News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Southampton councillors vote to back fluoride plans


SOUTHAMPTON’S councillors last night voted to back plans to add fluoride to the city’s water to give thousands of “poor kids rich kids’ teeth”.

Health chiefs want to improve dental health among youngsters in the city by controversially adding fluoride to the tap water delivered to two-thirds of residents.

In a free vote city councillors voted 26 to 18 to endorse the request by the city’s primary care trust after a debate lasting just over an hour.

A special panel of councillors set up to examine the proposal had narrowly recommended that 160,000 city residents should have levels of fluoride in their tap water topped up from the natural 0.08 parts per million to one part per million.

Fluoride Debate In Depth - click here

Around 36,000 people living in Eastleigh, Totton and Netley would also be covered.

Critics raise ethical concerns and fears about side effects including mottled teeth, cancers, brittle bones, thyroid problems and lowered IQ. They warn resulting fluorosis would affect 8,000 people and cost £3,000 per treatment.

But councillor Peter Marsh-Jenks said the benefits were well established and pointed to fluoridation in the United States which had “the most lengthy testing regime in history” over the past 45 years.

Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

“There is clear evidence over the years this gives poor kids rich kids’ teeth,” he said.

Councillor Peter Baillie added: “If there had been a whiff of health problems we would be having people queuing up to sue.”

Councillor Edwina Cooke, who chaired the council’s inquiry into fluoridation, said: “I don’t believe the scientific evidence makes the case for the safety of adding fluoride to the water supply. I believe it’s a form of mass medication and not justified where there is adequate access to NHS dental health services across the city.”

About 50 anti-fluoride campaigners had earlier staged a rally outside the Civic Centre to lobby councillors and then packed out the public gallery of the council chamber. They admitted the result could turn out to be “crucial”.

John Spootiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said it threw “wide open” the final outcome after other neighbouring councils had voted against fluoridation.

He added: “It makes one ashamed to live under a council that is quite happy to force people across the city to drink water that is contaminated with a known toxin."

John Graham, vice-chairman of the National Pure Water Association, blasted: “Those who voted in favour have failed to recognise the right of Southampton people to refuse consent to medical intervention. Southampton people will be within their rights to refuse to pay for fluoridated water supplies they didn’t ask for.” He insisted: “Our campaign goes on.”

The final decision will be made by the South Central Strategic Health Authority in February.

If it goes ahead, consultants predict tooth decay in the area will fall by 25 per cent over the next 20 years.

What happens next

HAMPSHIRE County Council will today decide whether to join Test Valley and New Forest councils in opposing fluoridation.

The last drop-in event for members of the public to attend will be held at Nursling and Rownhams Village Hall on November 28.

A final Question Time-style debate will be held at St Mary’s Stadium on December 3.

ICM research will then conduct a poll of 2,000 people.

The 14-week public consultation by the South Central Strategic Health Authority finishes on December 19.

An associate of University of Birmingham will prepare a report for the SHA to consider compiling the responses to the consultation, although will not make any recommendation.

The results of the poll will be published.

At the end of February the SHA’s 12-member board will decide whether to give fluoridation the go ahead.

Fluoride would not be added to water until 2010 at the earliest if approved.


Comments(11)

hulla baloo says...
10:23am Thu 20 Nov 08

What is the legal standing should we refuse to pay our water bills due to invasive assault and deliberate poisoning?
No doubt if eveybody did it, then action must be taken.

Surely an test case for Human Rights Act is in the offing.


Security word even-drug

goard says...
11:15am Thu 20 Nov 08

Hulla Baloo, good idea but not everyone has the determination to assert their rights - not only that how far will our blogs go? All governing parties know that - their word spreads throughout the County but ours stop in the Echo (and thank goodness for them) I am not touching my fetlock to them - really, who else would champion the obvious concerns of our City?
Over the last few months the Council will surely realise they are acting against the grain of 1,000's - they do it at their peril!

goard

stuartjebbitt says...
11:59am Thu 20 Nov 08

errr...NO! I grew up in a fluoridated area, (Hong Kong), at 1ppm, and I certainly don't have 'Rich Kids Teeth' and nor did any of my family or friends.
The 'benefits' are being grossly overestimated. (Big profits all round?)
Interestingly, HK have since REDUCED their fluoride level to 0.5ppm, I wonder why?
Typically, the NHS is behind the rest of the world, were fluoridated water is seen as something from the past that doesn't really work half as well as getting people to clean their teeth.
The people of Southampton aren't being listened to - We don't want it.

Adrian Smith says...
12:05pm Thu 20 Nov 08

hulla baloo wrote:
What is the legal standing should we refuse to pay our water bills due to invasive assault and deliberate poisoning? No doubt if eveybody did it, then action must be taken. Surely an test case for Human Rights Act is in the offing. Security word even-drug
The legal standing will be tested - of that I have no doubt. What actually needs to happen next is for an injunction taken to stop the Council, water company and or Health Trust committing to any poison supply contracts until the case has been heard.

That may actually be the best way forward and I will speak to my lawyer about this tactic next week. At worst this will delay the poison, perhaps until the next elections in 2010 or a best kill this silly idea dead.

If anyone reading this wants to become involved more formally stay tuned.

southy says...
12:51pm Thu 20 Nov 08

to go though the courts on a human rights subject,you will need more wittness than the courts will allow,if you get told by the courts to limit the number of wittess then you got them, because then the council cant come back with an agument thats only a limited few people,the few has to apose of the mass argument

soton-mike80 says...
1:11pm Thu 20 Nov 08

I am not happy about the result of this decision and will not be drinking local tap water once this programme of poisoning the population starts. Thanks to this government and the strategic health authority - the cost of my living has just gone up - Doesn anyone know if I can claim this money back from SHA or Southern Water? ;o)

Phantomdoll says...
2:05pm Thu 20 Nov 08

Oh, for heaven's sake - all the fluoride in the world will not work as long as children are fed a diet of Coke and cakes and do not drink water instead of the sugary drinks they are allowed to drink. Anyway, why should those of us who are knocking on a bit and who have lost their own teeth be forced to take in something that will never do them any good. My teeth were fine and healthy - just sitting badly in my jaws so by the time I was 70 my teeth had all been removed. My background as a child was proper brushing and a proper diet so it was just misfortune that all my mother's hard work did not allow me to keep my teeth into old age - although my brother-in-law who is over 90 still has all of his!

haf says...
2:33pm Thu 20 Nov 08

I went to the council meeting last night, seemed like a life sentence, and had to wait until 7pm from 2pm before fluoridation came up. They voted 26 to 18 in favour. We got insulted as one councillor, extremely obese and ugly, said that we antis were mainly green and somewhat weird. Although I am not a green as he puts it and I hope not weird I would prefer that then to carry around the body he inhabits.
Several councillors said that West Midlands fluoridated for years proved that fluoridation improved teeth but at the last minute too late to make a difference the Chair person of the health scrutiny panel revealed, what we knew, fluoridated Coventry is getting £1.5 million because the children's teeth are is such a poor state. This money will go towards programmes of fluoride varnishes or fissure sealant.
Fluoridation works? OH NO IT DOESN'T. Yet according to government statistics the Coventry children have very low caries rates. Are they fiddled to make the West Midlands look good?
Despite the city councillors voting for fluoridation the Test Valley, Totton, Hampshire County and the New Forest District council have or are about to say no to fluoridation. There is one more Question Time event - try to get there and one month to write to anybody in the PCT or SHA to put over your views. We might still win if enough people take action.
By the way Dr Mortimer who started this does not read this column it upset him to read some of the remarks.
Bill

Jim Schultz says...
4:27pm Thu 20 Nov 08

Claims of thousands of tests but the very ugly truth is there has never ever been a single double blind test for animals or humams ever to show cavity reduction. H2SiF6 which is raw pollution directly from smokestack pollution scrubbers at phosphate plants has not ever been tested by any government agency in a chronic study for health or cavity reduction. This was admitted to congress in 2000 Calvert investigations of fluoridation. Never mentioned to the public is this waste is proven much more toxic then natural calcium fluoride with a LD 50 at least 25 times higher which means it is 25 times more toxic for killing rats. Lots of acute data for killing things. If you want to know the full list of contaminates just ask your water supplier for AWWA b703-06 which has the complete full page list of deadly contaminates typical. In the US they must test the product once a year but need not report this data to the public. The annual water quality report does not mention the specific fluoride added.It is rare to use sodium fluoride as the toxic sludge is so much cheaper. The big savings is that industry would have to pay 5 times more then tey charge the city to dispose of in a toxic waste dump.
In 1993 a NTR report showed that fluoridation was a a risk to unusually susceptable populations which inclued almost everyone. Seniors over 50 are high risk as well as babies, kidney patients, heart patients or anyone low on calcium,magnesium, vitamin c. The majority fall in one or many risk groups. They did no followup on this but claimed they were in 2000. It just goes on and on like this. The CDC and dentists are now going to try to get mandatory fluoridation in 20 states. Nebraska had 49 of 61 reject forced fluoridation against huge spending by government to sell them. The lawsuits are just starting for kidney damage,dental fluorosis and osteosarcoma cancers. Hang on this will get ugly.

Stubs says...
4:44pm Thu 20 Nov 08

I'm 26 and still got all my teeth.

Nutstrangler says...
11:01am Fri 21 Nov 08

Like Phantomdoll says, the children that this is supposed to benefit are the last ones in the world that are going to have anything to do with tapwater. Fizzy drinks, sweets, crisps, etc., and the total failure to clean their teeth are the reasons that there is so much tooth decay in the Southampton area. The Southampton councillors that stubbornly insist that this medication should be forced on people that have no wish for it, are Control Freaks of the worst kind.


Fluoride protesters gather outside the Civic Centre yesterday Fluoride protesters gather outside the Civic Centre yesterday

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses