Southern Water admits it is still trying to figure out where fluoridated water will be delivered

Daily Echo: A Hampshire Against Fluoridation protest outside the Guildhall last September. A Hampshire Against Fluoridation protest outside the Guildhall last September.

Water bosses have admitted fluoride might have to be added to the tap water of people who have never been asked their opinion on the controversial process if the scheme is to work, the Daily Echo can reveal.

Campaigners believe the Hampshire project could become illegal if authorities attempt to introduce fluoridated water in areas not included in the original consultation on the plans.

Southern Water has said it is still trying to work out where the affected water would actually be delivered to under the proposal to add the chemical to drinking water across two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

But the utility firm said it can make no promises areas outside of the initial proposals would not be included in the network receiving fluoridated supplies because of the way water is distributed.

Opponents of fluoride say they believe it would make the scheme illegal and are now assessing their legal options.

Hampshire Against fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said he also believes Southern Water’s admission it is still assessing how and where the scheme would work, as well as how much it will cost, wrecks South Central Strategic Health Auth-ority’s claims fluoridation is a cost-effective way of reducing tooth decay in children.

Related links

This weekend marks the third anniversary of the SHA board’s controversial unanimous decision to approve fluoride in Hampshire despite 72 per cent of respondents to a public consultation saying they opposed the plans.

Mr Peckham said: “We are three years on and we don’t know what the scheme will involve or how much it will cost. It’s absurd. Nothing’s in place, no contracts have been signed.

“It just shows it hasn’t been properly thought through.

“If they’re still trying to work out its feasibility how can they have already approved a scheme as feasible, it seems a little late to be looking into it now.”

Southern Water was first asked by the SHA to begin work on introducing fluoridation after the board’s decision in February 2009 based on a scheme identified in an initial feasibility study in 2008.

That project was put on hold a few months later when a legal challenge was lodged against the SHA’s actions.

But when a High Court judge last year rejected that judicial review the water firm was once again asked to re-start its work.

Senior customer relations adviser Sharon Collins said the company is now carrying out “a further feasibility study which will deal with the specific investment and operational requirements for this scheme”.

But she admitted it is not known whether it will actually be possible to run the project as thought in 2008, which was identified as schemes one and seven.

She said: “This study will take into account a review of the distribution system within the area, having regard to current arrangements and any future changes.

“Accordingly, at this time, I am unable to give my categorical assurance that only the post code areas defined in schemes one to seven of the original ‘high level’ feasibility study will receive a fluoridated water supply.”

Mr Peckham said that raises the prospect of the scheme potentially becoming illegal by falling foul of the Water Act, which says a water company must accept a request from health chiefs to fluoridate supplies “within the area specified in the arrangements”.

And he said this isn’t the first time it has been suggested fluoridation could affect areas not in the original plans.

Mr Peckham said: “Caroline Nokes was told at one point that Romsey would end up with fluoridated water at some point, but that it wouldn’t be a problem.

“But it will become a legal issue because the Act is very clear that it says ‘within’ – it doesn’t matter if (somewhere outside the consultation area) only gets it four times a week, or even once a week, they should have been consulted.

“It could put the SHA in a very difficult position.

“If fluoridated water goes outside these areas they have breached the consultation structures because the key word is ‘within’.”

At the time of going to press the SHA had failed to answer questions from the Daily Echo over whether it believes the scheme could operate legally outside of the area consulted, or if it has made any contingency plans for Southern Water concluding the initial proposals are unworkable.

In a statement the authority said: “The fluoridation consultation was based on a high level feasibility study conducted by independent water engineers.

“To progress to the next stage of implementation Southern Water need to do a more detailed technical assessment. Further information should be available in the next three months on the outcomes of this next phase.”

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:11pm Wed 22 Feb 12

sarfhamton says...

I can't see the problem with it, tip it in i say!
I can't see the problem with it, tip it in i say! sarfhamton
  • Score: -1

12:39pm Wed 22 Feb 12

dango says...

Ban water.
Ban water. dango
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 22 Feb 12

southy says...

Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time.
Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth.
Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.
Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time. Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth. Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about. southy
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Wed 22 Feb 12

YankeeDoodle says...

I have only been here 5months and have only seen a limited number of people. However, I would have to conclude the state of British Teeth is shocking at best. There are so many adults with missing teeth I wonder if they might also suffer nutrition and jaw problems as well.

My dentist in the states never fills cavities in children anymore, only occasional sealants are needed. He brings over the new dental techs to see my mouth as an example of 'how things used to be'. I have had many rootcanals done after multiple childhood fillings in the 1960's failed and infections set in.

There are still some 'hippy towns' where fluoride is still an issue in the states. But I am surprised a major city in the 21st century refuses to add this to their water supply.
I have only been here 5months and have only seen a limited number of people. However, I would have to conclude the state of British Teeth is shocking at best. There are so many adults with missing teeth I wonder if they might also suffer nutrition and jaw problems as well. My dentist in the states never fills cavities in children anymore, only occasional sealants are needed. He brings over the new dental techs to see my mouth as an example of 'how things used to be'. I have had many rootcanals done after multiple childhood fillings in the 1960's failed and infections set in. There are still some 'hippy towns' where fluoride is still an issue in the states. But I am surprised a major city in the 21st century refuses to add this to their water supply. YankeeDoodle
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Wed 22 Feb 12

SouthamptonLegend says...

Studies show that an excessive intake of fluoride can accumulate in the brain, permanently reducing a child’s intelligence.

Do your own research and check out the health effects of fluoride.

When you take a step back and look at the evidence, you have to question whether our government is really looking after us!

Maybe they want us to be dumb?? But why would they? Would we be easier to control? Yes.
Studies show that an excessive intake of fluoride can accumulate in the brain, permanently reducing a child’s intelligence. Do your own research and check out the health effects of fluoride. When you take a step back and look at the evidence, you have to question whether our government is really looking after us! Maybe they want us to be dumb?? But why would they? Would we be easier to control? Yes. SouthamptonLegend
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Dresnez says...

Never had fluoride in my water and my teeth were are very good indeed. Far more to do with diet choices (Milk!!)and also cleaning the teeth from early childhood. The country is broke and we don't need mass medication. If you want to give your child fluoride then that is your choice, you pay for it. I don't want it foist upon mine. Where is my choice in all of this. The country is up to its eyes in debt and of course this will have to be paid for too. Is it really bad teeth or another business opportunity with people who have influence. More nanny state micro managing us and less free choice.
Never had fluoride in my water and my teeth were are very good indeed. Far more to do with diet choices (Milk!!)and also cleaning the teeth from early childhood. The country is broke and we don't need mass medication. If you want to give your child fluoride then that is your choice, you pay for it. I don't want it foist upon mine. Where is my choice in all of this. The country is up to its eyes in debt and of course this will have to be paid for too. Is it really bad teeth or another business opportunity with people who have influence. More nanny state micro managing us and less free choice. Dresnez
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Wed 22 Feb 12

dango says...

YankeeDoodle wrote:
I have only been here 5months and have only seen a limited number of people. However, I would have to conclude the state of British Teeth is shocking at best. There are so many adults with missing teeth I wonder if they might also suffer nutrition and jaw problems as well.

My dentist in the states never fills cavities in children anymore, only occasional sealants are needed. He brings over the new dental techs to see my mouth as an example of 'how things used to be'. I have had many rootcanals done after multiple childhood fillings in the 1960's failed and infections set in.

There are still some 'hippy towns' where fluoride is still an issue in the states. But I am surprised a major city in the 21st century refuses to add this to their water supply.
Ingesting fluoride may cause you to elect G.W. Bush, illegally invade Iraq, use Britain as a puppet, spell words incorrectly and produce dumb TV shows. All the evidence I need for not putting it in the water.
[quote][p][bold]YankeeDoodle[/bold] wrote: I have only been here 5months and have only seen a limited number of people. However, I would have to conclude the state of British Teeth is shocking at best. There are so many adults with missing teeth I wonder if they might also suffer nutrition and jaw problems as well. My dentist in the states never fills cavities in children anymore, only occasional sealants are needed. He brings over the new dental techs to see my mouth as an example of 'how things used to be'. I have had many rootcanals done after multiple childhood fillings in the 1960's failed and infections set in. There are still some 'hippy towns' where fluoride is still an issue in the states. But I am surprised a major city in the 21st century refuses to add this to their water supply.[/p][/quote]Ingesting fluoride may cause you to elect G.W. Bush, illegally invade Iraq, use Britain as a puppet, spell words incorrectly and produce dumb TV shows. All the evidence I need for not putting it in the water. dango
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Wed 22 Feb 12

sw8296 says...

The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference... sw8296
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time.
Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth.
Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.
Who cares smugly.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time. Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth. Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.[/p][/quote]Who cares smugly. Shoong
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time.
Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth.
Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.
Who cares how smug you feel?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time. Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth. Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.[/p][/quote]Who cares how smug you feel? Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Tiz says...

sw8296 wrote:
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
Hit the nail on the head.

The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?
[quote][p][bold]sw8296[/bold] wrote: The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...[/p][/quote]Hit the nail on the head. The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks? Tiz
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Tiz says...

Tiz wrote:
sw8296 wrote:
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
Hit the nail on the head.

The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?
Foods, not feds
[quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sw8296[/bold] wrote: The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...[/p][/quote]Hit the nail on the head. The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?[/p][/quote]Foods, not feds Tiz
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Wed 22 Feb 12

bazzeroz says...

STOP this madness NOW! If I was to choose a way of poisoning myself it would not be by involuntary fluoridation. Who's making the money from this lunacy?
STOP this madness NOW! If I was to choose a way of poisoning myself it would not be by involuntary fluoridation. Who's making the money from this lunacy? bazzeroz
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Wed 22 Feb 12

ohmywell says...

Yet another nail in the Tory coffin!
HaHa
Yet another nail in the Tory coffin! HaHa ohmywell
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Wed 22 Feb 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time.
Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth.
Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.
Who cares how smug you feel?
Yes Shoong you was one of them.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time. Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth. Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.[/p][/quote]Who cares how smug you feel?[/p][/quote]Yes Shoong you was one of them. southy
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Wed 22 Feb 12

peenut81 says...

If I understand this right, they cannot introduce fluoride into an area where a consultation has not been held, yet they can in an area where it has been rejected in said consultation? Democracy at its finest.
Secondly, advice from the USA on any health or social provision issue is surely laughable.
If I understand this right, they cannot introduce fluoride into an area where a consultation has not been held, yet they can in an area where it has been rejected in said consultation? Democracy at its finest. Secondly, advice from the USA on any health or social provision issue is surely laughable. peenut81
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Wed 22 Feb 12

southy says...

Tiz wrote:
Tiz wrote:
sw8296 wrote:
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
Hit the nail on the head.

The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?
Foods, not feds
The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work.
Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.
[quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sw8296[/bold] wrote: The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...[/p][/quote]Hit the nail on the head. The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?[/p][/quote]Foods, not feds[/p][/quote]The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work. Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money. southy
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Ellwood says...

bazzeroz wrote:
STOP this madness NOW! If I was to choose a way of poisoning myself it would not be by involuntary fluoridation. Who's making the money from this lunacy?
......... quite bazzeroz.
[quote][p][bold]bazzeroz[/bold] wrote: STOP this madness NOW! If I was to choose a way of poisoning myself it would not be by involuntary fluoridation. Who's making the money from this lunacy?[/p][/quote]......... quite bazzeroz. Ellwood
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Kerryp says...

How about the SHA give the money to schools as part of their healthy lifestyle programme. We were all given milk at school when I was little...why not have fluoride tabs or an alternative available to give to children as part of their daily routine at school?
How about the SHA give the money to schools as part of their healthy lifestyle programme. We were all given milk at school when I was little...why not have fluoride tabs or an alternative available to give to children as part of their daily routine at school? Kerryp
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Kerryp says...

...and I forgot to say. Aren't parents supposed to be responsible for their childrens teeth really?
...and I forgot to say. Aren't parents supposed to be responsible for their childrens teeth really? Kerryp
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Wed 22 Feb 12

dango says...

southy wrote:
Tiz wrote:
Tiz wrote:
sw8296 wrote:
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
Hit the nail on the head.

The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?
Foods, not feds
The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work.
Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.
I wondered how long it would take to play the Thatcher card!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sw8296[/bold] wrote: The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...[/p][/quote]Hit the nail on the head. The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?[/p][/quote]Foods, not feds[/p][/quote]The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work. Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.[/p][/quote]I wondered how long it would take to play the Thatcher card! dango
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Wed 22 Feb 12

SouthamptonLegend says...

You lot need to look at the bigger picture of what they are actually trying to do here!

They don't care about how our teeth look!!!!
You lot need to look at the bigger picture of what they are actually trying to do here! They don't care about how our teeth look!!!! SouthamptonLegend
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Wed 22 Feb 12

southy says...

dango wrote:
southy wrote:
Tiz wrote:
Tiz wrote:
sw8296 wrote:
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
Hit the nail on the head.

The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?
Foods, not feds
The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work.
Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.
I wondered how long it would take to play the Thatcher card!
Yes well facts like this do hurt hard don't they, and you don't like people knowing the real truth.
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sw8296[/bold] wrote: The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...[/p][/quote]Hit the nail on the head. The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?[/p][/quote]Foods, not feds[/p][/quote]The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work. Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.[/p][/quote]I wondered how long it would take to play the Thatcher card![/p][/quote]Yes well facts like this do hurt hard don't they, and you don't like people knowing the real truth. southy
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time.
Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth.
Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.
Who cares how smug you feel?
Yes Shoong you was one of them.
Why the constant need for recognition from strangers?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Well I did say at the on set of this the area is much bigger than they are suggesting, and a number of posters on here said I did not know what I was taking about,Then the SHA then up dated there info to what I said, and then I reminded them the area is much bigger and I pointed out that there is a connection loop pipe that connects east and west Southampton, and again those posters where back saying I did not know what I was taking about, you know the ones its the same ones every time. Now I will give you a hint how big Bournemouth to Portsmouth. Wonder if those same ones will be back saying I do not know what I am talking about.[/p][/quote]Who cares how smug you feel?[/p][/quote]Yes Shoong you was one of them.[/p][/quote]Why the constant need for recognition from strangers? Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Tiz wrote:
Tiz wrote:
sw8296 wrote:
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
Hit the nail on the head.

The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?
Foods, not feds
The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work.
Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.
Cr*p.

Again, let's not take responsibility for our own teeth, let's just blame it on a bygone government.

If someone has bad teeth, it's their fault.

The state is not responsible for the people's daily dental hygiene - incredibly, they have to think of that for themselves.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sw8296[/bold] wrote: The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...[/p][/quote]Hit the nail on the head. The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?[/p][/quote]Foods, not feds[/p][/quote]The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work. Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.[/p][/quote]Cr*p. Again, let's not take responsibility for our own teeth, let's just blame it on a bygone government. If someone has bad teeth, it's their fault. The state is not responsible for the people's daily dental hygiene - incredibly, they have to think of that for themselves. Shoong
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Linesman says...

SouthamptonLegend wrote:
Studies show that an excessive intake of fluoride can accumulate in the brain, permanently reducing a child’s intelligence.

Do your own research and check out the health effects of fluoride.

When you take a step back and look at the evidence, you have to question whether our government is really looking after us!

Maybe they want us to be dumb?? But why would they? Would we be easier to control? Yes.
If that's true then, with the GCE results that were published last year, could it be that fluoride has already been added?
[quote][p][bold]SouthamptonLegend[/bold] wrote: Studies show that an excessive intake of fluoride can accumulate in the brain, permanently reducing a child’s intelligence. Do your own research and check out the health effects of fluoride. When you take a step back and look at the evidence, you have to question whether our government is really looking after us! Maybe they want us to be dumb?? But why would they? Would we be easier to control? Yes.[/p][/quote]If that's true then, with the GCE results that were published last year, could it be that fluoride has already been added? Linesman
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Wed 22 Feb 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Tiz wrote:
Tiz wrote:
sw8296 wrote:
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
Hit the nail on the head.

The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?
Foods, not feds
The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work.
Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.
Cr*p.

Again, let's not take responsibility for our own teeth, let's just blame it on a bygone government.

If someone has bad teeth, it's their fault.

The state is not responsible for the people's daily dental hygiene - incredibly, they have to think of that for themselves.
part of that responsibility is going to a dentist, the good thing about the NHS dentist before Thatcher was that they done the better job on teeth, because there wages was fix so it would pay them for you get the best treatment possable, under a the private sector doing NHS dental work it pays them no to do such a good job because they are paid by the treatment from the NHS.
You can give your teeth the best treatment at home, cleaning 2 to 3 times day staying away from any acids, but it still dont mean your not going to have bad teeth, part of that is dental visits and the NHS ran Dental care was the best, these people did not make money on the number people on there list or the number appointments they had per day
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sw8296[/bold] wrote: The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...[/p][/quote]Hit the nail on the head. The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?[/p][/quote]Foods, not feds[/p][/quote]The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work. Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.[/p][/quote]Cr*p. Again, let's not take responsibility for our own teeth, let's just blame it on a bygone government. If someone has bad teeth, it's their fault. The state is not responsible for the people's daily dental hygiene - incredibly, they have to think of that for themselves.[/p][/quote]part of that responsibility is going to a dentist, the good thing about the NHS dentist before Thatcher was that they done the better job on teeth, because there wages was fix so it would pay them for you get the best treatment possable, under a the private sector doing NHS dental work it pays them no to do such a good job because they are paid by the treatment from the NHS. You can give your teeth the best treatment at home, cleaning 2 to 3 times day staying away from any acids, but it still dont mean your not going to have bad teeth, part of that is dental visits and the NHS ran Dental care was the best, these people did not make money on the number people on there list or the number appointments they had per day southy
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Wed 22 Feb 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

This fluoridation scheme must be scrapped. I have significant concerns. As it was, the consultation showed the majority of people dont want it, and so it should never have gone ahead. The council dont support it. The water board dont want to implement it, and now it is clear that the fluoridation if implemented would potentially be delivered to people that were outside the scope of the consultation zone, and people close to the sites of introduction could get doses much higher than elsewhere.
Fluoridation is unwanted, and completely unnecessary. It only serves the interest of the chemical industries who would love to get rid of this industrial waste into our water supply and get us to pay for the priviledge.
It is not fair to condemn the children who brush their teeth regularly to fluorosis, just so children of irresponsible parents may have a chance of avoiding some tooth decay.
The data from elsewhere in the country shows that fluoridation provides little benefit, and dental health improvements cannot be tied down to fluoridation.
Children of irresponsible parents are more like to be drinking fizzy drinks anyway, and so will not get the benefit of the fluoridation.
Children of responsible parents who drink lots of water, brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, and eat lots of vegetables prepared in fluoridated water could eb overdosed with the stuff.
Who wants to drink fluoride unnecessarily? There is a reason we spit out toothpaste - its toxic!
If anything fluoridation could lead to a deterioration in dental health as responsible parents stop their children using fluoride toothpaste because of concerns about permanent unsighltly damage to their childrens teeth from the awful brown stains of fluorosis.
This fluoridation scheme must be scrapped. I have significant concerns. As it was, the consultation showed the majority of people dont want it, and so it should never have gone ahead. The council dont support it. The water board dont want to implement it, and now it is clear that the fluoridation if implemented would potentially be delivered to people that were outside the scope of the consultation zone, and people close to the sites of introduction could get doses much higher than elsewhere. Fluoridation is unwanted, and completely unnecessary. It only serves the interest of the chemical industries who would love to get rid of this industrial waste into our water supply and get us to pay for the priviledge. It is not fair to condemn the children who brush their teeth regularly to fluorosis, just so children of irresponsible parents may have a chance of avoiding some tooth decay. The data from elsewhere in the country shows that fluoridation provides little benefit, and dental health improvements cannot be tied down to fluoridation. Children of irresponsible parents are more like to be drinking fizzy drinks anyway, and so will not get the benefit of the fluoridation. Children of responsible parents who drink lots of water, brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, and eat lots of vegetables prepared in fluoridated water could eb overdosed with the stuff. Who wants to drink fluoride unnecessarily? There is a reason we spit out toothpaste - its toxic! If anything fluoridation could lead to a deterioration in dental health as responsible parents stop their children using fluoride toothpaste because of concerns about permanent unsighltly damage to their childrens teeth from the awful brown stains of fluorosis. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Wed 22 Feb 12

sparkster says...

I dont agree with fluoride in the water, its a poison. I say its down to parents to some extent to monitor how many sweets their children have, i work in a sweet shop and during half terms children are in and out all day buying sweets. I think the money could be better spent rather than poisoning the water, we've got by without it before and still can
I dont agree with fluoride in the water, its a poison. I say its down to parents to some extent to monitor how many sweets their children have, i work in a sweet shop and during half terms children are in and out all day buying sweets. I think the money could be better spent rather than poisoning the water, we've got by without it before and still can sparkster
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Wed 22 Feb 12

For pity sake says...

dango wrote:
southy wrote:
Tiz wrote:
Tiz wrote:
sw8296 wrote:
The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway.

They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...
Hit the nail on the head.

The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?
Foods, not feds
The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work.
Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.
I wondered how long it would take to play the Thatcher card!
Southy is quite right, but he should also have pointed out that the old bag was also responsible for removing free milk from schools.
Don't shoot the messenger - the poisonous witch WAS the cause of all our ills.
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tiz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sw8296[/bold] wrote: The lunacy of this scheme is that the areas with the worst problems of tooth decay are likely to be those where nobody drinks tap water anyway. They'd need to flouridate the canned drinks and alcopops to make a difference...[/p][/quote]Hit the nail on the head. The assumption that everyone ingests drinking water is erroneous. As the Government seems quite keen on taxing things we enjoy, why not a higher tax on high sugar feds like sweets and carbonated drinks?[/p][/quote]Foods, not feds[/p][/quote]The problem of bad tooth decay only started to come about after when Thatcher closed up the NHS Dentist buildings and Handed this part of the NHS into privates hands, to do NHS Dental Work. Just another area where private sector can get hold of National Insurance and Tax money.[/p][/quote]I wondered how long it would take to play the Thatcher card![/p][/quote]Southy is quite right, but he should also have pointed out that the old bag was also responsible for removing free milk from schools. Don't shoot the messenger - the poisonous witch WAS the cause of all our ills. For pity sake
  • Score: 0

5:22am Thu 23 Feb 12

Dan Soton says...

I thought SHA was none political?

-
could be SHA want to bring down an elected Government before their ultimate disbandment in spring 2013.
-
it's little wonder they disregard the will of Southampton.

-

NHS 'will be Cameron's poll tax', says Ed Miliband.
-
22 February 2012 Last updated at 22:42.
-
Among them was a warning by South Central Strategic Health Authority, which said "the pace and scale of reform, coupled with savings achieved through cost reduction rather than real service redesign could adversely impact on safety and quality".
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-politics-17
125002

-

did members of the SHA Board vote unanimously in favour of the above statement?

http://www.southcent
ral.nhs.uk/about-us/
the-board/
I thought SHA was none political? - could be SHA want to bring down an elected Government before their ultimate disbandment in spring 2013. - it's little wonder they disregard the will of Southampton. - NHS 'will be Cameron's poll tax', says Ed Miliband. - 22 February 2012 Last updated at 22:42. - Among them was a warning by South Central Strategic Health Authority, which said "the pace and scale of reform, coupled with savings achieved through cost reduction rather than real service redesign could adversely impact on safety and quality". - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-politics-17 125002 - did members of the SHA Board vote unanimously in favour of the above statement? http://www.southcent ral.nhs.uk/about-us/ the-board/ Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

10:35am Thu 23 Feb 12

hollowaymandg says...

Make sure you support the meeting on Saturday "Public Meeting on Water Fluoridation" 25th February 2pm at the Solent University Conference Centre on the corner of Commercial Road and Above Bar, Southampton. Free admission. We'd love to see you
Make sure you support the meeting on Saturday "Public Meeting on Water Fluoridation" 25th February 2pm at the Solent University Conference Centre on the corner of Commercial Road and Above Bar, Southampton. Free admission. We'd love to see you hollowaymandg
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Thu 23 Feb 12

lanscombe_village_sodastream says...

a few points: first added to water as a way to manage waste from industry...sold to the public by the same committee that gave you asbestos..
one of the largest industrial disasters in US history involved fluoride.
continues to be a way to dump waste (we're not talking about Fl as Na Fl here as in toothpaste) the waste which is illegal to dump can be brushed under the carpet if it is refactored.
why take internally with no choice, what has only show limited efficacy topically, you don't drink shampoo to wash your hair?
yummy fluoride.
a few points: first added to water as a way to manage waste from industry...sold to the public by the same committee that gave you asbestos.. one of the largest industrial disasters in US history involved fluoride. continues to be a way to dump waste (we're not talking about Fl as Na Fl here as in toothpaste) the waste which is illegal to dump can be brushed under the carpet if it is refactored. why take internally with no choice, what has only show limited efficacy topically, you don't drink shampoo to wash your hair? yummy fluoride. lanscombe_village_sodastream
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Thu 23 Feb 12

Shergold says...

Glad to see there are plenty of sensible people that are against the Fluoride!!! and the fact is there are more cities around the world that are DROPPING the fluoride scheme.

There is A PUBLIC MEETING ON 25TH IN THE SOLENT UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE CENTRE 2PM.Above bar, Soton.

Many speakers for discussion, and what to do next.
Hope you can make it. ((Manchester TV might be filming so full house is needed like last time.))
Glad to see there are plenty of sensible people that are against the Fluoride!!! and the fact is there are more cities around the world that are DROPPING the fluoride scheme. There is A PUBLIC MEETING ON 25TH IN THE SOLENT UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE CENTRE 2PM.Above bar, Soton. Many speakers for discussion, and what to do next. Hope you can make it. ((Manchester TV might be filming so full house is needed like last time.)) Shergold
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Fri 24 Feb 12

AspieMum says...

Shergold wrote:
Glad to see there are plenty of sensible people that are against the Fluoride!!! and the fact is there are more cities around the world that are DROPPING the fluoride scheme.

There is A PUBLIC MEETING ON 25TH IN THE SOLENT UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE CENTRE 2PM.Above bar, Soton.

Many speakers for discussion, and what to do next.
Hope you can make it. ((Manchester TV might be filming so full house is needed like last time.))
Unfortunately I can't make it. This whole scheme should never have got this far. Why hold a consultation if you plan to ignore it? We have used fluoride free toothpaste since I found out I would have no idea if it would be in my water or not and being out of the target area I probably would not be told they had started to add it. I'm also filtering our water in the hope that will get rid of any other chemicals that accidently get added with it.
[quote][p][bold]Shergold[/bold] wrote: Glad to see there are plenty of sensible people that are against the Fluoride!!! and the fact is there are more cities around the world that are DROPPING the fluoride scheme. There is A PUBLIC MEETING ON 25TH IN THE SOLENT UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE CENTRE 2PM.Above bar, Soton. Many speakers for discussion, and what to do next. Hope you can make it. ((Manchester TV might be filming so full house is needed like last time.))[/p][/quote]Unfortunately I can't make it. This whole scheme should never have got this far. Why hold a consultation if you plan to ignore it? We have used fluoride free toothpaste since I found out I would have no idea if it would be in my water or not and being out of the target area I probably would not be told they had started to add it. I'm also filtering our water in the hope that will get rid of any other chemicals that accidently get added with it. AspieMum
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Fri 24 Feb 12

AspieMum says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
This fluoridation scheme must be scrapped. I have significant concerns. As it was, the consultation showed the majority of people dont want it, and so it should never have gone ahead. The council dont support it. The water board dont want to implement it, and now it is clear that the fluoridation if implemented would potentially be delivered to people that were outside the scope of the consultation zone, and people close to the sites of introduction could get doses much higher than elsewhere.
Fluoridation is unwanted, and completely unnecessary. It only serves the interest of the chemical industries who would love to get rid of this industrial waste into our water supply and get us to pay for the priviledge.
It is not fair to condemn the children who brush their teeth regularly to fluorosis, just so children of irresponsible parents may have a chance of avoiding some tooth decay.
The data from elsewhere in the country shows that fluoridation provides little benefit, and dental health improvements cannot be tied down to fluoridation.
Children of irresponsible parents are more like to be drinking fizzy drinks anyway, and so will not get the benefit of the fluoridation.
Children of responsible parents who drink lots of water, brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, and eat lots of vegetables prepared in fluoridated water could eb overdosed with the stuff.
Who wants to drink fluoride unnecessarily? There is a reason we spit out toothpaste - its toxic!
If anything fluoridation could lead to a deterioration in dental health as responsible parents stop their children using fluoride toothpaste because of concerns about permanent unsighltly damage to their childrens teeth from the awful brown stains of fluorosis.
Exactly why we have switched to fluoride free toothpaste: the risk of flourosis.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: This fluoridation scheme must be scrapped. I have significant concerns. As it was, the consultation showed the majority of people dont want it, and so it should never have gone ahead. The council dont support it. The water board dont want to implement it, and now it is clear that the fluoridation if implemented would potentially be delivered to people that were outside the scope of the consultation zone, and people close to the sites of introduction could get doses much higher than elsewhere. Fluoridation is unwanted, and completely unnecessary. It only serves the interest of the chemical industries who would love to get rid of this industrial waste into our water supply and get us to pay for the priviledge. It is not fair to condemn the children who brush their teeth regularly to fluorosis, just so children of irresponsible parents may have a chance of avoiding some tooth decay. The data from elsewhere in the country shows that fluoridation provides little benefit, and dental health improvements cannot be tied down to fluoridation. Children of irresponsible parents are more like to be drinking fizzy drinks anyway, and so will not get the benefit of the fluoridation. Children of responsible parents who drink lots of water, brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, and eat lots of vegetables prepared in fluoridated water could eb overdosed with the stuff. Who wants to drink fluoride unnecessarily? There is a reason we spit out toothpaste - its toxic! If anything fluoridation could lead to a deterioration in dental health as responsible parents stop their children using fluoride toothpaste because of concerns about permanent unsighltly damage to their childrens teeth from the awful brown stains of fluorosis.[/p][/quote]Exactly why we have switched to fluoride free toothpaste: the risk of flourosis. AspieMum
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Sun 26 Feb 12

Dan Soton says...

Lead.. Face-Saver for Fluoridation supporters ?

-

First off I like to thank everyone who made yesterday's Southamton Solent University anti Fluoridation meeting possible and listing to my concerns
-

My concern is.. Southern Waters meter is connected to my internal stopcock Via 80 feet of decaying 100 year old lead piping, similar to many of Southampton's older inner city houses.
-

The Fluoridation of Southampton's water supply will leach lead from from these pipes resulting in extremely high levels lead contaminating everyone's drinking water.. i.e. backing up into the main Water supply
-

I find it verging on the criminal that no has informed Southampton and all Fluoridated areas in England.
-

For their sake I hope Fluoridation advocates/supporters didn't know of this on going disater because they will be sued to hell and back.
-

Read Arkansas Water district operator.. http://www.carrollco
news.com/story/18171
01.html
-

Water district operator takes up anti-fluoride fight.
-

Sunday, February 19, 2012.

By Becky Gillette Special to the Carroll County News.
-

There are concerns that highly corrosive fluoride added to the water could leach lead from distribution pipes, which could cause lead contamination of drinking water, said Rene Fonseca, a licensed operator with the CBWD.
-

Fonseca said experience in other areas of the country with aging infrastructure has shown that fluoride chemicals added to the water supply can result in extremely high lead levels in children. In 2004, an investigation by the CDC found that 42,000 children in Washington D.C. 16 months old and younger had blood levels 2.4 times higher than normal.
Lead.. Face-Saver for Fluoridation supporters ? - First off I like to thank everyone who made yesterday's Southamton Solent University anti Fluoridation meeting possible and listing to my concerns - My concern is.. Southern Waters meter is connected to my internal stopcock Via 80 feet of decaying 100 year old lead piping, similar to many of Southampton's older inner city houses. - The Fluoridation of Southampton's water supply will leach lead from from these pipes resulting in extremely high levels lead contaminating everyone's drinking water.. i.e. backing up into the main Water supply - I find it verging on the criminal that no has informed Southampton and all Fluoridated areas in England. - For their sake I hope Fluoridation advocates/supporters didn't know of this on going disater because they will be sued to hell and back. - Read Arkansas Water district operator.. http://www.carrollco news.com/story/18171 01.html - Water district operator takes up anti-fluoride fight. - Sunday, February 19, 2012. By Becky Gillette Special to the Carroll County News. - There are concerns that highly corrosive fluoride added to the water could leach lead from distribution pipes, which could cause lead contamination of drinking water, said Rene Fonseca, a licensed operator with the CBWD. - Fonseca said experience in other areas of the country with aging infrastructure has shown that fluoride chemicals added to the water supply can result in extremely high lead levels in children. In 2004, an investigation by the CDC found that 42,000 children in Washington D.C. 16 months old and younger had blood levels 2.4 times higher than normal. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Sun 26 Feb 12

Dan Soton says...

Lead.. Face-Saver for Fluoridation supporters ?

-

First off I like to thank everyone who made yesterday's Southamton Solent University anti Fluoridation meeting possible and listing to my concerns
-

My concern is.. Southern Waters meter is connected to my internal stopcock Via 80 feet of decaying 100 year old lead piping, similar to many of Southampton's older inner city houses.
-

The Fluoridation of Southampton's water supply will leach lead from these pipes resulting in extremely high levels lead contaminating everyone's drinking water.. i.e. backing up into the main Water supply
-

I find it verging on the criminal that no one has informed Southampton or the Fluoridated areas in England.
-

For their sake I hope Fluoridation advocates/supporters didn't know of this on going disater because they will be sued to hell and back.
-

Read Arkansas Water district operator.. http://www.carrollco
news.com/story/18171
01.html
-

Water district operator takes up anti-fluoride fight.
-

Sunday, February 19, 2012.

By Becky Gillette Special to the Carroll County News.
-

There are concerns that highly corrosive fluoride added to the water could leach lead from distribution pipes, which could cause lead contamination of drinking water, said Rene Fonseca, a licensed operator with the CBWD.
-

Fonseca said experience in other areas of the country with aging infrastructure has shown that fluoride chemicals added to the water supply can result in extremely high lead levels in children. In 2004, an investigation by the CDC found that 42,000 children in Washington D.C. 16 months old and younger had blood levels 2.4 times higher than normal.

-

-

-

-



Re: forest hump says...

2:36pm Sun 26 Feb 12

So Chlorine won't then?
-

forest hump, I don't purport to be any kind of scientist

if an Arkansas Water district operator say's highly corrosive fluoride leach's lead from distribution pipes that's OK with me.
-

as far as lead and Chlorine goes.. the ball's in your court
Lead.. Face-Saver for Fluoridation supporters ? - First off I like to thank everyone who made yesterday's Southamton Solent University anti Fluoridation meeting possible and listing to my concerns - My concern is.. Southern Waters meter is connected to my internal stopcock Via 80 feet of decaying 100 year old lead piping, similar to many of Southampton's older inner city houses. - The Fluoridation of Southampton's water supply will leach lead from these pipes resulting in extremely high levels lead contaminating everyone's drinking water.. i.e. backing up into the main Water supply - I find it verging on the criminal that no one has informed Southampton or the Fluoridated areas in England. - For their sake I hope Fluoridation advocates/supporters didn't know of this on going disater because they will be sued to hell and back. - Read Arkansas Water district operator.. http://www.carrollco news.com/story/18171 01.html - Water district operator takes up anti-fluoride fight. - Sunday, February 19, 2012. By Becky Gillette Special to the Carroll County News. - There are concerns that highly corrosive fluoride added to the water could leach lead from distribution pipes, which could cause lead contamination of drinking water, said Rene Fonseca, a licensed operator with the CBWD. - Fonseca said experience in other areas of the country with aging infrastructure has shown that fluoride chemicals added to the water supply can result in extremely high lead levels in children. In 2004, an investigation by the CDC found that 42,000 children in Washington D.C. 16 months old and younger had blood levels 2.4 times higher than normal. - - - - Re: forest hump says... 2:36pm Sun 26 Feb 12 So Chlorine won't then? - forest hump, I don't purport to be any kind of scientist if an Arkansas Water district operator say's highly corrosive fluoride leach's lead from distribution pipes that's OK with me. - as far as lead and Chlorine goes.. the ball's in your court Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Sun 11 Mar 12

Dan Soton says...

The 159,000 members of the American Dental Association say stop fluoridation.

-

As for the 19 members of the (SHA) South Central Strategic Health Authority and their appalling disregard for the expressed will of Southampton, I quote U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.. a decision which will live in infamy.

-

Myerstown Water Authority first to stop fluoridation.

By STEVE SNYDER.
Lebanon Daily News.
Updated: 03/04/2012 05:07:56 PM EST.
-

Just over 67 years ago, Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first city in the world to adjust the fluoride in its water supply.
_

Dan Flanagan, chairman of the five-member authority board, said, "The decision was based on the ADA (American Dental Association) now recommending that fluoride should be administered topically instead of being ingested."
-
http://www.ldnews.co
m/ci_20098020
The 159,000 members of the American Dental Association say stop fluoridation. - As for the 19 members of the (SHA) South Central Strategic Health Authority and their appalling disregard for the expressed will of Southampton, I quote U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.. a decision which will live in infamy. - Myerstown Water Authority first to stop fluoridation. By STEVE SNYDER. Lebanon Daily News. Updated: 03/04/2012 05:07:56 PM EST. - Just over 67 years ago, Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first city in the world to adjust the fluoride in its water supply. _ Dan Flanagan, chairman of the five-member authority board, said, "The decision was based on the ADA (American Dental Association) now recommending that fluoride should be administered topically instead of being ingested." - http://www.ldnews.co m/ci_20098020 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