Hope this is true.
25 March 2006
There still are loopholes, even in the new legislation, which a water company that didn't want to fluoridate could use: they could tell the SHA that fluoridation wasn't feasible, or that the cost would be prohibitive - or that the cost of doing a feasibility study to determine the cost of fluoridation would be prohibitive. So while technically 'water companies must', in practical reality Ming Campbell is right: water companies needn't.The major problem with that is that the water companies all came on-board with the BFS - basically they agreed not to use the loopholes.Our abiding ally in this new situation is the water companies'greed. They're willing to fluoridate if it's an opportunity to make a lot of money out of the Dept of Health. However, if the SHAs can't afford the feasibility studies - which they can't - then fluoridation plans will go no further. UK water companies don't do anything for free!
Ros.
There still are loopholes, even in the new legislation, which a water company that didn't want to fluoridate could use: they could tell the SHA that fluoridation wasn't feasible, or that the cost would be prohibitive - or that the cost of doing a feasibility study to determine the cost of fluoridation would be prohibitive. So while technically 'water companies must', in practical reality Ming Campbell is right: water companies needn't.The major problem with that is that the water companies all came on-board with the BFS - basically they agreed not to use the loopholes.Our abiding ally in this new situation is the water companies'greed. They're willing to fluoridate if it's an opportunity to make a lot of money out of the Dept of Health. However, if the SHAs can't afford the feasibility studies - which they can't - then fluoridation plans will go no further. UK water companies don't do anything for free!
Ros.
posted by Bill at
2:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home