I cant wait for it to be put in our water.

There is no proof it causes any problems.

FACT

Soton Resident wrote:
I cant wait for it to be put in our water.

There is no proof it causes any problems.

FACT

Did you pick up your brown envelope OK?

Improvements in dental health would come about if there were more NHS dentists - we do not need mass medication, it is against our human rights.

i think it is perfectly fine to add flouride to the water.

Forget flouride - why not add malt, hops and yeast to the water? I'd certainly feel a lot happier about paying my water bill then.

Soton Resident wrote:
I cant wait for it to be put in our water. There is no proof it causes any problems. FACT

I look forward tt you backing up your FACT.

Romsey wrote:

Soton Resident wrote: I cant wait for it to be put in our water. There is no proof it causes any problems. FACT

I look forward tt you backing up your FACT.

Romsey is not in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton or Netley so shut up and keep your nose out of others business!!!

Bring it on, for once Southampton may be progressive and do what many cities worldwide are doing.

They haven't have negative outcomes so why should we!

No one in Southampton is fluoride deficient. Adding more fluoride into their bodies, to alter their body chemistry, will certainly cause more harm than any possible good

Fluoride can never replace the dentist deficiency occurring because dentists won't treat people unless patients or the government hand over vast amounts of money to do so

Another FACT!!! wrote:

Romsey wrote:

Soton Resident wrote: I cant wait for it to be put in our water. There is no proof it causes any problems. FACT

I look forward tt you backing up your FACT.

Romsey is not in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton or Netley so shut up and keep your nose out of others business!!!

Here we go, another imbecile who cannot answer a question, nor hold a debate, so has to resort to other tactics.
You are correct in saying Romsey is not in the areas you mention, but what has that to do with it?
This is a local paper, delivered into Romsey,the web is available world wide and and the comments section is public and open for all.

FWIW I'm against mass fluoridation on principle. It could be included in kids' cereals or branded milk, in the same way was vitamins or calcium is. Another point to consider is how much of the expensively-dosed water supply is actually drunk or otherwise ingested? And will the fish in the sea (or whoever is at the receiving end of treated sewage) end up with better teeth?

It's amazing how whenever someone says that they are backing fluoride or that its safe and effective or harmless, they never seem to be able to back this up with any info or evidence to support their statements. Consequently they are usually recognisable as a group with much to gain from fluoridation, its sale, distribution, expansion etc. Not only this, they will not even enter into any intelleigent discussion of the subject. One must presume they are terrified of being expeosed by their lack of evidence.

Suffice it to say that all recent research has cast doubts on both its efficacy and safety and has usually linked it with many medical problems including thyroid disruption, reduction of IQ, dental and skeletal fluorosis, obesity and most recently, bone cancer to name just a few. Other than this its perfectly safe of course. Dentists who support this unethical activity, have usually not read any of the scientific opinions to the contrary hold together because of a combination of fear and ignorant orthodoxy. They represent only a small minority of scientific opinion and those who do bother to read the latest research papers, usually change sides PDQ.

Lawyers on both sides of the big pond are now looking at the evidence. Consequently all those currently still promoting and proposing this very toxic and illegal activity (fluoridation) are advised to hold on to and not to destroy their documentation and promotional literature, as this will almost certainly be regarded as evidence for the prosecution.

Anyone out there who still wants to injest fluoride, can pick up fluoridated toothpaste at the pharmacy and even get tablets from their doctor, but they must not expect me or the rest of the population to take an aspirin because a small and vested interest has a headache. We who oppose this dangerous precedent do not give anyone permission to illegally dose us, and will refuse to pay for it.

Finally, heres a recent list for those who think fluoridation is legal which should include medical personal, the water companies, the PCTs and politicians both local and national. Fluoridation is illegal under the Poisons Act, under the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive, and Violates the code of medical ethics, It Violates the European Convention on Human Rights and Violates the European Charter on Fundamental Rights and is even In breach of consumer legislation. The offer of indemnity to the water companies etc under the Water Bill is also illegal.

Pure and uncontaminated drinking water is becoming increasingly rare on planet Earth and this is not the time to further damage the natural eco-systems of our planet, or the human food chain. Friends of the Earth Local Groups, the National Pure Water Association, the UK Councils Against Fluoride, the Institute for Science in Society, the Soil Association, the Green Party, and the majority of the British public who have been polled, all reject fluoridation of water. Join us and Say No To Fluoride.
For more info contact me on 01282-860985.

So where is all this research proving your point then? Seems pretty stupid To criticise others and then do exactly the same yourself. Do you live in one of the affected areas? If not, what is your agenda and what exactly does this local issue have to do with you?

If you live in Southampton and do not want fluoridation rather than just writing here turn up at Colbury Hall on the Ashurst Road tomorrow at 1pm when the Hampshire Primary Care Trust have fluoridation on their agenda.

Proposal to Adjust Levels of Fluoride in parts of Southampton and Surrounding Areas To note the content of the appended South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) Board paper (HA 08/046). To note that SCSHA is planning to proceed to public consultation in August 2008. note that the Hampshire PCT Board proposes to meet in public in October 2008 to consider the proposal in detail and to determine its formal position on the matter

Hampshire Primary Care Trust has to agree to the fluoridation of Eastleigh and Totton if the City is to be fluoridated. Prevail upon them to say no and you may stop it. At 1pm there is an open meeting before the 2 pm board meeting.

Flouride is a poison. It is used as a mood supressant in treatments for mental health problems. It causes problems with memory which are irreversable. It desensatises people & makes them compliant. It is a drug for controlling people.

Fluoride is an incredible substance! It can be used to increase penis length and girth in males and breast perkiness in females. It alters your metabolism so you have a perfect BMI, no matter how much or little you eat. Studies have shown taking it makes you 78% more attractive to the opposite sex and it also possesses magical properties that stop your wallet/purse from ever running out of cash. Apparently it can also reduce tooth decay but I don’t know so much about that...

Does this issue really matter?

I am really more concerned about how Newspapers such as the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express have on our collective mentality.

The whole population of the UK has become complete numbskulls due to the effect of the gutter press , we dont know which way to turn.

You moan about flouridisation?

People have been using it for years in some toothpaste. I struggle to see anything different in the population.

Note to Southampton PCT - See you at the European Court of Human Rights.
I look forward to it.

Myself and many others who oppose fluoridation have consistently listed the research papers, reviews and recommendations about the dangers of fluoride. There is little point in my reinterating so much evidence when clearly the pro-fluoride people are not going to read it and have little or nothing with which to refute it. If however they do wish to act in a professional manner they can check out the Fluoride Action Network where they will find shedloads of the stuff. Readers will also note that what little evidence to justify fluoridation there is is clearly out of date and all based on the same tired press releases. I have to spend a lot of time nailing the lies about the so called, "safe and effective" fluoride and dont propose to reinvent the wheel here for the benefit of those who either cannot or will not open their eyes and minds.

Aha! So, solicitors are now being called in by the SHA to make sure that 'Consultation' is carried out properly. Well, I suppose that's a start - pity that this 'Consultation' ignores one simple little fact - that the process on which consultation is being sought - fluoridation - is itself illegal!

So now, dear SHA Members, to ensure that you are not risking accusations of potential accusations of medical negligence, get your solicitors to explain to you how you can get round the obstacle that you can't simply ask the public for their permission to commit an illegal act of assault on their neighbours' children.

Fluoride is used solely with the INTENT to affect a medical condition - dental caries. THis is sufficient to require it to be classified as a medicinal product (and no, the MHRA fudging the issue by claiming that it isn't is completely without foundation - the MHRA has never been asked to vet fluorosilici acid as a medicinal product!)

To fluoridated the public water supply, the SHA will therefore first need tobe in possession of a medicinal Product Licence. This would allow it to administer it to the public through its Agent, Southern Water. But no such licence exists for fluorosilici acid (yes, the 'product' is the concentrated acid - fluoridated water is only a 'presentation' of the Product). Nor, given the evidence of its toxicity now available, could it ever be granted such a licence - no medicine with such extensive and severe side effects could pass the strict controls required under the EC's Pharmacovigilance Directive (go on, look it up!)

It is illegal to administer an unlicenced medicinal product to anyone, let alone the general public at large, except under strict one-to-one medical supervision. If the SHA goes ahead with this foolish 'Consultation' it may be held to be negligent in proposing to carry it out without understanding the limitations placed on medical interventions under English and European Community law.

So by all means get your solicitors on the job - but make sure that they do the WHOLE job, otherwise your SHA Members may find themselves called to account.

Oh look, yet more cranks and barrack room lawyers mouthing plenty of hot air yet providing not one piece of evidence to back their retarded claims.

Local person, they've told you where to go to see the evidence. Check out the health-related papers on the Fluoride Action Network website:

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/health/

Sadly, I can't prise your eyes open and hold the papers in front of your face for you to read. If you want to see evidence, you have to look for it yourself. If you can't be bothered to look, then don't come on here and say there's no evidence... Come on here and say how you're lazily and blindly accepting the council's ill-conceived plans without looking into alternatives or possible repurcussions.

Yes, I can imagine a website called Fluoride Alert is the first port of call for anyone looking to find balanced research. If it was that straight forward, the PCT would clearly not be considering it.

Here are some facts

- The level of fluoride they want to put in the water will bring it to levels found naturally in others parts of this country.
- Many, many people happily use toothpaste etc with fluoride with no ill effects.
- Both myself and my brother were given fluoride tablets when we were young. We are both now in are thirties, in perfect health and neither of us have any fillings.

Fluoride has come up in various conversations I have had recently and most people really don’t care if it is added or not and I include myself in that opinion. The most vocal opponents here come across as cranks who do not live in the area and will not be affected by any changes. Their time would be better spent opposing a bypass or mobile mask somewhere far away from Southampton.

No, that website doesn't seem balanced, but since this is a very emotive issue, you'll be hard pressed to find any "evidence" that is truly balanced.

There are also different ways of looking at this argument:

- Some people believe there are ill effects of fluoride consumption that outweigh any benefits.
- Some people believe there are no benefits of consuming fluoride at all. The toothpaste comparison is unfair since most people (I presume) don't drink four glasses of toothpaste a day. Brushing fluoridated toothpaste against your teeth for several minutes would surely have a different effect to washing fluoridated water over your teeth as you drink it? I have no evidence for this, but I would argue that it's still an unfair comparison.
- Some people are against the enforced "mass medication" scenario. This is more of a matter of principle, and one I stand by. Is the council in the right to force people to ingest fluoride? Even if they don't suffer from dental problems? The whole plan sounds ill-conceived. If some people have dental conditions, surely it would be better to give only those people fluoride tablets, like you and your brother used to take?

People who don't live in the area have opinions too, and I like reading them. It gives a different angle on the situation from an outsider's point of view. As an analyst (don't laugh) I know that formal reviews work a lot better if you include an unaffected third party in the discussion. It is also beneficial to hear from people who currently live in fluoridated areas, to see how fluoridation has affected them.

For info, I'm not a crank, I'm a regular poster on this forum, I've read papers addressing both sides of the argument and I live in Southampton ;)

From the British Dental Journal 1988 Jun 11; 164(11):349-350
14-year-old children in fluoridated South Birmingham 1987 survey 32 per cent caries free.

Residents have been told at school "Calcium is good for strong bones and healthy teeth".
From Fluoride Journal 1994 April issue pp59-66 Randomised one gram Calcium tablet given over 10 years gives 97.8 per cent cares free children with the added bonus of stronger bones due to higher bone density.
Read 24 Feb 2006 UK Times Newspaper "Bone of Contention". Dr Richard Keen, of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital and UCL, teaches that 50 per cent of adult bone strength is determined by the age of 14 or 15. Osteoporosis is a painful condition resulting in 70,000 hip fractures every year from osteoporosis.

From the USA CDC web site www.cdc.gov/nohss/gu

ideDS.htm 90 per cent of tooth decay occurs on the back teeth. Thats why dental sealants are used, adding to water fluoridation costs. Water fluoridation still gives you increasing dental costs. If you are one of the lucky 32 per cent who benifit from water fluoridation, what about the remaining 68 per cent who have increasing dental caries in adults. Teeth take time to rot. A lucky 60 per cent of 5-year-olds may be caries free but this falls to 32 per cent of 14-year-olds. Dental sealants costs in the Southampton proposal have been ignored. America tells you openly about dental sealants, the UK hides its use of dental sealants. A dental sealant is an expensive option thats provides a plastic coating on the back teeth, thereby providing a mechanical barrier. Its used in Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Birmingham but only if the read "Other side of the coin 2006" by Chis Holdcroft, who has investigated NHS dental costs.

Finally visit www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/

publications/AAG/doh

_text.htm

local person wrote:
Yes, I can imagine a website called Fluoride Alert is the first port of call for anyone looking to find balanced research. If it was that straight forward, the PCT would clearly not be considering it. Here are some facts - The level of fluoride they want to put in the water will bring it to levels found naturally in others parts of this country. - Many, many people happily use toothpaste etc with fluoride with no ill effects. - Both myself and my brother were given fluoride tablets when we were young. We are both now in are thirties, in perfect health and neither of us have any fillings. Fluoride has come up in various conversations I have had recently and most people really don’t care if it is added or not and I include myself in that opinion. The most vocal opponents here come across as cranks who do not live in the area and will not be affected by any changes. Their time would be better spent opposing a bypass or mobile mask somewhere far away from Southampton.

errr..actually I work in Soton and live in Eastleigh.
Firstly, If you look at your toothpaste tube you'll see it has a WARNING not to swallow. This is because it is a POISON and Glaxo et al, are covering themselves from being sued.
Secondly, There is a big difference between
naturally occuring mineral Fluoride and the industrial waste product hydrofluosilicic acid
You have been TAKEN IN by the propaganda

Yes Please wrote:
Bring it on, for once Southampton may be progressive and do what many cities worldwide are doing. They haven't have negative outcomes so why should we!

NOT TRUE
It is NOT progressive. Andover rejected Fluoridation as far back as the 50's, and many sitting councillors lost their seats to anti-fluoride candidates.
NOT TRUE
There have been MANY negative outcomes in the states and elsewhere. As recently as June 2008, American Water companies have been ordered by the federal government not to destroy any records which could be evidence in upcoming lawsuits.
The idea that it must be OK because the States have had it for many years, simply doesn't bear up under scrutiny. In the states it has been linked to childhood cancers, renal failure and ADHD, by numerous Health professionals.

Most of the PCTs 'evidence' amounts to nothing more than anecdotal platitudes.

Prozac is 94% flouride. It is the almost pure...it is used in mental health treatments all over the place. You try downing two of these pills and going to college/uni/training
. Youre concentration is useless, you sit and stare, empty headed. Then you say you dont think this substance will effect your kids in school after swallowing a few bits while brushing and swilling, and drinking water and sometimes tea...
It crosses the blood brain barrier and now scientist are saying this is the probable cause of alziemers. You try remembering stuff on when full of prozac! This stuff STORES in the body in the peneal gland just like a prozac pill. My memory has never returned properly from that stuff, sometimes I cant recall when my car is in the car park, which wouldnt be bad if i could remember what car I had or even the colour, that is exactly what alziemers is. I havent taken it in a long while but there is no improvements as yet.
This plan to fouridate water is merely to dispose of a waste product while getting you to pay for it.
Ask them if they are drinking tap water? Considering the bottled, only bottled water bill for tax year 07-08 was £29866!! I should think they arent, and theirs isn't fluoridated yet...or so they tell us!

People really dont realise how dangerous this stuff is. Its a toxic waste product that is extreamly difficult to get rid of.what better way than getting the public to pay for drinking it!!! You may be able to deduct the cost of your water from your bill, but the total of the bill you deduct it from will include the cost for fluoride too. Fluoridation was used, by the nazi's, funded by the rockerfella institute of USA to keep the captives mellow and sterile! Prozac is something like 94% flouride! Anyone whos taken it will know how it 'dumbs you down.' Who would want to give that to there kids? Consider also, there are high levels of fluoride in tea(before water), the nations favorite drink which happens to consist mainly of water. The fact the laws have changed to stop water suppliers being sued should make anyone suspicious, instead any compensation will come from the Dept of health which is funded by....YOUR TAXES. Every time fluoridation goes wrong, we will pay higher taxes to put it right. Then you add in fluorisis, bone cancer like lukemia, and also higher risk of alzeimers, which coincidently has been steady on the increase since toothpaste became the next best thing to bread. Everytime you leave that banana flavoured toothpaste on the sink you are risking your childs life as consuming only 1/2 a tube can easily kill.There are no warnings becasue they dont want to draw attention to the fact consuming this stuff is incredibly dangerous! DO NOT BE DIVIDED!! If you feel your opinion wont change a thing, then join hands with someone else, together you are stong. Remember, it might be hard to fight off an attacker on your own....but if there are fifty of your friends behind you, who do you think would win? They are attacking us!!

PS the amount for water is for the houses of parliament ONLY!! not all councils too