Fluoride fight could go to the government (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Fight against fluoridation in Southampton could go to the government
11:40am Tuesday 18th January 2011 in Fluoride
Fluoride fight could go to the government
COUNCIL bosses could call on the Government to step in to stop health chiefs adding fluoride to Hampshire water supplies in the months before their powers disappear.
A High Court legal bid to stop the controversial scheme starts tomorrow, but the health bosses who approved the plans say they will press ahead with the project if they win the case.
That is despite the Health Secretary confirming Strategic Health Authorities (SHA) will be scrapped early next year, with the say over future fluoridation proposals falling to elected councils instead.
And the heads of Southampton City and Hampshire County councils have told the Daily Echo they would fight any moves to introduce fluoride before power is handed to them, in a bid to make the process more democratic.
The two-day judicial review in London comes after a campaigner claimed South Central Strategic Health Authority should have paid more attention to public opinions expressed during its consultation.
More than 10,000 people had their say, with 72 per cent of respondents from the affected area – covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams – saying they were against fluoridation.
The SHA insists it did everything required by law before approving fluoridation.
During the consultation, the county council passed a motion saying it was opposed to the plans, as did the borough and district councils in Eastleigh, New Forest, Test Valley and Fareham.
Southampton’s councillors voted to support fluoridation, but have since changed their view to call for a binding referendum to be held to ensure public support before it could ever go ahead.
City council leader Royston Smith said despite not normally agreeing with single-subject public votes, he believes residents must have the final say “because it’s quite a fundamental thing to be putting something in people’s water”.
And he believes the SHA should not be allowed to continue with its plans when it is about to disappear.
Cllr Smith said: “Now we’ve got a new government, I would ask them to consider, just morally, if they think it’s right that a quango that’s on its way out can in law continue to fluoridate water against the wishes of the population.
“They should morally abandon their plans and leave it to the new regime that’s being put in place.”
Hampshire County Council leader, Cllr Ken Thornber, said the authority would challenge any moves to add fluoride to water supplies.
He said: “At the moment we do not have the power to prevent South Central Strategic Health Authority fluoridating the water if they win (the judicial review), but we may have in the future.
“We would continue to defend the right of local people to say no to the imposition of this proposal and if necessary appeal again directly to the Secretary of State to prevent this happening.
Comments(10)
freefinker
says...
12:12pm Tue 18 Jan 11
southy wrote:.. and how will attempting to communicate with the spirits help?
just go's to show how really weak minded the two tory-con councils are, or they don't really care, any one with any good seance will play this for time, and force the issue out of time.
and if they do manage to implement it then the moment there powers are taken away, you stop it at that very moment, the swa will be happy to stop it.
freefinker
says...
12:22pm Tue 18 Jan 11
Now, Ken Thornber and Royston Smith have my full support on this issue.
I find all this very worrying on a personal level, but satisfying that even politicians I disagree with on most issues have seen the light.
.
This undemocratic decision must not be allowed to proceed.
interceptmedia
says...
1:31pm Tue 18 Jan 11
The scientific literature on the dangers of fluoride has changed over time to assist with generating profits for manufacturers.
http://tinyurl.com/4
5bmhlg
Rax
says...
9:37pm Tue 18 Jan 11
interceptmedia wrote:To be fair, the scientific consensus is that the literature as a whole does NOT support the idea that water fluoridation is harmful.
Why do so many people today believe fluoride is safe to ingest?
The scientific literature on the dangers of fluoride has changed over time to assist with generating profits for manufacturers.
http://tinyurl.com/4
5bmhlg
However, NEITHER can it be reasonably claimed that there are significant benefits.
The evidence simply isn't there either way. There just hasn't been a sufficient amount of high-quality research.
Which makes this whole episode - the proposed referendum, the court costs, the salaries paid to the public officials and clinicians involved, the press material and everything else - a ridiculous waste of time and money.
I wonder just how much it has all cost so far when everything involved is totted up. All for something with no evidence base.
pqp
says...
10:42pm Tue 18 Jan 11
The doctor says for all medication prescribed it a patient's right to know the good points and also the drawback of the prescribed medication.
The patient will then decide on whether to take or not the medicine.
For this reason, I am against water fluoridation.
They are just forcing me to take a medicine that I was not given the right to decide on the pros and cons of the medicine.
It is a disregard of the very basic rights of a patient.
Calli
says...
11:49pm Tue 18 Jan 11
southy
says...
1:14am Wed 19 Jan 11
freefinker wrote:the only reason your agreeing with them now is because they making the right sounds.
A month or so ago I found myself agreeing with Julian Lewis - twice in one week.
Now, Ken Thornber and Royston Smith have my full support on this issue.
I find all this very worrying on a personal level, but satisfying that even politicians I disagree with on most issues have seen the light.
.
This undemocratic decision must not be allowed to proceed.
go back to just before all this started, they agreed with SHA, but when they started to see public disliking the idea, they sat on the fence about it. and now they don't agree with it and just over 3 mths now we have local elections, they know they are going to get hammered, so start making the right sounds just might save some local tory council seats.
freefinker
says...
8:58am Wed 19 Jan 11
southy wrote:Not correct in respect of Thornber (and HCC) or Julian Lewis - both have been against from the start.
freefinker wrote:the only reason your agreeing with them now is because they making the right sounds.
A month or so ago I found myself agreeing with Julian Lewis - twice in one week.
Now, Ken Thornber and Royston Smith have my full support on this issue.
I find all this very worrying on a personal level, but satisfying that even politicians I disagree with on most issues have seen the light.
.
This undemocratic decision must not be allowed to proceed.
go back to just before all this started, they agreed with SHA, but when they started to see public disliking the idea, they sat on the fence about it. and now they don't agree with it and just over 3 mths now we have local elections, they know they are going to get hammered, so start making the right sounds just might save some local tory council seats.
You are right, however, on Royston Smith.
Still, 1 out of 3 is not bad for you.
najskapati
says...
10:21am Wed 19 Jan 11
Like anyone on the radio proposing to alter a population's biochemistry you could he was nervous, even in spite of the soft balls being bowled by Sarah Montague. That his delicate condition required such pampering brought the interview to the brink of satire.
Aren't science and journalism both supposed to be balanced, though?
With her biology exams Sarah was in an excellent position to posit a few real questions. Instead the subject that engaged the interviewer and interviewee seemed to be the irrationality of the masses.
But water and areas do not have any teeth, and you can't really get more irrational than to say otherwise...indeed it's the kind of crooked thinking this propaganda depends on.
All in all a masterfully designed easy ride for a sleazy liar - too much of the following and the unpopular fact-dodger would have spluttered to a halt if he ever got going at all. We could all hear that.
DRAMATIC NEW DEVELOPMENT IN FLUORIDATION DEBATE
STATEMENTS UPON WHICH PRO-FLUORIDATIONISTS AND ANTI-FLUORIDATIONSTS MIGHT AGREE
Water and enzymes are basic to all life.
Debates about applied science are never closed.
There is not much common ground between the pro- and anti- fluoridation camps.
You can't stop people eating junk food.
Lack of fluorine is not the cause of tooth decay.
You can't enforce the administration of fluorine by other means.
Twenty people can fluoridate a generation of people by political vote.
There can be no danger from added fluorine if fluorine is not added.
The debate on fluoridation should be scientific, not political.
Fluoridation does not provide a means of controlling individual dosage.
The debate should be conducted in neutral language.
The terms "controlled fluoridation" and "artificial fluoridation" are each emotive in their own way.
Fluoridation does not attempt to replicate naturally fluoridated water.
Each outcome (fluoridation or no fluoridation) creates an economic disadvantage. to people on the losing side.
Water is not the target of fluorides used in fluoridation.
Fluorine forms negatively charged ions (anions) which bind to positively charged ions (cations).
If a fluorine-containing molecule gets close enough to a different molecule a fluoride ion will move from a weaker bond in the first molecule to a stronger bond in the second, if the opportunity exists to do so.
Fluorine will replace less electronegative elements -- e.g. Oxygen and iodine -- in chemical compounds.
Fluorine is more electronegative than any other element.
The fluorine-hydrogen hydrogen bond is the second strongest known.
The fluoridation reagent hydrofluorosilicic acid is of medium nucleophilicity.
"Rights" issues cancel out: they can be used by either side -- but only by the proponents if fluoridation can be proved to be harmless and effective.
Mass-prophylaxis with pharmacologically-ac
tive substances should be regarded with suspicion unless and until it is proven that the good outweighs the harm.
Human experimentation without consent should be illegal.
Fluorine crosses the placenta and the "blood brain barrier".
The presence of something in certain natural water supplies is not a guarantee of its desirability.
Something's absence in water is not evidence of a deficiency in water or man.
Fluorine is not demonstrated to be essential in any human biochemical pathway.
Fluoridation could not survive a wider open discussion of fluorine pollution.
Debating fluoridation publicly is disadvantageous to the proponents.
Sarah darling, if I were to come and try to (more accurately) dose your kids your reaction would be just like http://www.nfl.si/me
rron.htm
Only your awe and the size of the lie prevented you dealing with Lennon in the same way - oh, and living in London your girls are at no risk of what the Lincoln daughters have to go through with their stunted ameloblasts.
"Those whose attitude towards what they regard as subversive literature and speech is simply that it must be suppressed (by force if necessary) show little faith in the reasonableness of the beliefs they are so anxious to protect."
Robert H Thouless -- Straight and Crooked Thinking
For anyone curious about the long term effects of fluoridation here I am: http://www.flickr.co
m/photos/luqi/519360
0401/
southy says...
12:03pm Tue 18 Jan 11
and if they do manage to implement it then the moment there powers are taken away, you stop it at that very moment, the swa will be happy to stop it.