Health bosses in north-west postpone consultation scheme (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Health bosses in north-west postpone consultation scheme
9:25am Monday 27th July 2009 in
-
- By Jon Reeve » Education Reporter
PLANS to fluoridate other parts of the UK have been put on hold – because of the campaign against the scheme in Hampshire.
Health bosses have postponed a consultation on a scheme to fluoridate parts of the north-west to wait for the results of a legal challenge against the decision to add the chemical to water supplies in and around Southampton.
The High Court is currently considering an application for a judicial review of South Central Strategic Health Author-ity’s (SHA) move to give the controversial scheme the green light.
The Hampshire scheme is the first in the country to be approved since a change in the law over how fluoridation is introduced.
A Southampton woman has been granted legal aid to lodge the legal bid, because she believes health bosses should not have approved the plans because of public opposition.
Papers have been filed by her solicitors and the SHA, and a senior judge is currently considering if there is a case to answer.
A decision is expected imminently.
If a review goes ahead and the decision is ruled unlawful, it could mean plans to add fluoride to the water supplies of almost 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams have to be scrapped.
The SHA has set aside £400,000 to fight the challenge, saying it has done nothing wrong.
It has always insisted it met or exceeded all its legal requirements during the 14-week public consultation last year.
The pending legal action has already been given as a reason for the Government not intervening in the fluoride row, after campaigners collected 15,000 names on a petition urging action, and the health ombudsman not investigating the SHA.
Now it means other similar schemes have been put on the back burner.
Primary care trusts in the north-west were due to be asked to consider fluoridation plans this summer, but that has now been put back until at least the autumn, and possibly next year.
In a statement, NHS North West’s chief executive Mike Farrar said costs of potential schemes in the area, which could cover Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria, have “increased significantly”.
“Should permission be granted, the process may take several months and it is prudent for NHS North West to wait for the outcome before committing significant resources on this matter,” said Mr Farrar.
Comments(33)
freemantlegirl2
says...
10:30am Mon 27 Jul 09
Will be interested to see the results - power to the people! ;)
Swalk
says...
11:09am Mon 27 Jul 09
steve7676
says...
11:20am Mon 27 Jul 09
allsaintsnocurves
says...
12:15pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Swalk wrote:very well said. I totally agree with freemantlegirl in that I don't have strong feelings either way. It could be a good thing if it happened but if the majority opposed it wouldn't be too upset it not happening.
I agree with you freemantlegirl, this is as much about democracy and the accountability of public bodies as it is about fluoride. If you stay silent, you will lose your democratic voice and be steamrollered by those who think they know better
This is a case of the public having a say in whether it should happen or not. Like most of the things under Tony Blair's dictatorship we have for too long had to accept changes without having a say. We had to accept Gordon Brown as our new Prime Minister when clearly he is not fit for the job!
allsaintsnocurves
says...
12:20pm Mon 27 Jul 09
It can also be a very useful tool or reducing cavities/tooth decay and considering British people are not renowned for their healthy teeth any help on this front wouldn't be too bad.
That said...see my previous post. Am not pro or against the idea.
Andy Locks Heath
says...
12:24pm Mon 27 Jul 09
steve7676 wrote:If I wanted to know the chemistry of fluoride I'd ask a chemist, not an American with a degree in google. If you knew what you were talking about you'd separate the reasonable from the extreme, but you are just another peculiar American obsessive who gets steamed up by this issue for some reason nobody can quite figure out. Still, from a nation where 50% of the population think the Old Testament is a literal historical truth and the other 50% think they've been abducted by aliens it's no surprise. Spare us the chemistry lesson son, we've got chemists over here with the gift of objectivity. Go read some Al Gore if you really need to see complex data in the hands of a simpleton.
To understand fluoride you need to know that fluoride is a gas. It readily combines with calcium and sodium ect. So it may be best to refer to it as fluoride and its salts. It is in soils and is mined but that does not make it a mineral or does it make it safe. So that is where the idea to claim thats its a nutrient came from. India has so much in their soil they suffer from crippling from drinking the water. The western US has high fluoride soil levels so the EPA in `92 raised the MCL level to allow the people to drink what little ground water they have. Reverses osmosis gets rid of all fluoride but the process waste water.So not only do we have a problem with some the soils,the aluminum and phosphate plants have a lot of fluoride from their scrubbers. Hydrofluorosilicic Acid or H2SiF6 is the name of the fluoride they drip in the water,one of its salts,but this one is a lot more toxic then the kind in ground water- don`t be fooled. Realize the seriousness of this,what you are witnessing is the greatest scientific fraud in history. There is no issue more important than this one.We need to stop water fluoridation now.
Big Boy
says...
2:01pm Mon 27 Jul 09
TwistedWitch
says...
2:33pm Mon 27 Jul 09
allsaintsnocurves wrote:So is regular use of a toothbrush and flouride toothpaste if you so desire. It does not mean that I should have to have it force fed to me because some parents are too **** idle to teach their children proper dental hygiene.
I think Steve7676 is a little strong on your view there. Flouridation is very common in the US which kind of contradicts what you say.
It can also be a very useful tool or reducing cavities/tooth decay and considering British people are not renowned for their healthy teeth any help on this front wouldn't be too bad.
That said...see my previous post. Am not pro or against the idea.
I gave my Daughter flouride drops right from 3 months old, as recommended by my dentist. BIG mistake, when her baby teeth came through they were all mottled and disgusting looking, like they were already rotting away. An overdose of flouride was what the dentist put it down to, and I had stuck rigidly to the dosage instructions on the bottle too. KEEP FLOURIDE OUT OF OUR DRINKING WATER. TW
Swalk
says...
3:28pm Mon 27 Jul 09
"...you are just another peculiar American obsessive who gets steamed up by this issue for some reason nobody can quite figure out..."
NOBODY? Haven't you been reading the Echo for the last year? (yes of course you have). Bang goes your argument mate
nobodysitinhere
says...
3:40pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Password 'flow grey' how right somehow
Andy Locks Heath
says...
3:49pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Swalk wrote:So how many American provincial newspapers do you read then swalk? None? Then why do Americans continually come onto any Echo thread as soon as it is launched quoting reams of illelevant pseudo scientific tripe? If you use your brain you should deduce that whatever your own views on fluoride this country has more health and safety safeguards than just about anywhere, so for some religious crank to come on here as though this is Bhopal and Union Carbide are about to dump their waste in our water supply is clearly stupid and extreme. However you have fallen for it so I suppose you've justified the crank coming on again next time as well. Anyway bang goes your smugness "darling"
Andy said:
"...you are just another peculiar American obsessive who gets steamed up by this issue for some reason nobody can quite figure out..."
NOBODY? Haven't you been reading the Echo for the last year? (yes of course you have). Bang goes your argument mate
Swalk
says...
4:51pm Mon 27 Jul 09
freemantlegirl2
says...
5:03pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Back to commenting on fluoride after the Echo has censored ALL our comments on the surrogacy story !! Tut tut Echo! whilst i don't agree with every comment there, censoring them isn't the answer!
LL
says...
5:06pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Children are losing teeth and that is the argument to do this. They give them free toothbrushes and toothpaste from babies onward and still we get the problem.
Why should I, having brought up two kids with zero cavities (they brushed morning and night) be forced to have this chemical in my water?
If parents actually did some parenting once in a while we wouldn't have the problem.
As usual the powers that be are bowing to the 'nanny state' brigade and the ordinary man/woman in the street is going to pay.
And I would love to know how they deal with people like my husband who has a flouride allergy. Does that mean he has to use bottled water fro the rest of his life?
steve7676
says...
5:18pm Mon 27 Jul 09
freemantlegirl2
says...
5:33pm Mon 27 Jul 09
LL wrote:I never got free toothbrushes/toothpa
I do not want to be medicated against my will which in effect is what would happen if the water was flouridated.
Children are losing teeth and that is the argument to do this. They give them free toothbrushes and toothpaste from babies onward and still we get the problem.
Why should I, having brought up two kids with zero cavities (they brushed morning and night) be forced to have this chemical in my water?
If parents actually did some parenting once in a while we wouldn't have the problem.
As usual the powers that be are bowing to the 'nanny state' brigade and the ordinary man/woman in the street is going to pay.
And I would love to know how they deal with people like my husband who has a flouride allergy. Does that mean he has to use bottled water fro the rest of his life?
ste! what a swizz!!
How do you know your husband is allergic to fluoride? how did you find out? (genuine question)
As I say, I can see both sides of argument I come down firmly on the side of healthy public debate, and if the majority are against it then they don't force it in. I hav e to say the arguments 'for' aren't very convincing. Oh and don't judge all parents who have to have work on their children's teeth. My daughter's enamel didn't form properly as i took anti-biotics in pregnancy and her teeth were affected. I was gutted when she had to have some out :( I felt like I'd inflicted it on her in some way :( :( My other three children are fine thankgoodness.
S Pance
says...
7:11pm Mon 27 Jul 09
After all, only an idiot would be against something that IMPROVES the dental health of millions.
They should just get on with fluoridating the supply rather than wasting tie arguing with a small MINORITY.
SW=just-flow
S Pance
says...
7:13pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Andy Locks Heath
says...
7:27pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Jim Schultz
says...
7:29pm Mon 27 Jul 09
When tested most dentists get the science dead wrong or just as taught. Yoder K.M. 2007 tested every dental professional in Indiana with 17% getting the science correct and 14% in Illinois. This is below shameful ignorance. Yet these are the go to people that lead the debate. Public health is about following blindly policy. They have huge amounts of money to lead the direction and many still respect the title. Most news services blindly follow but not all. The Echo seems to be getting both sides out.
There is no data or testing showing safety of this cumulative toxic chemical. The UK York review 2000 has been widely misquoted said the Chair DR Sheltdon who had to clear the lies up stating did not show safety or even a single high quality Class A bias unlikely study in the 3200 they looked at. garbage in and garbage out is a rule in computing.
Jenjo
says...
8:06pm Mon 27 Jul 09
S Pance wrote:1) Even if that is true, they have no moral right to encourage the SHA and Southern Water to introduce it into someone else's water supply if they don't want it
The majority of people I have spoen to are IN FAVOUR of fluoride being added.
After all, only an idiot would be against something that IMPROVES the dental health of millions.
They should just get on with fluoridating the supply rather than wasting tie arguing with a small MINORITY.
SW=just-flow
2) There is no proof of that, never has been, not even the SHA has managed to point to a single piece of evidence, but many people like your mates have fallen for their hype, poor souls
Bemused reader
says...
8:50pm Mon 27 Jul 09
freemantlegirl2
says...
9:13pm Mon 27 Jul 09
n on this site?? I'm with Andy on this one! Scientology is definitely about....
Well said, this is NOT about the debate of fluoride vs non-fluoride- it's about giving people power to challenge those assumptions and not just have it forced upon us. They may say they had 'public consultation' but frankly they would have still gone ahead without the challenges from ordinary individuals.
Jenjo
says...
9:48pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Rob444
says...
10:08pm Mon 27 Jul 09
S Pance wrote:But why should they incur the cost of an expensive piece of equipment (plus running costs)?
Anyone against fluoridation can always buy a REVERSE OSMOSIS filter.
Anyone who wants to ingest the stuff can always use fluoride drops/tablets for a fraction of the price.
Rob444
says...
10:10pm Mon 27 Jul 09
S Pance wrote:You have completely missed the point.
The majority of people I have spoen to are IN FAVOUR of fluoride being added.
After all, only an idiot would be against something that IMPROVES the dental health of millions.
They should just get on with fluoridating the supply rather than wasting tie arguing with a small MINORITY.
SW=just-flow
be realistic
says...
10:38pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Rob444
says...
10:48pm Mon 27 Jul 09
be realistic wrote:Apparently it's government policy.
Has anyone asked why the SHA are really pushing the fluoride so much? I wonder if there's money to be made in the dumping of the waste.
be realistic
says...
11:53pm Mon 27 Jul 09
Big Boy
says...
5:40am Tue 28 Jul 09
Swalk
says...
8:12am Tue 28 Jul 09
goard
says...
10:28am Tue 28 Jul 09
goard
More News stories
- Chris Huhne resigns but insists: "I'm innocent"
- Charlie is a big bundle of joy
- Snake owner thrust python at firefighter
- Redknapp jury told to keep their eye on the ball
- Primary teacher is charged with rape
- Free Titanic museum tickets for city residents
- Liverpool to launch turnaround cruises within months, leader claims
- Councillor quits days before disqualification
- Win tickets to see Le Tiss on tour
- Inquest opened into body on the beach
Protests put fluoride plans on back burner
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Big Boy says...
10:18am Mon 27 Jul 09