
3:53pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Big Clem, Southampton says...
4:14pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Jo, says...
4:20pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Adrian Smith, says...
4:27pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Big Clem wrote:If Southern Water do indeed have the choice how will they know what their customers want? Will there be a proper count of the votes, with all the material facts laid before us?
Southern Water hve stated that if the majority of their customers object to fluoridation, they will not do it.
I assume that the underclass will not even bother to read the paperwork so it looks like the people who might benefit most from this contamination of the water supply will not be voting.
Hampster, inside Freddie Starr / Hampshire says...
4:51pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Do not impose this poison on us!!!
Daniel Malcolm, Southampton says...
4:53pm Wed 6 Feb 08
'Fluoridating water is essentially medicating people
without their permission, and the European Convention on Human Rights
and Biomedicine distinctly states that individuals have the right not
to be medicated without their consent.'
-taken from a mail from the Green party
also i remember reading once that fluoride was used by the nazis to help control prisoners. With our liberties being taken bit by bit in the name of protection from 'terrorists', it would certainly make it easier for them to dumb us down chemically to ease the process.
Kriss-Kross, Southampton says...
4:55pm Wed 6 Feb 08
I am heavily opposed to this method of chemical warfare on the people of Hampshire!!!
Ken, says...
5:23pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Fluoridation may well be highly beneficial for those who are too ignorant, stupid, careless and irresponsible to take the trouble to care for their teeth and those of their children, but why should I have to put up with it in MY water supply. In this blame society I'm surprised that the 'victims' of bad teeth have not been sueing the water companies for NOT putting fluoride in.
Colgate, Soton says...
5:33pm Wed 6 Feb 08
TLC, Southampton says...
5:40pm Wed 6 Feb 08
see the advice about people who brush regularly needing ot use lower fluoride toothpaste to avoid fluorosis in the pct guidance...
its a joke!
they cannot do this to us. We should take it to the european court if they try it.
This is medication without consent, and I for one will never give consent.
Folk need to be mobilised to make sure this doesnt happen.
Folk need to lobby the PCT, and also send letter to Alan Johnson, and Southern Water, and I would suggest the echo
Someone used to campaigning and with the time should take this up
TLC, Southampton says...
5:48pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Fluoride Toothpaste is a topical agent for teeth. Additional fluoride should not be added in the water so it is ingested and affects the whole system
This goes against the whole principe of targeted healthcare. In cancer research, we are trying to direct cancer killing poisons to the relevant diseased tissue via cell markers etc.
By contrast this fluoridation means folk every time they take a drink of water will be ingesting a poison, for the rest of their lives, and one that has been shown to be accumulated in the body.
Its disgraceful
We did not want irradiated food, we did not want undeclared GM products in our food, we did not want our animals turned into cannibals leading to spongiform encephalopathies....
.
and we do not want this fluoridation....
When will people learn not to meddle in this irresponsible way?
Elvishitler, Disgraceland says...
6:16pm Wed 6 Feb 08
I wonder which ministers have got shares in the flouride treatment companies and which have shares in the bottled water companies?.. both of which are likely to see massive increases if this ridiculous scheme is allowed to happen.
No thank you.
Mark Mywords, Southampton says...
6:23pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Mrs. M E Brown, Titchfield Common says...
7:30pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Brian H Rendle, says...
9:09pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Forced medication has got to be wrong.
Mr Alan johnson shoud be sacked
Jean, says...
11:00pm Wed 6 Feb 08
"Southern Water have stated that if the majority of their customers object to fluoridation, they will not do it."
I think, it may be the case now that they are obligated to by law. Perhaps you should double check with them on that one.
margret geraghty, winchester says...
11:02am Thu 7 Feb 08
expressing my objection to fluoridation of the water supply. I suggest that other worried customers do the same.
Daniel, Southampton says...
4:22pm Thu 7 Feb 08
rosielee, southampton says...
9:08pm Thu 7 Feb 08
Daniel wrote:well Daniel I would contradict this statement and suggest you do your homework properly, I did some years ago when this was first proposed , I was horrified by pictures I saw in an article in a magazine where they had been carrying out trials of fluoridation in the water system of a small village in Brazil, the result was severely maimed and deformed children and adults, I still have this magazine it is all I need to oppose totally this suggestion.
I have written to Southern Water supporting the fluoridation of my water supply. Having spoken to professionals in the areas of the country that it has been added it appear to be making a extremely postive impact on people lives, especially children from deprived communities (of which we have many).
margret geraghty, winchester says...
11:05am Fri 8 Feb 08
Daniel wrote:Daniel, I wonder whether you have considered why it is having 'an extremely positive impact' on deprived children's lives. And what exactly do you mean by deprived? Deprived of sweets? Deprived of good nutrition? Deprived of proper dental care? Fluoridation is a short term fix. It saves the government money and that is the real reason the government wants it added to the water. Its addition will have a two-tier effect. Those of us who don't like it and have the money to do something about it will install reverse-osmosis units to filter the substance out. The poor do not have that option.
I have written to Southern Water supporting the fluoridation of my water supply. Having spoken to professionals in the areas of the country that it has been added it appear to be making a extremely postive impact on people lives, especially children from deprived communities (of which we have many).
Robbie, Soton says...
11:49am Fri 8 Feb 08
fluoride camelford
This will make your minds up about fluoridation.
(Incidentally, Camelford is in Cornwall)
Sarah Whiting, Southampton says...
7:08pm Fri 8 Feb 08
Jennifer, Hampshire says...
7:23pm Mon 7 Jul 08
In 1999, Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
"In view of the absence of any relevant scientific studies cited in the US Review of Fluoride, 1991, referred to in the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 8 February (WA 1-2), whether they can quote any other scientific sources in support of their belief that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic side-effect of fluoride and not an indication of early toxicity."
Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. . " - (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.).
It is estimated that, as in Ireland, 48% - 54% of children living in fluoridated areas develop dental fluorosis, which dentists refuse to treat on the NHS.
Claire, Hampshire says...
3:23pm Wed 3 Sep 08
Pavel, Hedge End says...
3:03am Fri 24 Oct 08
In this section
- Teenage boy seriously hurt after "free running"
- Court told of bloody scene following stabbing at party
- Bogus workmen steal OAP’s cash
- Car dealer denies £500K VAT fiddle
- Detectives given more time to quiz murder suspects
- Owner of giant dog spoken to by police
- Allotment land solution to burials
- Binmen to spy on your rubbish
- Give us a vote on fluoride
- Police will target yobs
Sponsored Links
|
|
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
One Dollar, Southampton says...
9:43am Wed 6 Feb 08