Fluoride RSS Feed


Hampshire's fluoride debate

Fluoride protestors aim to have law overturned

More stories about: fluoridation


IS this what you thought you were voting for?

That is the question Hampshire campaigners are asking of every MP who passed the law giving local people the power to decide on controversial schemes to fluoridate water supplies.

Hampshire Against fluoridation (HAF) is writing to the 220 politicians, including Southampton representatives John Denham and Alan Whitehead, who voted for the Water Act in 2003, to see if they still agree with it.

The group hopes the responses will provide a springboard towards getting the laws scrapped.

Campaigners argue promises made when the proposed laws were debated in the House of Commons have been broken.

Ministers said a “clear majority”

of local people would have to be in favour for a scheme to fluoridate tap water to get the green light.

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

But health chiefs last year unanimously passed plans to fluoridate supplies to almost 200,000 Hampshire homes despite widespread public opposition.

More than 10,000 people responded to South Central Strategic Health Authority’s consultation on the scheme – affecting parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams – with 72 per cent of those from the affected area saying they were against it.

In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent said they opposed fluoridation, compared to 32 per cent in favour.

Since the scheme – the first to be introduced since the 2003 law came into force – was approved, a 15,000-name petition has been handed to the Prime Minister calling for him to step in and overturn the decision.

The SHA argues it did everything the law and Government guidelines required of it during the consultation, and the decision was made in the best interests of the health of local people.

A judicial review has been lodged through the courts, and senior judges are this year expected to study whether the health authority should have had to listen to public opinion.

HAF is now asking MPs who voted through the law if they would still support it, knowing that public opinion could be ignored.

The group believes Government assurances swayed the vote.

During the Commons debate, health minister Melanie Johnson said: “There is a difficulty in weighing up the responses, but whatever the case, local opinion must be in favour of the proposal. A clear majority should be in favour of fluoridation.”

Similar promises were made in 2005 when the rules on fluoride consultations went through Parliament.

HAF argues that putting the decision in the hands of the 12 un-elected SHA board members is “undemocratic and ethically wrong”, and goes against those assurances.

Member Bill Edmunds said he hopes MPs’ responses will help put more pressure on the Government to change the rules.

“It will be interesting to see how many do return the form – if we get a good response it would help to get a fresh look at the legislation,” he said.


Comments(6)

warness says...
8:29pm Wed 17 Feb 10

It is no coincidence that there are 4 major points on a compass. The meridian lines however, do no justice to the concept of equality.

Gain a card?

jwillie6 says...
9:56pm Wed 17 Feb 10

People have caught on and in referenda, they defeat fluoridatin 80% of the time.
Fluoridation of drinking water is one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated against the public in the history of mankind. Fluoride is actually an industrial waste product from the manufacture of fertilizer and aluminum, and is second to mercury as the most toxic substance known. Most of Europe has rejected fluoridation and is 98% fluoride free, and those countries have a better tooth decay rate than any fluoridated country.
There is also no scientific evidence to support the idea that drinking fluoridated water has any effect on cavity reduction — NONE! This may sound crazy, so please don't take my word for it; do some of your own research. The best source for information on the hazards and ineffectiveness of fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.o
rg).

The Wickham Man says...
8:20am Thu 18 Feb 10

I see that stupid peculiar conspiracy theorist jwillie is back. He doesn't beleive in socialist healthcare but he does believe the earth was made in 7 days. I wonder whether he opposed Barack Obama's attempts to provide healthcare for poor americans as well? Would you believe him and his internet friends? No me neither.

Rob444 says...
9:58am Thu 18 Feb 10

The arrogance of those decision makers who are still trying to impose fluoridation on us is incredible. They know that there is overwhelming opposition to it, but are not apologising for making a mistake.

Any honourable person would admit their mistake, put things right then put it behind them, but it would appear that honour is at the bottom of their priorities.

JimSchultz says...
10:44pm Fri 19 Feb 10

Stupid is as stupid does. Wickham Man does not have a corner on the market but as he has proven he can read and might actually read the data then attack the data not the person who delivered it. Not likely.
The EPA headquarters union in 1985 discovered fraud and altered documents where by magic the findings of 4.0ppm for a max was not safe and severe dental fluorosis was a medical effect. The later makes fluoridation illegal. Not a single expert on the panel knew they findings were altered to the opposite of true. Not a single dental journal would print their case for fraud. The federal courts in 1986 also refused to hear the case which the EPA scientists joined also.
The NRC 2006 by a 12-0 vote also confirmed the 4.0 max was never safe and should be lowered. It was not. The desired margin of safety is 100 not 4. But actually they admit moderate damage to teeth at 2ppm.

This ugly damage is skyrocketing in the US also out of control.
FYI in 2000 by a 9-0 vote Ireland was to be warned of infant formula risk but after the bosses warned fluoridation would then be lost reversed their concerns for kids. Government and fraud and deception is normal with fluoridation.
19 EPA unions now tell congress to halt fluoridation with no response. That is 10,000 experts not dentists not qualified to diagnose should body toxic effects. About 85% of dentists in the US are clueless ingested fluorides are useless in cavity reduction. Yoder K.M. 2007 see pubmed.com for indiana and Illinois. Real data real facts not mindless BS please. Burt Detroit 2007 also shows clearly almost 100% of kids with cavities by 5 after almost 60 years of fluoridation. Its nutrition and not enough dentists who care enough to treat the poor.

JimSchultz says...
10:58pm Fri 19 Feb 10

For those interested in reading what the EPA headquarters union does say about fluoridation..http:/
/www.nteu280.org then click on fluoridation Called the Fish Bowl and is the Union site.
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org
http://www.waterloow
atch.com
http://www.iaomt.org toxicology
http://www.spotsonmy
teeth.com
http://www.nidellaw.
com
lots of pictures and many expert short videos but I like the EPA science experts best-Carton and Hirzy both Phd of course
Bill Osmunson DDS gives data easy to understand from WHO and CDC proving no benefit from fluoridation. Government data they like to not show.
Any specific question Fluoride alert has a blog or I will try. Jim endfluoride@gmail.co
m good hunting. Your health is worth the effort.


Members of Hampshire Against Fluoride with MPs Chris Huhne, Sandra Gidley and Julian Lewis Members of Hampshire Against Fluoride with MPs Chris Huhne, Sandra Gidley and Julian Lewis

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses