Fluoride RSS Feed


Hampshire's fluoride debate

9,500-name petition demands that decision is overturned


THEY’RE going right to the top.

Anti-fluoridation campaigners are to take their battle to Downing Street as they try to overturn the controversial decision to add the chemical to Hampshire tap water.

Activists from Hampshire Against Fluoridation are to deliver a petition calling for the scheme to be scrapped to the home of Prime Minister Gordon Brown next month.

More than 9,500 signatures of residents upset at the plans, which HAF says represent mass-medication and remove their rights to choose, have already been collected.

The group is hopeful that by the time it is delivered, there will be more than 10,000 names on the petition.

“We’ve had an excellent response,” said organiser Caroline Place.

“But we’re still coming across people who don’t know there was a consultation, so the message still needs to get out there. I would personally like to see many more names on the petition.”

The campaigners will be joined by Hampshire MPs Julian Lewis, Chris Huhne and Sandra Gidley when they take the petition to Number Ten on June 9.

Afterwards, they will meet members of the All Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation to discuss their campaign.

“We want to get across to them the situation here in Southampton, what has happened with the erosion of local democracy, and to put pressure on them to help get the decision reversed,” said Mrs Place, 51, from Shirley.

“It’s a case of forging strong links and seeing how best we can move ahead to get it stopped.”

Fluoride is set to be added to the tap water of nearly 200,000 homes across two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, possibly as soon as next year.

The 12 board members of South Central Strategic Health Authority unanimously backed the scheme earlier this year, following a 14-week public consultation.

Fluoridation was proposed by city health chiefs as the best way to improve Southampton’s poor record on dental health in children.

More than 10,000 responses were received during the consultation. Of those from people in the affected area, 72 per cent expressed opposition to the plans.

In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent said they were against fluoridation, compared with 32 per cent who said they supported it.


Comments(9)

stuartjebbitt says...
5:21pm Fri 15 May 09

Media Release:
14th May 2009

WORST AUSTRALIAN FLUORIDE ACCIDENT
Premier Bligh today announced an accident at the North Pine Dam Water treatment plant on May 1st when water massively overdosed with Sodium Silicofluoride was released into the public water supply.

About 4,000 homes are believed to have received water containing 30mg/l fluoride. This level is nearly 40 times higher than the 0.8 mg/L Qld Health advised in Nov 2008 was to be the level for water supplies in SE Qld.

How many times were we told during the 'consultation' that the above couldn't ever possibly happen? and guess what, it has, only a few days ago.

Do we trust Southern Water to administer this substance here without making a mistake?

Why take the chance when there are more effective and targeted ways of delivery.


Pam W says...
7:25pm Fri 15 May 09

And the Aussies who got the overdose can't sue the water company because it's immune from prosecution, just like all water compnaies in the UK following the 2003 Water Act. When you play with dangerous chemicals, there's always the chance of a mistake. Never mind, as we won't be able to sue Southern Water, we'll have to sue Soton council instead for giving the NHS the nod. I hope those councillors have been claiming all their expenses, they may need them when they get the court summons

10 Minute Man says...
10:14pm Fri 15 May 09

Lucky they don't use toxic chemicals already to purify our water supply, like chlorine or ozone...that would be bound to end in disaster.

The process works like this:

1. democratic elections result in politicians being voted in.

2. Politicians create policy, implemented by civil servants and based on consultancy with experts.

3. Various people armed only with the ignorance they can glean from the internet decide they are going to battle against the will of the public and the dental profession.

ja9allen says...
10:45pm Fri 15 May 09

The experts advise not to swallow your toothpaste after brushing because of the flouride so I dont think we should have it in our water. Nothing to do with ignorance from the internet. If its is so good for us why are they only putting it in deprived area water supplies, why not in rich areas too? I am a member of the public and I dont want my tap water flouridated, so good luck to the campaigners. I voted against and am perplexed as to how a no vote can be ignored, why bother to canvass opinion if they already made up their minds? What kind of democracy is that?

stuartjebbitt says...
11:19pm Fri 15 May 09

10 Minute Man wrote:
Lucky they don't use toxic chemicals already to purify our water supply, like chlorine or ozone...that would be bound to end in disaster.

The process works like this:

1. democratic elections result in politicians being voted in.

2. Politicians create policy, implemented by civil servants and based on consultancy with experts.

3. Various people armed only with the ignorance they can glean from the internet decide they are going to battle against the will of the public and the dental profession.
Where is this 'will of the public'?
Where are all these people who are so desperate to get fluoridated?



Polygonia says...
11:36pm Fri 15 May 09

We should be proud that this anti fluoride group are willing to fight for democracy and try to get this unwelcome action reversed.
There are too many so called "experts and "know alls" telling us what is good for us and usually they are wrong. Look what trendy teaching has done, an absolute
social disaster and the consequences will ruin lives for generations to come.

Big Boy says...
7:01am Sat 16 May 09

'Just a vocal minority'! I stress the word vocal as there isn't too much intellect being used.

Jenjo says...
8:04am Sat 16 May 09

10 Minute Man wrote:
Lucky they don't use toxic chemicals already to purify our water supply, like chlorine or ozone...that would be bound to end in disaster.

The process works like this:

1. democratic elections result in politicians being voted in.

2. Politicians create policy, implemented by civil servants and based on consultancy with experts.

3. Various people armed only with the ignorance they can glean from the internet decide they are going to battle against the will of the public and the dental profession.
The board of the SHA democratically elected, that's a good one!!! Will of the public, another top joke, 10 Min Man! You are obviously another one of those who are only here to wind everyone up by talking nonsense. Luckily we've seen through your little game

goard says...
11:20am Sat 16 May 09

I can think of countless mishaps in administrating fluoride, after all it would be a neat way for terrorists to anhilate many. How about the employee who administers having a grudge against society. I joke, but responsible nurses have been known to kill with an overdose, why not a Water employee?

goard


Anti-fluoridation campaigners. Anti-fluoridation campaigners.

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses