Southampton City Council votes against fluoride

5:59pm Wednesday 14th September 2011 in News Photograph of the Author By Matt Smith, Politics and business reporter

Council votes against fluoride Council votes against fluoride

Southampton councillors have voted to oppose controversial plans to fluoridate to the city's water supplies.

By a majority of around 2-1, city councillors backed a motion opposing the addition of fluoride to tap water to fight tooth decay.

And councillors agreed to use any future powers the authority may be given to prevent the implementation of a proposed fluoridation scheme by health chiefs.

Under the Government's proposed NHS reforms, councils are due to be handed powers over fluoridation schemes when strategic health authorities (SHA) are scrapped in 2013.

Opponents of the proposed Hampshire scheme gathered a 6,000 name petition to force Southampton City Council to debate a motion on withdrawing its backing for fluoridation.

Hampshire Against Fluoridation sent an open letter to all 48 elected officials urging them to vote to oppose adding the chemical to tap water.

South Central SHA is working with Southern Water to determine how fluoride will be added, after defeating a High Court legal challenge.

During public consultation in 2008, the council backed the fluoride plans, to affect nearly 200,000 people in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

Related links

Comments(26)

Condor Man says...
6:11pm Wed 14 Sep 11

a victory for common sense. Toothpaste isn't expensive, people should have better dental hygiene.

Report this post »

Bagamn says...
6:22pm Wed 14 Sep 11

A point to say that at least someone is listening to what people are saaying on this subject. Less Smarties and more toothpaste seems to be the order of the day.

Report this post »

Rhombus says...
6:30pm Wed 14 Sep 11

People should always have a choice. The Green party call it a poison which I believe is a little harsh but nothing like this should be forced upon people.
As above , reach for the brush and lay off the choccys.

Report this post »

For pity sake says...
6:39pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Just put the flouride in McD's burgers to target the chavs - job done.

Report this post »

For pity sake says...
6:41pm Wed 14 Sep 11

...sorry, "fluoride"...

Report this post »

Gainer T Gopher says...
6:41pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Condor Man wrote:
a victory for common sense. Toothpaste isn't expensive, people should have better dental hygiene.
You say that toothpaste isn't expensive, but think of those poor people on benefits.... if they have a choice.... extra can of beer or toothpaste for the kids... how many will go for the beer....

I know for a fact there are schools in Southampton who supply tooth brushes and toothpaste which is left at school because the parents don't buy it at home....

Report this post »

RadicalEmu says...
7:11pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Result.

Report this post »

forest hump says...
7:22pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Rhombus wrote:
People should always have a choice. The Green party call it a poison which I believe is a little harsh but nothing like this should be forced upon people. As above , reach for the brush and lay off the choccys.
The Green Party are both poisinous and dangerous

Report this post »

RadicalEmu says...
7:29pm Wed 14 Sep 11

forest hump wrote:
Rhombus wrote:
People should always have a choice. The Green party call it a poison which I believe is a little harsh but nothing like this should be forced upon people. As above , reach for the brush and lay off the choccys.
The Green Party are both poisinous and dangerous
Howso?

Report this post »

Huffter says...
7:30pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Gainer T Gopher wrote:
Condor Man wrote: a victory for common sense. Toothpaste isn't expensive, people should have better dental hygiene.
You say that toothpaste isn't expensive, but think of those poor people on benefits.... if they have a choice.... extra can of beer or toothpaste for the kids... how many will go for the beer.... I know for a fact there are schools in Southampton who supply tooth brushes and toothpaste which is left at school because the parents don't buy it at home....
How many people buy toothbrushes and toothpaste at home? Most of us go to a shop...

Report this post »

Maine Lobster says...
7:34pm Wed 14 Sep 11

It would be nice to know which Councillors voted for and against.

Report this post »

Gainer T Gopher says...
7:47pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Huffter wrote:
Gainer T Gopher wrote:
Condor Man wrote: a victory for common sense. Toothpaste isn't expensive, people should have better dental hygiene.
You say that toothpaste isn't expensive, but think of those poor people on benefits.... if they have a choice.... extra can of beer or toothpaste for the kids... how many will go for the beer.... I know for a fact there are schools in Southampton who supply tooth brushes and toothpaste which is left at school because the parents don't buy it at home....
How many people buy toothbrushes and toothpaste at home? Most of us go to a shop...
good point, the parents don't go to the shops to steal or buy toothbrushes or/and toothpaste....

How's that Brother, OR sister Huffter....

