Fluoride tide halted by ancient court (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Fluoride tide halted by ancient court
8:18am Wednesday 7th October 2009 in
-
- By Matt Smith » Politics and business reporter
IT took three times of asking and the casting vote of Southampton’s sheriff.
But Southampton’s ancient Court Leet agreed to ask the city council to rethink its support for adding fluoride to tap water.
Anti-fluoride campaigners seized the chance to put their case for councillors to vote again on the scheme, which would affect 160,000 city residents, following the extent of public opposition.
Some 72 per cent of the 10,000 responses to a consultation by the South Central Strategic health Authority were not in favour and its decision to press ahead is now subject to a judicial review.
The jury of court, which has sat since the 14th century to hear “presentments”
from citizens on matters of local concern, at first refused two requests for a fluoride rethink. A third request evenly split the jury after a couple of members left the session early and the sheriff, Councillor Carol Cunio, used her casting vote to accept it. The city council will now have to consider the court’s plea for another fluoride debate.
Hampshire Against Fluoride spokesman Stephen Peckham had told the court: “During the consultation the city council voted by a majority of four in favour of the scheme.
Since the health authority made their decision a number of councillors have expressed their disquiet about the decision and how it was made. If the council knew local residents were so opposed they may have made a different decision.”
Children from Weston Park Junior School joined Sheriff Cunio in the Beating the Bounds ceremony at the Bargate, an ancient tradition to observe a parish’s boundaries. The children won the backing of the court for the council to introduce more play equipment and activities in Weston.
Comments(13)
southy
says...
12:09pm Wed 7 Oct 09
Lone Ranger
says...
1:20pm Wed 7 Oct 09
southy wrote:Southy:- How will they know what the majority of the public want.
well done people, keep them busy force them in taking time over putting it in the water, till the next local election, when the socialist party can put up canididates for election to the local councils. they will listen to the public and go with what the majority wants from the public.
.
Judge it by comments made on here.
.
By the 2000 that signed a petition.
None of these show a majority of people.... they just show a selection of people.
.
Now you are going to say have a referendum......what a waste of more taxpayers money
southy
says...
3:11pm Wed 7 Oct 09
southy
says...
3:14pm Wed 7 Oct 09
ameliaS
says...
9:22pm Wed 7 Oct 09
Lone Ranger
says...
9:35pm Wed 7 Oct 09
southy wrote:That is not true Southy. You need paper and someone to count. Now i am useless at maths ( a bit like yourself ) but i would say for starters that is more than £500
also it would cost less than £500 to hold a referendum of this nature for the whole of hampshire.
jwillie6
says...
10:37pm Wed 7 Oct 09
southy
says...
11:55pm Wed 7 Oct 09
Lone Ranger wrote:it is less, its taken from government figures on how much it cost, from how much it cost to have an election, thats why they put that figure of £500 deposit on any one who wants to enter a general election, whitch are more expensive, a referendum of this nature would be a lot cheaper because a lot less people would be needed, for a start the police would not be needed, all what would be need is postal cards to each reg/voting people and a machine to count the votes, whitch is located in the royal mail local head office, the delivery of the postal vote cards are free, its part of the state own postal agreement, the most costly part is the postal cards them selfs but this is done on mass bulk so it would be dirt cheap.
southy wrote:That is not true Southy. You need paper and someone to count. Now i am useless at maths ( a bit like yourself ) but i would say for starters that is more than £500
also it would cost less than £500 to hold a referendum of this nature for the whole of hampshire.
Andy Locks Heath
says...
7:21am Thu 8 Oct 09
Swalk
says...
8:12am Thu 8 Oct 09
York Review - "no evidence that it is harmful" is palpably not the same thing as proof that it is safe! In any case, the York Review criticised the overall standard of research and said that more was needed
Thanks for giving me that chance to say that, Andy
southy
says...
3:41pm Thu 8 Oct 09
what maybe needed here is that the some information cant be got at, like what type of fluoride it is what its source who providing it, and where is it coming from, those facts are being hiden and its this that is the cause of miss-trust, we know to well what our government can be like, for testing some thing out on the population with out giving the full facts, or not even telling the public some times, like they did in the late 50's and early 60's when they sprayed dormant anthrax over the south coast, theres a level of miss trust with our governments where they dont come clean and give the full facts, if they did it would go a long way in helping.
andy chlorine, is very toxic and needs to be keep a close eye on, but sadly we need it in our drinking water, it kill the germs that can cause polo, chorea and other illness, it also keeps the water freash
jwillie6
says...
8:52pm Sun 11 Oct 09
Those promoting fluoridation simply refuse to read the current research showing it is ineffective and dangerous to health. Go to (www.fluoridealert.o
rg) and read several articles.
Read the letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback ( DDS, PhD Biochemistry) --- Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto entitled "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water"
He was the principal research advisor to the Canadian Dental Asociation for over 10 years in promoting fluoridation. His letter is an apology to other dentists and the public.
Over 140 Research studies listed, including:
Increased risk of bone cancer -- 13 studies
Lead, arsenic, radium contaminants causing toxic water -- 10 studies
Link with fluoride and other cancer -- 12
Fluoride causes birth defects -- 5
Fluoride affects the immune systems -- 12
Fluoride is neurotoxic (brain, nerves, lowering IQ) -- 11
Etc.
Also see the petition signed by over 2600 professionals opposing fluoridation.
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
Fluoride tide halted by ancient court
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Swalk says...
10:00am Wed 7 Oct 09