John Denham wants delay on fluoride in Southampton's water (From Daily Echo)

Denham is a good politician and knows when it's dangerous to press on wth unpopular ideas (eg Iraq). He is right - much more needs to be done before the SHA can attempt to proceed with this scheme, but I notice that they are still have their heads stuck firmly in the sand. As things start to crumble, and it becomes more widely known how much NHS money has been wasted on this flawed exercise, and how much more would have gone down the drain fighting a judicial review, expect a few resignations from the board. Bye guys, try listening to other people (ie the ones who - unlike yourselves - are actually affected) next time ... that's how democracy works

now where's Whitehead (and the council, who disgracefully have failed to say anything since they voted yes)?

When have they ever taken any notice of
what the Public wants. Never.
They're still not
listening even on a local level.

NHS Dentist please, rather than infecting the water supply.

Personally I would have proffered that money wasn't spent on a 14 week "public consultation program" only for the public to be ignored.

If it is such a no-brainer then why wasn't it just done? The reason is it directly effects personal decision making and therefore needs a public mandate.

It’s outrageous that anything else can happen.

Anyway common sense dictates that people who don’t brush there teeth are less likely to drink 5-8 glasses of water… surely…surely

at last! after reading in the papers that he'd lose his seat if there was an election JD pops up and makes a positive contribution to a local issue for a change

If they are really worried about the health of Children's teeth, why don't they hold regular dental check up's at school? Make's more sense than polluting the drinking water of those who either don't want it, or don't need it!! but then those who are suppling the fluoride wouldn't make any money out of that would they!

bumblysaint wrote:
When have they ever taken any notice of
what the Public wants. Never.
They're still not
listening even on a local level.

Did you even read the headline, let alone the story? All of it, I mean, not just the word "fluoride"

At last John Denham is listening to the public - this is what MPs should be about - not in it to further their own self interests. It saddens me that democracy is spoken often as if it was a long lost religion, but it is a right which is the pivot of our civilization, but do MPs care that it is carefully, insidiously and cleverly been eroded over many years. Fluoride is not for us. So often we give in to Governments, Councils and all parties ruling our Country but we say NO! John Denham we want you to pull out all the stops.

goard

Is this still going on? Just chuck it in the water and people wont even know.

John Denham is what all MPs should aspire to be like. I have the utmost respect for the guy, despite hating Labour.

Hopefully he'll also be able to help with getting the fantastic balloon festival back!

We have some of the best, most awarded fresh water in the world in our local rural area of NZ yet council put floride in it thanks to the stupid dentist brigade that reckon it helps prevent tooth decay in lower socioeconomic areas.. It ruins the taste of the water. you don't need it.. don't stand for it. My wife is in hants now and says the water is better than here! The water from our local spring is sold all over the world as NZ Blue and NZ Pure.. the bottles have no additives. Wish our taps water didn't.

soton1980 wrote:
John Denham is what all MPs should aspire to be like. I have the utmost respect for the guy, despite hating Labour.

Hopefully he'll also be able to help with getting the fantastic balloon festival back!

we are still waiting on his expenses sheet to be publish, whitehead done his and was fare about 2/3 off the max he can claim for, but JD is holding back, if he done the max amount off claim he should publish it now, because the longer he leaves it the more likey its going to do damage to the labour party at the next general election.

This is a great decision. I was very concerned for the dentists as I am sure it would spell the end for many dental practices in the area if it were to go ahead. Are we not in a recession already???

Amazing how much bit of political kick on the back of these people through ballot box can achieve.
Why was he quite on this issue for so long? If this lip service to anti fluoridation campaign is not pure political opportunism then what is it?
I am aware of many people who have been trying to enlist John Denham and Alan Whitehead’s support on this issue but they haven’t even got their e-mails acknowledged or letters answered.
Even now John Denham is typically sitting on the fence; all he is asking is to put it on hold, which means he is basically firing in both directions. He has had enough time to make up his mind either he is for or against. Why can’t he say simple yes or no? If yes then what is he going to say about his local out of touch councillors who have supported mass medication?

I'm just going to be antagonistic now just because it's funny - a bit like kicking over a wasps nest and watching all the angry little b******s buzzing about in impotent fury. Me, I can't wait for fluoridated water to start gushing through our taps, if only because on one side there is a group of scientifically qualified people whose sole job as been to analyse thousands of pages of evidence and apply it using the rigours of their training and their jobs. They don't hate me, they aren't trying to kill me,they aren't secret nazis, they just happen to think that on balance fluroidation's benefits outweigh any supposed drawbacks. On the other side is a group of scientific illiterates, conspiracy theorists and thick political opportunists like Sandra Gidley who think that an ability to use google somehow affords them a right to scientific equivalence with the first group. Well it doesn't. Anti fluoride campaigners are like most other single issue groups, nothing more than sheep in a field scaring each other senseless by repeating, exagerrating and over dramatising cicular evidence provided by other panic stricken groups elsewhere. I see that only 14,000 people are against fluoridation so that means there must be at least 250,000 adults in the catchment area who didn't sign. So bring it on, and just watch as this week's wit scaring issue fades away, like all the issues before to be replaced by next week's. (Who loses sleep over C variant CJD any more?). The trouble is, in our cossetted safe western society, since humans stopped having real things to be scared about they have to invent things to terrify themselves with. And before you start laying into me just think about the chemical additives in all the processed food you have voluntarily eaten all your lives, plus the refined sugars, starches, fats and oils that our digestive systems were never built to consume and yet you choose to panic about water FFS!

You can add your name too at... http://petitions.num
ber10.gov.uk/Fluorid
eHants/

Mr Bahia perhaps needs to reread the article. The article makes it clear that John Denham supports the principle of fluoridation but does not think it should go ahead without the SHA being able to demonstrate public support.

Bahia, I have often wondered if you were in politics! If you were a true unbiased person then could you lean the opposite way to your convictions? - that is a true unbiased person, but I do admire your strength of opinion and loyalty in your politics. Maybe that is the fault of politicians only have their opinions.
Andy Lock - it could be your frustration at people who would not like an arguement but just give their opinions, however, distasteful to you. I get the feeling that no one listens to you in the big wide world and that is your frustration!

goard

Labour simply can't afford to alienate 15,300 Southampton voters. They'll be fighting for every single vote they can muster.
This is a very shrewd move on Denhams part.
Mass medication without choice is the sort of policy you'd expect from the BNP, not Labour.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
I'm just going to be antagonistic now just because it's funny - a bit like kicking over a wasps nest and watching all the angry little b******s buzzing about in impotent fury. Me, I can't wait for fluoridated water to start gushing through our taps, if only because on one side there is a group of scientifically qualified people whose sole job as been to analyse thousands of pages of evidence and apply it using the rigours of their training and their jobs. They don't hate me, they aren't trying to kill me,they aren't secret nazis, they just happen to think that on balance fluroidation's benefits outweigh any supposed drawbacks. On the other side is a group of scientific illiterates, conspiracy theorists and thick political opportunists like Sandra Gidley who think that an ability to use google somehow affords them a right to scientific equivalence with the first group. Well it doesn't. Anti fluoride campaigners are like most other single issue groups, nothing more than sheep in a field scaring each other senseless by repeating, exagerrating and over dramatising cicular evidence provided by other panic stricken groups elsewhere. I see that only 14,000 people are against fluoridation so that means there must be at least 250,000 adults in the catchment area who didn't sign. So bring it on, and just watch as this week's wit scaring issue fades away, like all the issues before to be replaced by next week's. (Who loses sleep over C variant CJD any more?). The trouble is, in our cossetted safe western society, since humans stopped having real things to be scared about they have to invent things to terrify themselves with. And before you start laying into me just think about the chemical additives in all the processed food you have voluntarily eaten all your lives, plus the refined sugars, starches, fats and oils that our digestive systems were never built to consume and yet you choose to panic about water FFS!

alot off truth there andy, but it is known that parts off africa where there is a natural fluorid in the water do cause problems its not so mush when your young its when you get older, so its ok for the likes off you and me we probley not get the build up in our bones, but step back a bit and think off that new born child who would be subject to this chemical them moment you give that water to the child :-ie, mum mix the water with the baby powder milk. i been told that you cant boil this chemical out off the water. so the opposite must happen the levels must go higher, then think though the years has this child is growing up all those meals where the food is boiled and drinks that use water from the tap.
you talk about food addives, we know some are a bit iffy like E22 sunshine yellow give's hypo problems. like the instance coffee you might drink it contains phosphorus (sulphor) has a drying agent, we know small amounts of this needed for the body but over dose and it becomes cancerous to the body, maybe whats needed is to look into those additives and see if any off them are the reason for poor teeth :-ie added sugars natural or unnatural

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
I'm just going to be antagonistic now just because it's funny - a bit like kicking over a wasps nest and watching all the angry little b******s buzzing about in impotent fury. Me, I can't wait for fluoridated water to start gushing through our taps, if only because on one side there is a group of scientifically qualified people whose sole job as been to analyse thousands of pages of evidence and apply it using the rigours of their training and their jobs. They don't hate me, they aren't trying to kill me,they aren't secret nazis, they just happen to think that on balance fluroidation's benefits outweigh any supposed drawbacks. On the other side is a group of scientific illiterates, conspiracy theorists and thick political opportunists like Sandra Gidley who think that an ability to use google somehow affords them a right to scientific equivalence with the first group. Well it doesn't. Anti fluoride campaigners are like most other single issue groups, nothing more than sheep in a field scaring each other senseless by repeating, exagerrating and over dramatising cicular evidence provided by other panic stricken groups elsewhere. I see that only 14,000 people are against fluoridation so that means there must be at least 250,000 adults in the catchment area who didn't sign. So bring it on, and just watch as this week's wit scaring issue fades away, like all the issues before to be replaced by next week's. (Who loses sleep over C variant CJD any more?). The trouble is, in our cossetted safe western society, since humans stopped having real things to be scared about they have to invent things to terrify themselves with. And before you start laying into me just think about the chemical additives in all the processed food you have voluntarily eaten all your lives, plus the refined sugars, starches, fats and oils that our digestive systems were never built to consume and yet you choose to panic about water FFS!

LOL, well done Andy.
The argument goes "I can eat any 5hit I feel like as it's my choice (even though I don't really know what chemicals or additives I'm eating) however, no-one can force me to take something that, in small doses is harmless, as I have rights, OK"

Tom Bargate wrote:
Mr Bahia perhaps needs to reread the article. The article makes it clear that John Denham supports the principle of fluoridation but does not think it should go ahead without the SHA being able to demonstrate public support.

Tom Bargate, thanks for pointing out the flawed wording of my post. After re-reading it I can see that what I have written may give wrong impression about John Denham’s views on fluoride.
Actually I was not referring to his own views on the subject but his actions as local MP. But I was trying to say that rather than taking the middle option he should be clearly saying one of the two things to the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) 1: Yes fluoridation of water should go ahead or 2: NO it should not go ahead because most of the people are against it, which proves from the fact that over whelming majority consulted by the SHA has expressed their opposition to this plan.
I am sorry if unwittingly I may have provided you and other readers any wrong impression.