Leading the battle to stop fluoride plans

Daily Echo: John Spottiswoode John Spottiswoode

HE’S the man who will now lead the fight to stop fluoride being added to tap water in and around Southampton.

John Spottiswoode has been elected as the new chairman of the Hampshire Against fluoridation (HAF) campaign group.

And the 57-year political activist, below, said it would be a “crucial” year for the campaign with the regional health authority now having just ten months to implement its controversial fluoridation plans before it is abolished in an NHS shake-up.

Mr Spottiswoode said he wanted to make sure Southampton City Council, which will get powers to stop the scheme in April next year, doesn’t “back slide” on its opposition to fluoridation under the new Labour administration.

The former Green Party parliamentary candidate, who has now joined the Labour Party, said HAF needed to maintain its scientific credibility in its fight against the mass medication plans – something he said the health authority had not done.

He previously led the campaign group from 2008 to 2010 and takes over the chairmanship from Stephen Peckham, who stood down at HAF’s annual meeting.

Mr Peckham, the director of the Department of Healthfunded Policy Research Unit is moving from Southampton with wife Anna – also a leading antifluoride campaigner – after landing a professorship studying health services at the University of Kent.

Mr Peckham said he believes HAF has every reason to celebrate its efforts in opposing South Central Strategic Health Authority’s plans to add the chemical to water in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

As reported, health bosses are currently working with Southern Water on the specifics of how to put fluoride in tap water, after last year defeating a High Court legal challenge aimed at having the project ruled unlawful.

The SHA is hopeful fluoridation will be in place by next year, before it is disbanded as part of the Coalition Government’s reforms of the NHS.

Mr Peckham said: “We’ve come such a long way over the last fewyears, and I want to stay involved when we’re hopefully so close to a successful conclusion.

“It’s such an important issue and it’s galvanised me into many other things.

“The whole campaign has worked very well.

“We’ve had great success raising this as a local political issue that the council had to take notice of.

“Here we are, three years after the decision and nothing has happened. The SHA is saying it’s going to get it in by the skin of its teeth, which is just farcical.

“I think everyone involved in the campaign can be very proud of themselves.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:24am Mon 28 May 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Nice to know that John Spottiswoode has once again started to take prominent part in campaign against adding poisonous fluoride to our drinking water
.
John is very intelligent and capable man, one of very few around who like Dr. Alan Whitehead MP has always taken very keen interest in environmental matters, even when talking about environment was not fashionable
.
Although when John told me that he has left the Green Party and rejoined NuLabour, I was very disappointed, but I hope he will be able to use his position within Conservatised NuLabour to make sure that policy of opposition to adding fluoride to drinking water agreed under last Tory administration will not be reversed under new administration. Because some of the NuLabour councillors have been consistently and arrogantly refused to listen to people and kept on supporting this bad idea of an unelected quango
.
I wish John Spottiswoode all the luck in this campaign, and hope new administration led by Cllr. Williams, which has already become notorious for its allergy to telling the truth and trampling on freedom of expression and press, will be little bit less arrogant and bit more honest while dealing with one of their own very intelligent and genuinely honest members.
Nice to know that John Spottiswoode has once again started to take prominent part in campaign against adding poisonous fluoride to our drinking water . John is very intelligent and capable man, one of very few around who like Dr. Alan Whitehead MP has always taken very keen interest in environmental matters, even when talking about environment was not fashionable . Although when John told me that he has left the Green Party and rejoined NuLabour, I was very disappointed, but I hope he will be able to use his position within Conservatised NuLabour to make sure that policy of opposition to adding fluoride to drinking water agreed under last Tory administration will not be reversed under new administration. Because some of the NuLabour councillors have been consistently and arrogantly refused to listen to people and kept on supporting this bad idea of an unelected quango . I wish John Spottiswoode all the luck in this campaign, and hope new administration led by Cllr. Williams, which has already become notorious for its allergy to telling the truth and trampling on freedom of expression and press, will be little bit less arrogant and bit more honest while dealing with one of their own very intelligent and genuinely honest members. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:43am Mon 28 May 12

10 Minute Man says...

Depends whether this is going to go down the valid philosophical argument route - i.e. people should not be mass-medicated - or a sub-scientific scaremongering route (water fluoridation will turn your teeth brown and give you cancer). Depressingly I expect it will be the second route.
Depends whether this is going to go down the valid philosophical argument route - i.e. people should not be mass-medicated - or a sub-scientific scaremongering route (water fluoridation will turn your teeth brown and give you cancer). Depressingly I expect it will be the second route. 10 Minute Man
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Mon 28 May 12

opera phantom says...

Fluoride is a known poison and should not be used for mass medication. If children's teeth are bad in Southampton then it is down to the parents. They are responsible for their children's teeth. This nanny state is going to far.
Fluoride is a known poison and should not be used for mass medication. If children's teeth are bad in Southampton then it is down to the parents. They are responsible for their children's teeth. This nanny state is going to far. opera phantom
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Mon 28 May 12

10 Minute Man says...

Fluoride toxic ? You should worry more about dihydrogen monoxide, thousands of people are killed by that every year and there's more and more added to the public water supply every day.
Fluoride toxic ? You should worry more about dihydrogen monoxide, thousands of people are killed by that every year and there's more and more added to the public water supply every day. 10 Minute Man
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Mon 28 May 12

Verloren Hoop says...

I suppose that we should also look at chlorine which is also used to treat drinking water. Are we going to ban iodine in salt?
I suppose that we should also look at chlorine which is also used to treat drinking water. Are we going to ban iodine in salt? Verloren Hoop
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Mon 28 May 12

On the inside says...

Good, with this dilltante hobbyist at the helm this bunch of flat earthers will go into terminal decline.
Good, with this dilltante hobbyist at the helm this bunch of flat earthers will go into terminal decline. On the inside
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Mon 28 May 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

On the inside wrote:
Good, with this dilltante hobbyist at the helm this bunch of flat earthers will go into terminal decline.
So this is what you think of your own party members who may not be member of party within NuLabour Party, hardly surprising you decide to write under adopted ID and avoid real name.
[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Good, with this dilltante hobbyist at the helm this bunch of flat earthers will go into terminal decline.[/p][/quote]So this is what you think of your own party members who may not be member of party within NuLabour Party, hardly surprising you decide to write under adopted ID and avoid real name. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Mon 28 May 12

Niel says...

Verloren Hoop wrote:
I suppose that we should also look at chlorine which is also used to treat drinking water. Are we going to ban iodine in salt?
Considering Southern water overdoses Southampton's drinking water with Chlorine on a regular basis (twice the LEGAL limit isn't uncommon), I get the figures at work as the processes we run are affected by these chemicals, Fluoride will be even worse.
[quote][p][bold]Verloren Hoop[/bold] wrote: I suppose that we should also look at chlorine which is also used to treat drinking water. Are we going to ban iodine in salt?[/p][/quote]Considering Southern water overdoses Southampton's drinking water with Chlorine on a regular basis (twice the LEGAL limit isn't uncommon), I get the figures at work as the processes we run are affected by these chemicals, Fluoride will be even worse. Niel
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Mon 28 May 12

jwillie6 says...

1. Chlorine is added to treat the water. Fluoride is a drug added to treat the body. People should not be forced to take it against their will.
2. Regarding iodine added to salt, you still have a choice to use it or to use plain salt. Freedom of choice with fluoride is what we should all have.
1. Chlorine is added to treat the water. Fluoride is a drug added to treat the body. People should not be forced to take it against their will. 2. Regarding iodine added to salt, you still have a choice to use it or to use plain salt. Freedom of choice with fluoride is what we should all have. jwillie6
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Mon 28 May 12

Huffter says...

Pity we can't change suppliers as with gas and electricity. I'd choose Oxfam - they can supply a whole African village with clean water for less than my water bill.
Pity we can't change suppliers as with gas and electricity. I'd choose Oxfam - they can supply a whole African village with clean water for less than my water bill. Huffter
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Mon 28 May 12

Eoz says...

I lived in Reading most of my life and the water has fluoride there and as far as I know no ill affects I no people don't like change but I'm sure the water already has chlorine in it as you can smell it. I don't know why anyone is against everyone having healthier teeth, if it works!
I lived in Reading most of my life and the water has fluoride there and as far as I know no ill affects I no people don't like change but I'm sure the water already has chlorine in it as you can smell it. I don't know why anyone is against everyone having healthier teeth, if it works! Eoz
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Mon 28 May 12

Sircumfrins says...

Good evening,
I’m going to present a, common sense based, critique of the issue of fluoridating the water supply and the surrounding topics that have flared up around it.
I’m only going to focus on topics that the average person can comprehend and relate too.
I’m not a SCIENTIST OR EXPERT however the points I will raise do not require a background in these fields.
After the points have been raised it would be nice to hear responses, from pro-fluoride supporters, trying to rebut my statements. Your retorts will be interesting (to say the least) as I’m sure you are all intelligent enough to understand logic. Will you be humble enough to agree and admit you were wrong?
If you don’t respond then would you please back the anti-fluoride movement or at least stop commenting on this NON-ISSUE as your IGNORANCE WILL BE THE UNDOING OF US ALL.
If you value DEMOCRACY, then let it begin here, by accepting that your pro-fluoride views are illogical, irresponsible (as the health and well-being of people are at stake) and that, in this case, the majority should be heard and respected.
I am going to post this exact comment after every new fluoride article placed on the Daily Echo so we can all move in the right direction and avoid the same pointless arguments that keep being regurgitated onto the comments section...it’s becoming ridiculous.
I would also like to add that I'm 27 years old, have never smoked and have never had a filling and have perfect white teeth as a result and I’VE NEVER LIVED IN AREA THAT FLUORIDATED THE WATERSUPPLY.
Let’s begin with the MOST IMPORTANT FACT that has NEVER been addressed, is most POIGNANT and will ANNIHILATE this whole silly “debate”.
Fact 1) YOU DON’T NEED TO USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE TO HAVE A HEALTHY MOUTH AND TEETH! THE DENTAL ASSOCIATION HAS APPROVED MANY BRANDS OF NON-FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE THAT ARE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE! THEREFORE WE DO NOT NEED TO PLACE FLUORIDE IN THE WATER SUPPLY OR EVEN USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE! HAVE WE FORGOTTEN OR DON’T PEOPLE EVEN KNOW THIS MOST BASIC FACT? I’ve been using fluoride free toothpaste for years! When people think of toothpaste they think of fluoride. Fluoride has been associated with toothpaste (AND IS NOW BEING ASSOCIATED WITH WATER – IN THE FALSE PRETEXT OF TRYING TO IMPROVE ORAL HEALTH. IT’S AN ASSOCIATION THAT NEEDS TO BE SQUASHED) and improving the health of people’s mouths, teeth/ gums. The reason why we think this way is because MAJOR RETAIL OUTLETS DO NOT STOCK FLUORIDE FREE TOOTHPASTE. The average person doesn’t even know it’s possible to buy fluoride free toothpaste. Indeed, one has to go out of their way to buy fluoride free toothpaste (Health Stores are the only places that sell fluoride free toothpaste). If the demand is not there (in this case due to lack of awareness) then there will be no supply. Simple. If people were able to buy fluoride free toothpaste, at for example Tesco, I wonder how quickly the influence and association of fluoride being beneficial would diminish. THIS WHOLE DEBATE WOULD BE A NON-ISSUE AS WE WOULD KNOW FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION IN THE SO CALLED “WAR AGAINST PLAQUE AND TOOTH DECAY”. Lack of knowledge has allowed fluoride to become “THE ONLY ANSWER” (apparently) in this debate...which is FAR from the TRUTH. NOW THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION FOR ORAL CARE THEN MEDICATING (POISONING) OUR WATER SUPPLY, WITH FLUORIDE, BECOMES POINTLESS AND DANGEROUS FOR MANY OBVIOUS REASONS.
I would also like to point out that there are many people (I can say I’m one...possibly you) that haven’t experienced oral health issues and it’s not because we grew up drinking fluoridated water. WE ARE PROOF THAT FLUORIDE DOESN’T NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE WATER SUPPLY. Simple oral hygiene, diet, abstaining from soda, sweet drinks and sweets would more than put you on the road to oral health. This is common sense.
The above simple fact should be MORE than enough proof that fluoridation is unnecessary. However I will continue. I want to make this perfectly clear to everyone that fluoridation is unacceptable.
Fact 2) Now that we know fluoride is not the only answer we can address the next issue. CHILDREN are the main reason why they want to fluoridate our water supply, due to poor hygiene of SOME children’s mouths...IRONICALLY, MOST CHILDREN DON’T DRINK WATER BUT RATHER SODA, SWEETS AND SWEET DRINKS SO HOW WILL FLUORIDATING THE WATER SUPPLY BENEFIT THEM??? HOW WILL THE SHA GET CHILDREN TO DRINK WATER, WHEN THEIR OWN PARENTS CAN’T GET THEM TOO (fail to try or try and fail)??? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a child drinking water (I’m sure some do) and I’m sure most people would tend to agree. The parents should be responsible for their children...the SHA should not. The rest of us shouldn’t have our health, placed at potential risk, due to lack of discipline and poor parenting. EDUCATION, administered by the parent (not the SHA!), is the key. THIS IS A NON-ISSUE NOW THAT WE KNOW FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER...AND IS NO ANSWER AT ALL.
Fact 3) Fluoride works TOPICALLY and not SYSTEMICALLY! You brush your teeth then spit the waste out. It works when applied directly to the tooth’s surface (ONCE AGAIN I WILL REMIND YOU THAT YOU DON’T NEED TO PURCHASE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE, YOU CAN BUY FLUORIDE FREE TOOTHPASTE WHICH IS AS EFFECTIVE – BUT LESS COMMONLY KNOWN) IF YOU SWALLOW FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE YOU ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT A DOCTOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Drinking fluoridated water is therefore not effective. The potential dangers far outweigh the potential “benefits” – which is, again, a NON-ISSUE NOW THAT WE KNOW FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER...AND NO ANSWER AT ALL.
The facts that I’ve mentioned above should already deter you from being pro-fluoride as, in the very least; it’s unnecessary and is going to put us even further out of pocket.
Why don’t the ones effected be given fluoride tablets? Surely this would be cheaper and safer?
I will now run through some other important points that need to be considered here.
Fluoride is associated with many serious illnesses and ailments. Doing your own investigation into the vast amounts of information will show you that there are many reasons to be concerned.
Fluoride is absorbed into the body, into our tissue, bones etc...How is this going to effect us down the line? There are some places, where naturally occurring fluoride, exists in high levels have crippled the local populations (Japan for example).
How much fluoridated water is safe to drink daily? If you’re a certain size how much is safe for you to drink? I drink almost 5litres a day...How much is safe for me to drink?
What about babies? How much is safe for them to drink? It’s not naturally occurring in breast milk?
How will all this excess fluoride effect Nature? You do realise all this fluoride will end up in our rivers and oceans...how will this effect the eco-system? Is it worth risking based on a NON-ISSUE. NOW THAT WE KNOW FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER...AND NO ANSWER AT ALL.
HOW MUCH ARE WE WILLING TO RISK???
Certain pro-fluoride people want to point out that few people attend these meetings and somehow point out that people aren’t concerned. Firstly, I would like to say that this is the most ridiculous and pointless argument I have ever come across and I’m baffled that it is even mentioned...let alone repeated. I would like to add that even if 1 person is in the right and 1 million people are in the wrong...you are still in the WRONG. I would like to re-iterate a point...
...The, unelected, SHA HELD PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS.
Pro and Anti-fluoride information was heard and people were asked if they wanted fluoride in the water or not. 75% of people, THAT DID ATTEND, said they DID NOT want it in the water supply. So if 100 people were there 75 people said no, if 10 then 7.5. The point is, if you value DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM, you would value those people’s Right to have said what they want to say, have the outcome the majority decided upon and you would respect that process...not because you agree but because you value DEMOCRACY and the Freedom’s associated with it...because you know that what they are representing and standing for is based upon the same privileges and ideals you are lucky enough to enjoy and be a part of, daily. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT AN INJUSTICE TO ONE IS AN INJUSTICE TO ALL...IN THIS CASE AN INJUSTICE TO THOUSANDS.
So please, stop mentioning numbers and attendance because you sound foolish.
As you can see this is more than just a health issue. Democracy is at stake. If fluoride is introduced, against the expressed wishes of the people, into the water supply then we should start getting used to the voice of the people becoming VOICELESS. IF THIS SLIPS WHAT WILL BE NEXT?
I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOURS AND EVERYONE ELSE’S HEALTH IS POTENTIALLY AT STAKE. IT’S TOO LATE TO REVERSE ANY PROBLEMS THAT FLARE UP LATER ON IN ONE’S LIFE. THE DAMAGE COULD OR WOULD ALREADY BE IRREVERSIBLE AND POSSIBLY YOUR FAMILY MAY SUFFER BECAUSE OF DECISIONS OR INDECISION YOU MAKE RIGHT NOW. HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH DOCUMENTED TRAGEDIES WHICH PEOPLE COULD HAVE AVOIDED.
Come on folks!
THIS IS A NON-ISSUE!!!
JUST REMEMBER THE 3 MAIN POINTS I’VE MADE.
Good evening, I’m going to present a, common sense based, critique of the issue of fluoridating the water supply and the surrounding topics that have flared up around it. I’m only going to focus on topics that the average person can comprehend and relate too. I’m not a SCIENTIST OR EXPERT however the points I will raise do not require a background in these fields. After the points have been raised it would be nice to hear responses, from pro-fluoride supporters, trying to rebut my statements. Your retorts will be interesting (to say the least) as I’m sure you are all intelligent enough to understand logic. Will you be humble enough to agree and admit you were wrong? If you don’t respond then would you please back the anti-fluoride movement or at least stop commenting on this NON-ISSUE as your IGNORANCE WILL BE THE UNDOING OF US ALL. If you value DEMOCRACY, then let it begin here, by accepting that your pro-fluoride views are illogical, irresponsible (as the health and well-being of people are at stake) and that, in this case, the majority should be heard and respected. I am going to post this exact comment after every new fluoride article placed on the Daily Echo so we can all move in the right direction and avoid the same pointless arguments that keep being regurgitated onto the comments section...it’s becoming ridiculous. I would also like to add that I'm 27 years old, have never smoked and have never had a filling and have perfect white teeth as a result and I’VE NEVER LIVED IN AREA THAT FLUORIDATED THE WATERSUPPLY. Let’s begin with the MOST IMPORTANT FACT that has NEVER been addressed, is most POIGNANT and will ANNIHILATE this whole silly “debate”. Fact 1) YOU DON’T NEED TO USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE TO HAVE A HEALTHY MOUTH AND TEETH! THE DENTAL ASSOCIATION HAS APPROVED MANY BRANDS OF NON-FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE THAT ARE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE! THEREFORE WE DO NOT NEED TO PLACE FLUORIDE IN THE WATER SUPPLY OR EVEN USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE! HAVE WE FORGOTTEN OR DON’T PEOPLE EVEN KNOW THIS MOST BASIC FACT? I’ve been using fluoride free toothpaste for years! When people think of toothpaste they think of fluoride. Fluoride has been associated with toothpaste (AND IS NOW BEING ASSOCIATED WITH WATER – IN THE FALSE PRETEXT OF TRYING TO IMPROVE ORAL HEALTH. IT’S AN ASSOCIATION THAT NEEDS TO BE SQUASHED) and improving the health of people’s mouths, teeth/ gums. The reason why we think this way is because MAJOR RETAIL OUTLETS DO NOT STOCK FLUORIDE FREE TOOTHPASTE. The average person doesn’t even know it’s possible to buy fluoride free toothpaste. Indeed, one has to go out of their way to buy fluoride free toothpaste (Health Stores are the only places that sell fluoride free toothpaste). If the demand is not there (in this case due to lack of awareness) then there will be no supply. Simple. If people were able to buy fluoride free toothpaste, at for example Tesco, I wonder how quickly the influence and association of fluoride being beneficial would diminish. THIS WHOLE DEBATE WOULD BE A NON-ISSUE AS WE WOULD KNOW FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION IN THE SO CALLED “WAR AGAINST PLAQUE AND TOOTH DECAY”. Lack of knowledge has allowed fluoride to become “THE ONLY ANSWER” (apparently) in this debate...which is FAR from the TRUTH. NOW THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION FOR ORAL CARE THEN MEDICATING (POISONING) OUR WATER SUPPLY, WITH FLUORIDE, BECOMES POINTLESS AND DANGEROUS FOR MANY OBVIOUS REASONS. I would also like to point out that there are many people (I can say I’m one...possibly you) that haven’t experienced oral health issues and it’s not because we grew up drinking fluoridated water. WE ARE PROOF THAT FLUORIDE DOESN’T NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE WATER SUPPLY. Simple oral hygiene, diet, abstaining from soda, sweet drinks and sweets would more than put you on the road to oral health. This is common sense. The above simple fact should be MORE than enough proof that fluoridation is unnecessary. However I will continue. I want to make this perfectly clear to everyone that fluoridation is unacceptable. Fact 2) Now that we know fluoride is not the only answer we can address the next issue. CHILDREN are the main reason why they want to fluoridate our water supply, due to poor hygiene of SOME children’s mouths...IRONICALLY, MOST CHILDREN DON’T DRINK WATER BUT RATHER SODA, SWEETS AND SWEET DRINKS SO HOW WILL FLUORIDATING THE WATER SUPPLY BENEFIT THEM??? HOW WILL THE SHA GET CHILDREN TO DRINK WATER, WHEN THEIR OWN PARENTS CAN’T GET THEM TOO (fail to try or try and fail)??? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a child drinking water (I’m sure some do) and I’m sure most people would tend to agree. The parents should be responsible for their children...the SHA should not. The rest of us shouldn’t have our health, placed at potential risk, due to lack of discipline and poor parenting. EDUCATION, administered by the parent (not the SHA!), is the key. THIS IS A NON-ISSUE NOW THAT WE KNOW FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER...AND IS NO ANSWER AT ALL. Fact 3) Fluoride works TOPICALLY and not SYSTEMICALLY! You brush your teeth then spit the waste out. It works when applied directly to the tooth’s surface (ONCE AGAIN I WILL REMIND YOU THAT YOU DON’T NEED TO PURCHASE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE, YOU CAN BUY FLUORIDE FREE TOOTHPASTE WHICH IS AS EFFECTIVE – BUT LESS COMMONLY KNOWN) IF YOU SWALLOW FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE YOU ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT A DOCTOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Drinking fluoridated water is therefore not effective. The potential dangers far outweigh the potential “benefits” – which is, again, a NON-ISSUE NOW THAT WE KNOW FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER...AND NO ANSWER AT ALL. The facts that I’ve mentioned above should already deter you from being pro-fluoride as, in the very least; it’s unnecessary and is going to put us even further out of pocket. Why don’t the ones effected be given fluoride tablets? Surely this would be cheaper and safer? I will now run through some other important points that need to be considered here. Fluoride is associated with many serious illnesses and ailments. Doing your own investigation into the vast amounts of information will show you that there are many reasons to be concerned. Fluoride is absorbed into the body, into our tissue, bones etc...How is this going to effect us down the line? There are some places, where naturally occurring fluoride, exists in high levels have crippled the local populations (Japan for example). How much fluoridated water is safe to drink daily? If you’re a certain size how much is safe for you to drink? I drink almost 5litres a day...How much is safe for me to drink? What about babies? How much is safe for them to drink? It’s not naturally occurring in breast milk? How will all this excess fluoride effect Nature? You do realise all this fluoride will end up in our rivers and oceans...how will this effect the eco-system? Is it worth risking based on a NON-ISSUE. NOW THAT WE KNOW FLUORIDE IS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER...AND NO ANSWER AT ALL. HOW MUCH ARE WE WILLING TO RISK??? Certain pro-fluoride people want to point out that few people attend these meetings and somehow point out that people aren’t concerned. Firstly, I would like to say that this is the most ridiculous and pointless argument I have ever come across and I’m baffled that it is even mentioned...let alone repeated. I would like to add that even if 1 person is in the right and 1 million people are in the wrong...you are still in the WRONG. I would like to re-iterate a point... ...The, unelected, SHA HELD PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS. Pro and Anti-fluoride information was heard and people were asked if they wanted fluoride in the water or not. 75% of people, THAT DID ATTEND, said they DID NOT want it in the water supply. So if 100 people were there 75 people said no, if 10 then 7.5. The point is, if you value DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM, you would value those people’s Right to have said what they want to say, have the outcome the majority decided upon and you would respect that process...not because you agree but because you value DEMOCRACY and the Freedom’s associated with it...because you know that what they are representing and standing for is based upon the same privileges and ideals you are lucky enough to enjoy and be a part of, daily. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT AN INJUSTICE TO ONE IS AN INJUSTICE TO ALL...IN THIS CASE AN INJUSTICE TO THOUSANDS. So please, stop mentioning numbers and attendance because you sound foolish. As you can see this is more than just a health issue. Democracy is at stake. If fluoride is introduced, against the expressed wishes of the people, into the water supply then we should start getting used to the voice of the people becoming VOICELESS. IF THIS SLIPS WHAT WILL BE NEXT? I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOURS AND EVERYONE ELSE’S HEALTH IS POTENTIALLY AT STAKE. IT’S TOO LATE TO REVERSE ANY PROBLEMS THAT FLARE UP LATER ON IN ONE’S LIFE. THE DAMAGE COULD OR WOULD ALREADY BE IRREVERSIBLE AND POSSIBLY YOUR FAMILY MAY SUFFER BECAUSE OF DECISIONS OR INDECISION YOU MAKE RIGHT NOW. HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH DOCUMENTED TRAGEDIES WHICH PEOPLE COULD HAVE AVOIDED. Come on folks! THIS IS A NON-ISSUE!!! JUST REMEMBER THE 3 MAIN POINTS I’VE MADE. Sircumfrins
  • Score: 0

9:04am Tue 29 May 12

10 Minute Man says...

TL, DR.
TL, DR. 10 Minute Man
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Tue 29 May 12

Cllr Chris says...

10 Minute Man wrote:
Fluoride toxic ? You should worry more about dihydrogen monoxide, thousands of people are killed by that every year and there's more and more added to the public water supply every day.
I hear that one so often it simply isn't funny anymore. The fact is that chlorine is there to clean the water - and if left to stand chlorine will evaporate out - but not fluoride. Iodine is added to salt for the very good reason that Iodine is essential to body health (particularly the thyriod gland - whereas flouride replaces the iodine and wrecks the gland!). Fluoride (either sodium or hexofluoricsalic acid!) has no known nutritional function in the human body whatsoever. It is poison pure and simple. Cooking concentrates it further. And using "dihydrogen monoxide" as sarcasm and scorn dressed up as "humour" simply shows how weak the arguments are when the "mockers" try to support fluoridation.
[quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: Fluoride toxic ? You should worry more about dihydrogen monoxide, thousands of people are killed by that every year and there's more and more added to the public water supply every day.[/p][/quote]I hear that one so often it simply isn't funny anymore. The fact is that chlorine is there to clean the water - and if left to stand chlorine will evaporate out - but not fluoride. Iodine is added to salt for the very good reason that Iodine is essential to body health (particularly the thyriod gland - whereas flouride replaces the iodine and wrecks the gland!). Fluoride (either sodium or hexofluoricsalic acid!) has no known nutritional function in the human body whatsoever. It is poison pure and simple. Cooking concentrates it further. And using "dihydrogen monoxide" as sarcasm and scorn dressed up as "humour" simply shows how weak the arguments are when the "mockers" try to support fluoridation. Cllr Chris
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Tue 29 May 12

opera phantom says...

Eoz wrote:
I lived in Reading most of my life and the water has fluoride there and as far as I know no ill affects I no people don't like change but I'm sure the water already has chlorine in it as you can smell it. I don't know why anyone is against everyone having healthier teeth, if it works!
Because there is a choice of using fluoride in tooth paste. It the principle of using a known poison
to mass medicate.
[quote][p][bold]Eoz[/bold] wrote: I lived in Reading most of my life and the water has fluoride there and as far as I know no ill affects I no people don't like change but I'm sure the water already has chlorine in it as you can smell it. I don't know why anyone is against everyone having healthier teeth, if it works![/p][/quote]Because there is a choice of using fluoride in tooth paste. It the principle of using a known poison to mass medicate. opera phantom
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Thu 31 May 12

dalesully says...

Surely one of the main points is it is not necessary. Looking at dental cavity rates worldwide (WHO) you'll find no noticable difference between countries that fluoridate, have natural fluoride and no fluoride in the water. Dental hygiene and diet are the main factors in dental cavity rates and much more hassle to remedy for our councils. You can see why they want to do it. It's seems like the easy answer. Unfortunatley it will cost the councils hundreds of thousands every year and just be another toxin for your body to deal with.
Surely one of the main points is it is not necessary. Looking at dental cavity rates worldwide (WHO) you'll find no noticable difference between countries that fluoridate, have natural fluoride and no fluoride in the water. Dental hygiene and diet are the main factors in dental cavity rates and much more hassle to remedy for our councils. You can see why they want to do it. It's seems like the easy answer. Unfortunatley it will cost the councils hundreds of thousands every year and just be another toxin for your body to deal with. dalesully
  • Score: 0

7:32am Tue 26 Jun 12

Dan Soton says...

Funds For Dental Stem Cell Research Vs The Fluoridation of Southampton's drinking water.


-

see.. Surgeons based at hospitals in the city have developed a stem cell treatment that could treat the common bone disease, osteonecrosis.

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9730486.
_Revolutionary__new_
hip_replacement_proc
edure/


-

According to Paul Sharpe, Ph.D., the UKs leading Dental Stem Scientist and US dental-health surveys..

After 60 years of community water fluoridation about 70 % of adults in the United States have lost at least one tooth; about 58 % of those aged 50 and older have fewer than the 21 teeth considered ‘functional dentition’; and about 18 % aged 65 or older have no natural teeth at all.


---------


Regrowing Teeth with Dental Stem Cells: An Alternative to Dentures, Bridges, and Implants.?

April 27, 2011 in New York.

The future for regenerative and tissue-engineering application to dentistry is one with immense potential, capable of bringing quantum advances in treatment for our patients.

Behind the therapeutic promise of the stem cells found in teeth is the work of scientists such as Paul Sharpe, Ph.D., a pioneer in research that promises to expand regenerative dentistry.

“In the future we envision,” explains Dr. Sharpe, “a patient who loses a tooth and wants a replacement will be able to choose between current methods and a biological-based implant—a new natural tooth—derived from the patient’s own dental stem cells.”
-

http://www.prweb.com
/releases/2011/04/pr
web5258064.htm

-

Questions for all Stem Scientists


With the greatest possible respect... we are told about 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood, where it distributes throughout the body.. will the Fluoridation of Southampton's drinking water adversely affect/hinder Stem Cell treatment's?

-

Do you support the Fluoridation of Southampton's drinking water?
Funds For Dental Stem Cell Research Vs The Fluoridation of Southampton's drinking water. - see.. Surgeons based at hospitals in the city have developed a stem cell treatment that could treat the common bone disease, osteonecrosis. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9730486. _Revolutionary__new_ hip_replacement_proc edure/ - According to Paul Sharpe, Ph.D., the UKs leading Dental Stem Scientist and US dental-health surveys.. After 60 years of community water fluoridation about 70 % of adults in the United States have lost at least one tooth; about 58 % of those aged 50 and older have fewer than the 21 teeth considered ‘functional dentition’; and about 18 % aged 65 or older have no natural teeth at all. --------- Regrowing Teeth with Dental Stem Cells: An Alternative to Dentures, Bridges, and Implants.? April 27, 2011 in New York. The future for regenerative and tissue-engineering application to dentistry is one with immense potential, capable of bringing quantum advances in treatment for our patients. Behind the therapeutic promise of the stem cells found in teeth is the work of scientists such as Paul Sharpe, Ph.D., a pioneer in research that promises to expand regenerative dentistry. “In the future we envision,” explains Dr. Sharpe, “a patient who loses a tooth and wants a replacement will be able to choose between current methods and a biological-based implant—a new natural tooth—derived from the patient’s own dental stem cells.” - http://www.prweb.com /releases/2011/04/pr web5258064.htm - Questions for all Stem Scientists With the greatest possible respect... we are told about 70–90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed into the blood, where it distributes throughout the body.. will the Fluoridation of Southampton's drinking water adversely affect/hinder Stem Cell treatment's? - Do you support the Fluoridation of Southampton's drinking water? Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

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