Report this post »

Shergold says...
7:50pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Hi Main Lobster

I went to this meeting just to see what councillors are in touch with real info. About 2/3 voted against the fluoride scheme.
Those councillors that were on planet Zonk with their ridiculous outdated info (and partly insulting the rest of us that did real homework) were: Councillors Noon, Furnell,Bogle, Jones and Lets.
These guys had just picked up a few distorted facts on the internet (and even contradicted government figures) which in its self shows how ignorant they are - or maybe they have their pension plans tied up in the fluoride industries??
A few abstained.

Report this post »

Shergold says...
7:52pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Hi Main Lobster

I went to this meeting just to see what councillors are in touch with real info. About 2/3 voted against the fluoride scheme.
Those councillors that were on planet Zonk with their ridiculous outdated info (and partly insulting the rest of us that did real homework) were: Councillors Noon, Furnell,Bogle, Jones and Lets.
These guys had just picked up a few distorted facts on the internet (and even contradicted government figures) which in its self shows how ignorant they are - or maybe they have their pension plans tied up in the fluoride industries??
A few abstained.

Report this post »

tuesday says...
9:04pm Wed 14 Sep 11

you can buy toothpaste for as little as 50p at tube and brushes for about the same in some supermarkets,so there really is no excuse!

Report this post »

Nutstrangler says...
9:12pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Right, so what difference is this going to make ? South Central SHA appear still to be hell-bent on adding this stuff to the water supply, despite anything that Southampton Council decides. How can it be stopped ?

Report this post »

Nutstrangler says...
9:12pm Wed 14 Sep 11

Right, so what difference is this going to make ? South Central SHA appear still to be hell-bent on adding this stuff to the water supply, despite anything that Southampton Council decides. How can it be stopped ?

Report this post »

tootle says...
7:44am Thu 15 Sep 11

Probably no difference at all but might get the Councillors re-elected after showing they agree with the majority.

Personally I think it is due to parenting and genetics. Putting Fluoride in the water is all very well but when the child is sent out to play all day(yep, pre-schoolers too) and left to fend for themselves just how much water are they going to be drinking?. Then there's water meters - not got one yet so no idea on price but it puts a cost on every drop you drink, is Lemonade going to be cheaper?

Report this post »

localnews says...
10:31am Thu 15 Sep 11

tootle wrote:
Probably no difference at all but might get the Councillors re-elected after showing they agree with the majority.

Personally I think it is due to parenting and genetics. Putting Fluoride in the water is all very well but when the child is sent out to play all day(yep, pre-schoolers too) and left to fend for themselves just how much water are they going to be drinking?. Then there's water meters - not got one yet so no idea on price but it puts a cost on every drop you drink, is Lemonade going to be cheaper?
rubbish !!!! i'm in my fifties,when we were kids we went out ALL day and found things to do,did'nt stop us brushing our teeth 2/3 times a day,kids today spend more time on computers and games consuls FACT

Report this post »

StEmmosfire says...
11:23am Thu 15 Sep 11

Good, all we need now is to stop that bleeding Nuclear Sub coming in here.

Report this post »

The Wickham Man says...
11:34am Thu 15 Sep 11

Shergold wrote:
Hi Main Lobster I went to this meeting just to see what councillors are in touch with real info. About 2/3 voted against the fluoride scheme. Those councillors that were on planet Zonk with their ridiculous outdated info (and partly insulting the rest of us that did real homework) were: Councillors Noon, Furnell,Bogle, Jones and Lets. These guys had just picked up a few distorted facts on the internet (and even contradicted government figures) which in its self shows how ignorant they are - or maybe they have their pension plans tied up in the fluoride industries?? A few abstained.
....And which distorted out of date figures have you been picking up on the internet then? Or perhaps you could just confirm at which university you obtained your biochemistry degree. Or did you just learn how to assimilate the raw data by osmosis? All you selfish antis assume that this is all about you - and that your precious principles are actually more important than the health issue. What about the chuildren of underclass parents as Gainer already pointed out, who are never taught or encouraged to look after their teeth by their thick parents and by the age of 20 have looks that will count against them for life? I don't care about fluoride because I brush my teeth anyway and I'm happy to sacrifice my so called "principles" if it can help kids in any way shape or form. I couldn't care less about the adults.

Report this post »

abitinsider says...
5:00pm Thu 15 Sep 11

It's a good decision to prevent good water from being poisoned.
Those fluoridationists neither know to what extent "caries reduction by fluoride" is a pure artefact due to fluoride-caused tooth eruption delay nor have they ever accounted for the very probable possibility that the rest of the "effect" is an error, due to proven non-fluoride influences including the newly discovered massive geographical overlap of sunshine/UVB (which produces the caries-reducing vitamin D) and natural fluoride in the drinking waters of Denmark - where today's impressive "demonstrations" for an alleged "benefit" of fluoride come from.

