Nick Clegg told to scrap fluoride laws

Daily Echo: Nick Clegg Nick Clegg

HAMPSHIRE campaigners are calling on the Deputy Prime Minister to scrap the law governing the way fluoride can be added to water supplies.

Nick Clegg has asked people to tell him what legislation they want to see removed as part of a bid by the new coalition Government to amend unpopular laws.

And Hampshire Against fluoridation (HAF) has submitted an appeal for the rules putting the power to decide on fluoride in the hands of health chiefs to be scrapped.

Daily Echo: For a video of the top stories in today's Daily Echo, click the front page.

They are now calling on Hampshire residents upset about the scheme – which would affect nearly 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams – to “vote” for their proposal on a Government website.

HAF chairman, Stephen Peckham said: “If you are concerned about this issue, this is the chance to have your say and make a comment.

“The current legislation allows a pro-fluoride organisation – as opposed to an independent body – to carry out a consultation with the local community and then to totally ignore local opinion and impose fluoridation anyway.

“We would like to get a really good response to this in order for the government to take notice and change this unfair law which allows the local community to be ignored.

“People must have the right not to drink water medicated with this chemical.”

The campaign group argues assurances were given when the Water Act was changed in 2003 and 2005 that any fluoridation schemes would not go ahead without the support of the local community.

More than 10,000 people gave their views during a public consultation on the scheme, with 72 per cent of people living in the affected area saying they were against fluoridation.

But South Central Strategic Health Authority’s (SHA) board unanimously approved the scheme, arguing they were convinced by evidence it would improve dental health and not have negative side effects.


Why fluoride should be opposed
Why fluoride should be supported


The coalition has promised ideas submitted on the website, along with ratings and comments given by other users “will directly inform the Government’s policy making”.

The move comes just days after senior Tories were accused of going back on pledges to look at the rules on fluoridation.

During the run-up to the election, now Prime Minister David Cameron and Health Secretary Andrew Lansley both voiced concerns over the SHA’s consultation and questioned whether the scheme should be going ahead in the face of public opposition.

In the past, Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg has also expressed his opposition to the way fluoridation is being introduced in Hampshire.

He told HAF last year his party believed “people and local communities should have the ability to make their own decisions as to whether or not they should take forms of medication, which – according to the stated purpose – fluoridation would effectively constitute.

“Mass fluoridation of water would leave people with no choice, and we believe that it should not be imposed by Whitehall diktat.”

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:14am Thu 8 Jul 10

Linesman says...

It is no use asking 'Perky' when it is 'Pinky' who takes the decisions.
It is no use asking 'Perky' when it is 'Pinky' who takes the decisions. Linesman

10:45am Thu 8 Jul 10

OSPREYSAINT says...

Not sure the puppets strings are long enough to allow him to make decisions of that magnitude!
Not sure the puppets strings are long enough to allow him to make decisions of that magnitude! OSPREYSAINT

10:47am Thu 8 Jul 10

EchoPedia says...

Perhaps when this poison is added, those with unmetered supplies could just leave their outside tap running day and night as a protest?
Perhaps when this poison is added, those with unmetered supplies could just leave their outside tap running day and night as a protest? EchoPedia

11:03am Thu 8 Jul 10

Family Man says...

Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause?

I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does?

At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence...

Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know...

I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.
Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause? I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does? At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence... Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know... I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue. Family Man

11:03am Thu 8 Jul 10

Family Man says...

Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause?

I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does?

At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence...

Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know...

I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.
Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause? I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does? At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence... Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know... I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue. Family Man

11:29am Thu 8 Jul 10

5outhy says...

Flouride causes no damage to us.
Flouride causes no damage to us. 5outhy

11:37am Thu 8 Jul 10

housewife says...

Does no good either.
Just costs lots of money we do not have.
Does no good either. Just costs lots of money we do not have. housewife

11:37am Thu 8 Jul 10

OSPREYSAINT says...

Proof?
Proof? OSPREYSAINT

12:04pm Thu 8 Jul 10

Family Man says...

housewife wrote:
Does no good either. Just costs lots of money we do not have.
Apparently from what I have just read, it decreases childhood tooth cavities by 50-60%....and presumably the treatment of which is relatively costly... particularly at a time when so many people cannot get a dentist on the NHS, and the Dental service is so stretched.
I also read that in the US, fluoridation of water supplies costs $0.94c or about 60p per person.... Sounds to me that it is a small price to pay!!!! Bargain!!!

I genuinely get the impression that some issues are dominated by a very vocal minority and the amount of misinformation that goes around is picked up and sways public opinion beyond ratonality...
[quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: Does no good either. Just costs lots of money we do not have.[/p][/quote]Apparently from what I have just read, it decreases childhood tooth cavities by 50-60%....and presumably the treatment of which is relatively costly... particularly at a time when so many people cannot get a dentist on the NHS, and the Dental service is so stretched. I also read that in the US, fluoridation of water supplies costs $0.94c or about 60p per person.... Sounds to me that it is a small price to pay!!!! Bargain!!! I genuinely get the impression that some issues are dominated by a very vocal minority and the amount of misinformation that goes around is picked up and sways public opinion beyond ratonality... Family Man

12:27pm Thu 8 Jul 10

Spot O'Bother says...

Do these Luddites want to remove iodine from salt as well?
Do these Luddites want to remove iodine from salt as well? Spot O'Bother

12:37pm Thu 8 Jul 10

Ozmosis says...

Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.
Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them. Ozmosis

12:44pm Thu 8 Jul 10

5outhy says...

Ozmosis wrote:
Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.
Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work.
[quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.[/p][/quote]Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work. 5outhy

1:18pm Thu 8 Jul 10

Sweed says...

Family Man wrote:
Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause?

I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does?

At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence...

Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know...

I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.
The problem here is like a lot of political decisions - they are made without the public being educated on the subject or asked for their opinion. A case of "We're doing this, and if you don't like it, tough!"
It was the same with the smoking ban. There were many who thought pub landlords and club owners should be able to decide if they wanted their establishment to be non-smoking or not. But the government comes along and imposes the ban everywhere and we have no say.
If we are given more opportunity to learn why such decisions are being made and then have a chance to vote on them, people would be happier and politicians might get a bit more respect from us.
[quote][p][bold]Family Man[/bold] wrote: Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause? I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does? At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence... Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know... I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.[/p][/quote]The problem here is like a lot of political decisions - they are made without the public being educated on the subject or asked for their opinion. A case of "We're doing this, and if you don't like it, tough!" It was the same with the smoking ban. There were many who thought pub landlords and club owners should be able to decide if they wanted their establishment to be non-smoking or not. But the government comes along and imposes the ban everywhere and we have no say. If we are given more opportunity to learn why such decisions are being made and then have a chance to vote on them, people would be happier and politicians might get a bit more respect from us. Sweed

1:22pm Thu 8 Jul 10

southy says...

5outhy wrote:
Ozmosis wrote:
Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.
Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work.
read the warnings that use to come on the box of toothpaste.
its says not to be consumed, to be spat out after brushing.
[quote][p][bold]5outhy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.[/p][/quote]Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work.[/p][/quote]read the warnings that use to come on the box of toothpaste. its says not to be consumed, to be spat out after brushing. southy

1:33pm Thu 8 Jul 10

southy says...

Sweed wrote:
Family Man wrote:
Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause?

I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does?

At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence...

Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know...

I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.
The problem here is like a lot of political decisions - they are made without the public being educated on the subject or asked for their opinion. A case of "We're doing this, and if you don't like it, tough!"
It was the same with the smoking ban. There were many who thought pub landlords and club owners should be able to decide if they wanted their establishment to be non-smoking or not. But the government comes along and imposes the ban everywhere and we have no say.
If we are given more opportunity to learn why such decisions are being made and then have a chance to vote on them, people would be happier and politicians might get a bit more respect from us.
in one off small dose, fluoride will not do any harm, but heres the problem. the human body can not depose of fluoride from the body so it just builds up and over a long period of time it will cause problem in the bone's, nails and teeth. the older you are the less chances you will have problems, but a new born baby will have a life time to get the build up and will have problems say near retirement age.

kids have teeth problems because off what they eat and drink, and what is all so not helping in a very big way is that the maggies 80's government closed down all the NHS school dentists.
[quote][p][bold]Sweed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Family Man[/bold] wrote: Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause? I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does? At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence... Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know... I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.[/p][/quote]The problem here is like a lot of political decisions - they are made without the public being educated on the subject or asked for their opinion. A case of "We're doing this, and if you don't like it, tough!" It was the same with the smoking ban. There were many who thought pub landlords and club owners should be able to decide if they wanted their establishment to be non-smoking or not. But the government comes along and imposes the ban everywhere and we have no say. If we are given more opportunity to learn why such decisions are being made and then have a chance to vote on them, people would be happier and politicians might get a bit more respect from us.[/p][/quote]in one off small dose, fluoride will not do any harm, but heres the problem. the human body can not depose of fluoride from the body so it just builds up and over a long period of time it will cause problem in the bone's, nails and teeth. the older you are the less chances you will have problems, but a new born baby will have a life time to get the build up and will have problems say near retirement age. kids have teeth problems because off what they eat and drink, and what is all so not helping in a very big way is that the maggies 80's government closed down all the NHS school dentists. southy

1:52pm Thu 8 Jul 10

EchoPedia says...

Family Man wrote:
Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause? I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does? At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence... Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know... I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.
Flouride has its uses - but consider this all the water you will use will contain it and you will water your garden, cook with it, drink it, your pets will receive it, etc. - all for the sake of the small amount you need for dental health.
.
Toothpaste, when use,d delivers exactly the same benefit and is targetted.
.
To medicate everything thing and everybody because a few people can't clean their teeth properly is simply wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Family Man[/bold] wrote: Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause? I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does? At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence... Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know... I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.[/p][/quote]Flouride has its uses - but consider this all the water you will use will contain it and you will water your garden, cook with it, drink it, your pets will receive it, etc. - all for the sake of the small amount you need for dental health. . Toothpaste, when use,d delivers exactly the same benefit and is targetted. . To medicate everything thing and everybody because a few people can't clean their teeth properly is simply wrong. EchoPedia

5:43pm Thu 8 Jul 10

geoff51 says...

5outhy wrote:
Flouride causes no damage to us.
What do you mean, it prevented you from spelling correctly and writing english that we can understand
[quote][p][bold]5outhy[/bold] wrote: Flouride causes no damage to us.[/p][/quote]What do you mean, it prevented you from spelling correctly and writing english that we can understand geoff51

6:29pm Thu 8 Jul 10

sooey says...

Flouride is a poison. The germans used it during world war 2. It is a substance that, when taken, causes irreversible damage. It causes indifference & complacency amongst other things. Try looking fluoride up on the internet, or research prozac tablets (fluoxitine).

Personally I'm trying to save for a reverse osmosis system, that way I wont have to worry so much about whats in the water :D
Flouride is a poison. The germans used it during world war 2. It is a substance that, when taken, causes irreversible damage. It causes indifference & complacency amongst other things. Try looking fluoride up on the internet, or research prozac tablets (fluoxitine). Personally I'm trying to save for a reverse osmosis system, that way I wont have to worry so much about whats in the water :D sooey

9:28pm Thu 8 Jul 10

Ozmosis says...

5outhy wrote:
Ozmosis wrote:
Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.
Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work.
What has what you wash your clothes in got to do with anything? You won't absorb the fluoride from your clothes!
.
The water in food is irrelevant unless it's added by the person cooking it, or the food is grown locally.
.
I've already said my bit about fizzy drinks - kids may drink squash but I have my doubts.
.
Quit trolling - it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about!
[quote][p][bold]5outhy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.[/p][/quote]Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work.[/p][/quote]What has what you wash your clothes in got to do with anything? You won't absorb the fluoride from your clothes! . The water in food is irrelevant unless it's added by the person cooking it, or the food is grown locally. . I've already said my bit about fizzy drinks - kids may drink squash but I have my doubts. . Quit trolling - it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about! Ozmosis

11:03pm Thu 8 Jul 10

Shergold says...

Dear Family Man

There are many reasons not to have flouride added.
This registered poision has no value at all, and it was all done thru the 1940 study from small town in texas but they did not state, the level of sugar that was in people's diet,also the study of bone health was never done either.
The whole story of flouride is about using waste from the alumunium/fertilizer industries.

It is NOT a trace element or mineral that is neccessary for a diet.

Look at the WHO site - there is a scientist that has stated that Flouride displaces minerals - which backs up the china study of increased bone problems.

Either way you think, if you want flouride there is more than enough in the average toothpaste.

This piosion does have a very negative impact on bone health - read the china study. More oestoeporosis etc,.. in the long term.

Flouride is the most toxic/cancerous poision that we could have in our water. It has NEVER been tested properly either. POLITICANS KNOW THIS. They just want the taxes from the businesses.
Dear Family Man There are many reasons not to have flouride added. This registered poision has no value at all, and it was all done thru the 1940 study from small town in texas but they did not state, the level of sugar that was in people's diet,also the study of bone health was never done either. The whole story of flouride is about using waste from the alumunium/fertilizer industries. It is NOT a trace element or mineral that is neccessary for a diet. Look at the WHO site - there is a scientist that has stated that Flouride displaces minerals - which backs up the china study of increased bone problems. Either way you think, if you want flouride there is more than enough in the average toothpaste. This piosion does have a very negative impact on bone health - read the china study. More oestoeporosis etc,.. in the long term. Flouride is the most toxic/cancerous poision that we could have in our water. It has NEVER been tested properly either. POLITICANS KNOW THIS. They just want the taxes from the businesses. Shergold

3:47am Fri 9 Jul 10

JimSchultz says...

Family Man wrote:
housewife wrote:
Does no good either. Just costs lots of money we do not have.
Apparently from what I have just read, it decreases childhood tooth cavities by 50-60%....and presumably the treatment of which is relatively costly... particularly at a time when so many people cannot get a dentist on the NHS, and the Dental service is so stretched.
I also read that in the US, fluoridation of water supplies costs $0.94c or about 60p per person.... Sounds to me that it is a small price to pay!!!! Bargain!!!

I genuinely get the impression that some issues are dominated by a very vocal minority and the amount of misinformation that goes around is picked up and sways public opinion beyond ratonality...
Complete trust in the government is not wise. 19 EPA unions today ask congress to halt fluoridation. They first called fluoridation fraud in 1985 after documents were altered. The EPA headquarters is not fluoridated but the city is as the scientists would not work in a fluoridated building. Go to http://www.fluoridea
ction.net or http://www.waterloow
atch.com. See the evil side of fluoride you missed. Real science not government BS. Dentists income in the US has soared way past doctors in the last two decades and they work often half the hours. Fluoride damaged teeth are the new cash cow driving their wealth. Some might think this a conflict of interest. Even back in 1972 the JADA admitted dentists made 17% more income in fluoridated cities. That has grown with all the cosmetic work that the poor can not afford. Very few dentists in the US actually accept medicaid payment for poor kids. Many receive no care. Most doctors do accept medicaid.
Even the CDC in 1999 MMWR had to admit it is a topical benefit. The researchers all prove it has no ingested benefit but now claim the benefit is topical. Maybe at 1000ppm but not at 1ppm. Most of europe rejects fluoridation but Ireland does about 70% and England 10%. This import is pure stupidity do not be the rube that got tricked. Read the Fluoride Deception by a brit from BBC who researched this fraud for 10 years. Chris Bryson. Watch his video on FAN. Any questions ? Just ask. Do not trust anyone on this. Research both sides. Most dentists get the science all wrong. Yoder K.M. 2007 shows test results . 80% plus flunked the basic theory as it has changed. See the study findings on pubmed.com About 20% or less dentists know it is a topical effect is posterupted teeth. Shameful ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]Family Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: Does no good either. Just costs lots of money we do not have.[/p][/quote]Apparently from what I have just read, it decreases childhood tooth cavities by 50-60%....and presumably the treatment of which is relatively costly... particularly at a time when so many people cannot get a dentist on the NHS, and the Dental service is so stretched. I also read that in the US, fluoridation of water supplies costs $0.94c or about 60p per person.... Sounds to me that it is a small price to pay!!!! Bargain!!! I genuinely get the impression that some issues are dominated by a very vocal minority and the amount of misinformation that goes around is picked up and sways public opinion beyond ratonality...[/p][/quote]Complete trust in the government is not wise. 19 EPA unions today ask congress to halt fluoridation. They first called fluoridation fraud in 1985 after documents were altered. The EPA headquarters is not fluoridated but the city is as the scientists would not work in a fluoridated building. Go to http://www.fluoridea ction.net or http://www.waterloow atch.com. See the evil side of fluoride you missed. Real science not government BS. Dentists income in the US has soared way past doctors in the last two decades and they work often half the hours. Fluoride damaged teeth are the new cash cow driving their wealth. Some might think this a conflict of interest. Even back in 1972 the JADA admitted dentists made 17% more income in fluoridated cities. That has grown with all the cosmetic work that the poor can not afford. Very few dentists in the US actually accept medicaid payment for poor kids. Many receive no care. Most doctors do accept medicaid. Even the CDC in 1999 MMWR had to admit it is a topical benefit. The researchers all prove it has no ingested benefit but now claim the benefit is topical. Maybe at 1000ppm but not at 1ppm. Most of europe rejects fluoridation but Ireland does about 70% and England 10%. This import is pure stupidity do not be the rube that got tricked. Read the Fluoride Deception by a brit from BBC who researched this fraud for 10 years. Chris Bryson. Watch his video on FAN. Any questions ? Just ask. Do not trust anyone on this. Research both sides. Most dentists get the science all wrong. Yoder K.M. 2007 shows test results . 80% plus flunked the basic theory as it has changed. See the study findings on pubmed.com About 20% or less dentists know it is a topical effect is posterupted teeth. Shameful ignorance. JimSchultz

3:38pm Fri 9 Jul 10

Lone Ranger says...

Can we keep the SHA laws on fluoride....and scrap Clegg
Can we keep the SHA laws on fluoride....and scrap Clegg Lone Ranger

3:45am Sun 1 Aug 10

hope123 says...

hello.

Fluoride, if by choice you wish to administer, is done by swilling it around the mouth, not by drinking it!! This is a disgraceful act by goverment to pour this posien into peoples drinking water. The people of Birmingham for example are not informed of this additive drug in their water supply,they are given no choice, this is forced unannounced medication which is also administered incorrectly. If we wish to take this drug we brush it along our teeth via a paste and spit it out without swallowing!

An utter disgrace to poison the public,change is needed, and people deserve the right to choose. The same goes for mercury in fillings.

please help change for the whole of the UK and the world.
hello. Fluoride, if by choice you wish to administer, is done by swilling it around the mouth, not by drinking it!! This is a disgraceful act by goverment to pour this posien into peoples drinking water. The people of Birmingham for example are not informed of this additive drug in their water supply,they are given no choice, this is forced unannounced medication which is also administered incorrectly. If we wish to take this drug we brush it along our teeth via a paste and spit it out without swallowing! An utter disgrace to poison the public,change is needed, and people deserve the right to choose. The same goes for mercury in fillings. please help change for the whole of the UK and the world. hope123

Comments are closed on this article.

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