Fluoride RSS Feed


Hampshire's fluoride debate

Anti-fluoride petition grows to almost 9,000


NEARLY 9,000 people have now signed a petition against fluoride being added to the tap water of thousands of homes across Hampshire.

Dozens of new signatures were added at a special drop-in session in Eastleigh.

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

Eastleigh MP Chris Huhne, prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Eastleigh Maria Hutchings and several Eastleigh councillors were among those who signed up on Saturday.

Organisers Hampshire Against Fluoridation are planning to travel to Downing Street early next month to present it to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Health chiefs plan to add fluoride to the tap water of almost 200,000 Hampshire residents after South Central Strategic Health Authority approved it as a way to improve children’s teeth.

Two-thirds of Southampton will be affected as well as areas of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

Comments(14)

Big Boy says...
8:32am Mon 11 May 09

9,000 out of how many residents (220,000?) not a good tally. 'Dozens of new signatures', not hundreds or thousands the. All a bit pathetic really.

haf says...
9:09am Mon 11 May 09

The Strategic Health Authority and the Primary Care Trust between them spent over £400,000 in drop ins and full page advertising over three months urging support of fluoridation. They only got 10,000 replies of which 72% were against.

Bill
HAF member

Pam W says...
10:49am Mon 11 May 09

If 9,000 people don't want it, they shouldn't be forced to have it. Actually, that would apply even if it was only one person. Nearly all the SHA board live outside the fluoride zone - how offensive it is that they feel fit to inflict it upon others while avoiding it themselves

stuartjebbitt says...
11:05am Mon 11 May 09

Big Boy wrote:
9,000 out of how many residents (220,000?) not a good tally. 'Dozens of new signatures', not hundreds or thousands the. All a bit pathetic really.
The logistics of reaching 220,000 households is only within reach of a government funded bodies like the SHA and PCT who can afford to throw away OUR money (£400,000) on a so called 'Consultation'
That money could have easily paid for some school dentists to visit the families and areas that need the help - now THATS pathetic!!!
a lost opportunity.

stuartjebbitt says...
11:10am Mon 11 May 09

and DON't bother to tell me that it will magically improve these childrens teeth -I grew up in a fluoridated country (in a tropical climate) and I have as many fillings as anyone.
It's living on a diet of cola and parental neglect that causes the problem, not a lack of fluoride.

stuartjebbitt says...
11:11am Mon 11 May 09

and DON't bother to tell me that it will magically improve these childrens teeth -I grew up in a fluoridated country (in a tropical climate) and I have as many fillings as anyone.
It's living on a diet of cola and parental neglect that causes the problem, not a lack of fluoride.

Jenjo says...
11:40am Mon 11 May 09

Who are the SHA board who made the decision anyway? They aren't all medical experts, some are from other professions like telecommunications and the construction industry! What right do they think they have to make 200,000 people have unnecessary chemicals put in their water?

S Pance says...
1:17pm Mon 11 May 09

Once again a vocal minority get all the headlines.

It is a FACT that MOST people are in favour of wide scale fluoridisation.

One survey, I believe, put support at just over 90%!

Why should the minority impact on the wishes of the majority?

furtive_vole says...
1:28pm Mon 11 May 09

It's a very inefficient way of delivering flouride. (How many kids drink their bathwater?)

In many cases, poor diet and lifestyle leads both to poor teeth and to other health & social problems. Agree - money would be better spend trying to support 'at risk' families in broader ways.

BTW, S Pance, please let us know the basis of your 'fact'? What survey was this?

We had a maildrop of highly emotive pro-fluoride stuff from the NHS Trust, and it was all over outpatients' at RSH last summer as well. Hardly a level playingfield.

S Pance says...
2:12pm Mon 11 May 09

It could well have been in response to the maildrops, I don't remember, but over 90% of the replies retu rned were in favour of full scale fluoridation.

Martin Wellbourne says...
4:17pm Mon 11 May 09

S Pance wrote:
It could well have been in response to the maildrops, I don't remember, but over 90% of the replies retu rned were in favour of full scale fluoridation.
I think we can safely ignore your facts then.

jwillie6 says...
4:35pm Mon 11 May 09

There are many reasons to oppose fluoridation of water systems: -----http://ca.sys-c
on.com/node/940747

1. Government should not dictate that everyone must take a chemical against their will.

2. It is insanely inefficient with 99.5% of fluoridated water going down the drain in toilets, washing machines, etc., wasting 99.5% of the chemical cost. People only drink 0.5.% of teh water they use. A plan to give away fluoride tablets free would be much, much cheaper.

3. It is not effective in reducing cavities. Most countries in Europe no longer fluoridate water systems. They are 98% fluoride free, yet the World Health Organization reports that nine of those countries have better cavity rates than any fluoridated country. Many other research reports show the same ineffectiveness.

4. The toxic waste chemical, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, is collected from the smokestacks of companies and sold to communities. It would be very expensive to process such waste, and it is illegal to dump it into our environment. So, over one million tons each year in the U.S. ends up in our environment anyway.

5. The main reason to oppose fluoridation is the very severe health problems it causes, 50% builds up in the bones, brain, and glands. Please read the following article on bone cancer in young boys published in a prestigious scientific journal.
____________________
____________________
____________________
___________________

Another Study Links Fluoride to Bone Cancer
Apr. 29, 2009

NEW YORK, -- Blood fluoride levels were significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma than in control groups, according to research published in Biological Trace Element Research (April 2009). Osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer, occurs mostly in children and young adults.

This reinforces a 2006 published Harvard study by Bassin showing a link between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young boys.(2)

and

A 1992 New Jersey Department of Health study shows osteosarcoma rates higher among young males in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated regions of New Jersey.(3)


S Pance says...
6:14pm Mon 11 May 09

Martin Wellbourne wrote:
S Pance wrote:
It could well have been in response to the maildrops, I don't remember, but over 90% of the replies retu rned were in favour of full scale fluoridation.
I think we can safely ignore your facts then.
So that's your solution then? Ignore the FACTS simply because you, the minority, want the majority to do what you say.

This isn't communist Russia, you know.

The majority WANT this and want it now.


Fred Fluoride says...
10:33pm Mon 11 May 09

Until S Pance can give us a link to that survey, I suggest we all ignore him, he's only trying to wind everyone up by talking nonsense, yawn


No winners yet in fluoride debate Anti-fluoride petition grows to almost 9,000

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses