Report this comment
  • "
    SpittingFire wrote:
    Linesman wrote:
    Poppy22 wrote:
    legod7 wrote: The way some people are reacting you would have thought they were trying to put poison in the water. I always understood that fluoride was good for your teeth and that is why it is being put in the water. Surely enough taxpayers money has been wasted on all these enquiries
    Apparently, fluoride is registered as poison under the 1972 Poisons Act and is more toxic than lead! Also,the fluoride added to drinking water is from a different source than the fluoride in toothpaste. Some people argue that America has had fluoride in water for years and that American children have the best teeth but that could be down to increased affluence so a good mixed diet, or the fact that the majority have crowns etc at the dentist to give them perfect-looking teeth! (That's why they all think we in the UK have awful teeth!). Being someone who drinks lots of water every day, I certainly wouldn't want to be drinking water with fluoride in it so would end up having to buy bottled water (and refusing to pay a substantial part of my water bill!). MPs are continually talking about referendums and this is an ideal topic for a referendum. WE should decide, not a health body or MPs, or even local councils (unless they're taking all our votes on it and going with the majority). As I keep saying, very few children drink water out of the tap anyway! It's mostly stuff out of bottles or cans. Enforced medication of the few, at the expense of the rest of us, is just not on, and there'd be many more cases of dental fluorisis (mottled/discoloured teeth). Any dentist supporting fluoride in drinking water is probably thinking of their future income increasing as a result of sorting out discoloured teeth! As for the impact of this poison on the rest of our bodies because we're drinking it (rather than applying directly to the teeth), well ...................
    Warfarin is a rat poison, but in controlled quantities it is prescribed on the NHS to reduce blood clotting and prevent deep vein thrombosis. There are many poisons that, in the correct dose, are used to good effect in health care and fluoride is just one of them. In a City that has recently been shown to have cases of rickets - something that was thought to have been eliminated in the UK - and also to have school children with some of highest incidence of tooth decay in the country, the case for fluoridation is overwhelming.
    Warfarin is given short-term to those that need it on prescription. It is not delivered en masse. . Other than giving these poor kids better teeth, there's no real philanthropy here for the social deprivation in the city. It is not educating or assisting them to a better quality of life. This is why we have the problem in the first place.
    I was responding to Poppy22's comment that fluoride is registered as a poison under the 1972 Poisons Act and is more toxic than lead. There are many substances in daily use that are poisonous if taken in excess, but in small doses are beneficial, or even necessary, salt being a prime example. Poisons are already used in the purification of our water supply, but they do not kill us because they are used in correct measures. Nobody complains about their use.

    I think that I would put more faith in the combined knowledge of the SHA who advocate the addition of fluoride than I do in the combined knowledge of the group that I have seen protesting."
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory
  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.

  • Enter the above word in the box below

Fluoride will be added to Southampton's water, despite protests

Fluoride will be added to city's water

Fluoride will be added to city's water

First published in Fluoride Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author Exclusive by , Education Reporter

HEALTH bosses were last night accused of arrogance after revealing they are ploughing ahead with controversial plans to add fluoride to water supplies.

South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) wants to bring in the scheme that will affect 200,000 people in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams as soon as possible even though it is still subject to a legal appeal.

Campaigners and politicians last night said they were outraged at the unelected body’s move, which comes just a year before it is due to be scrapped by the Government and powers over fluoridation are passed to local councils.

The decision to press ahead with fluoridation emerged in a letter from SHA chief executive Andrea Young to Hampshire County Council.

She wrote that the authority “will put a project in place that will specify the stages required in the next few months,” including work with Southern Water to discover how much the scheme will cost.

Ms Young said the SHA still believes fluoridation is needed because “the dental health of children in the Southampton area remains as poor.

She went on: “Our view is that this scheme has been consulted on in accordance with the current legislation and that we are bound to follow through on the results.”

Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said there was absolutely no justification for fluoridation to go ahead.

He said Southampton’s dental health figures were no longer below national average, adding: “If they go ahead now it’s absolutely appalling. Any justification they had has gone, all the councils, the MPs and the majority of local people are against it and they’re acting in defiance.”

Southampton mum Gerri Milner last month lost her judicial review case arguing the SHA should not have ignored public opinion in making its decision to go ahead with the plans. But she has appealed against the High Court judge’s decision not to allow her legal challenge that the authority board members failed to properly consider all the evidence. That appeal has not yet been heard.

When the judicial review decision was made the SHA said it would consider its next steps, but consistently refused to answer any further questions.

Southampton City Council leader Royston Smith said: “It is perverse for a quango in its death throes to be carrying out anything as controversial and significant as adding fluoride to our water when it has caused so much controversy and opposition.”

He slammed the secret planning which had prompted his deputy Jeremy Moulton to pen a letter this week demanding to know what was happening.

Cllr Moulton, who was last night waiting for a response, accused authority chiefs of being “extremely arrogant and undemocratic”.

“We are furious they did not tell us about this directly, that we had to hear about it second hand and it had to be dragged out of them,” he said.

He vowed: “We will object in the strongest possible terms.

We will do everything we can to get them to change their position.”

Cllr Pat West, chairman of the county council’s health scrutiny committee, said everyone at the authority would be “very disappointed”

by the SHA’s decision, adding: “I would really like clarification over how and when it is going to be done. They’ve made a stand and they’ve stuck to it, but they don’t seem to have listened to the other aspects that people want to have the choice.”

Additional reporting by Matt Smith

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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