Not a single scientific study takes these 2 essential influences into account right from the beginning,
while 1981-6 WHO data of caries and natural fluoride in water in states like Spain, Greece, Malta, Sri Lanka demonstrate rather a deterioration of caries than a benefit, with more fluoride in the water.

At present knowledge the outcome of a water fluoridation is completely unpredictable therefore, it's an experiment in which a huge increase of uncurable fluorosis is certain, lowering of IQ and many other conditions will occur most probably.

Report this post »

juanmaximer says...
10:33pm Fri 16 Sep 11

The York report is the latest publicly funded authority on the issue of fluoridation in the UK. Its conclusion was that there is "insufficient evidence on any particular outcome to reach conclusions". In the US, one of the latest public studies also reached a similar conclusion "before any conclusions can be drawn, more research is needed to clarify the relationship between fluoride ingestion, fluoride concentrations in bone, and stages of skeletal fluorosis" (Board on Environmental Studies & Toxicology, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards). Holland has banned fluoridation outright. Even some the minority of countries that have it are having second thoughts. Ireland has recently reduced its level from 1ppm to 0.7ppm. You should also know, that the Health Authority plans to fluoridate at levels of 1ppm. Studies at levels of 4ppm ARE conclusive in showing detrimental health effects. Now, consider this, what if some people drink more water than others, or ingest fluoride more than others? Some people are going to be ingesting fluoride at levels that is going to be clearly at a level that is more harmful to them. Remember we are talking about a toxic chemical, that is a by-product of an industrial process which normally has to be disposed of at great cost. Without going into more technical details, just think of the logic of it. The idea is that this chemical, instead of being applied topically to your teeth like toothpaste, has to pass through your body's system, be absorbed by your bloodstream, be processed by your organs, and is then supposed to end up in your teeth to fight dental caries. Also you should know that the evidence that water fluoridation at 1ppm has any effect on dental caries is very dubious. But the scientific arguments aside- if after a public consultation which the Government by statute has said is mandatory, what right have the Health Authority to put fluoride in the water against the consent of the vast majority (72%) of people? They just ignored the consultation and the views of the population. Its not like its even necessary. Remember, water fluoridation is not supposed to benefit anyone over 5 years old. The 5 year olds its supposed to benefit are a small % in deprived areas of Southampton. Surely there's a better way to go about this, rather than treat us as guinea pigs.

Report this post »

juanmaximer says...
10:34pm Fri 16 Sep 11

The York report is the latest publicly funded authority on the issue of fluoridation in the UK. Its conclusion was that there is "insufficient evidence on any particular outcome to reach conclusions". In the US, one of the latest public studies also reached a similar conclusion "before any conclusions can be drawn, more research is needed to clarify the relationship between fluoride ingestion, fluoride concentrations in bone, and stages of skeletal fluorosis" (Board on Environmental Studies & Toxicology, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards). Holland has banned fluoridation outright. Even some the minority of countries that have it are having second thoughts. Ireland has recently reduced its level from 1ppm to 0.7ppm. You should also know, that the Health Authority plans to fluoridate at levels of 1ppm. Studies at levels of 4ppm ARE conclusive in showing detrimental health effects. Now, consider this, what if some people drink more water than others, or ingest fluoride more than others? Some people are going to be ingesting fluoride at levels that is going to be clearly at a level that is more harmful to them. Remember we are talking about a toxic chemical, that is a by-product of an industrial process which normally has to be disposed of at great cost. Without going into more technical details, just think of the logic of it. The idea is that this chemical, instead of being applied topically to your teeth like toothpaste, has to pass through your body's system, be absorbed by your bloodstream, be processed by your organs, and is then supposed to end up in your teeth to fight dental caries. Also you should know that the evidence that water fluoridation at 1ppm has any effect on dental caries is very dubious. But the scientific arguments aside- if after a public consultation which the Government by statute has said is mandatory, what right have the Health Authority to put fluoride in the water against the consent of the vast majority (72%) of people? They just ignored the consultation and the views of the population. Its not like its even necessary. Remember, water fluoridation is not supposed to benefit anyone over 5 years old. The 5 year olds its supposed to benefit are a small % in deprived areas of Southampton. Surely there's a better way to go about this, rather than treat us as guinea pigs.

Report this post »

OliverAdams says...
12:38am Sun 18 Sep 11

This foolish debate reminds me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Dihydrogen_
monoxide_hoax

Report this post »

OliverAdams says...
12:39am Sun 18 Sep 11

This foolish debate reminds me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Dihydrogen_
monoxide_hoax

Report this post »

click2find

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