UK - Bolton letter
No: Rights disaster
By Jane Lavender
Ian Upton, chairman of the Bolton Against Fluoride Group, put forward his arguments against adding fluoride to the borough's water supply.
"ADMITTEDLY, the debate on the fluoridation of the North-west's water supply is a complex issue; it involves the understanding of the chemistry, the social issues and the cost issues that are perhaps related to our health service.
But having it forced on us with no consideration of our human rights is totally unacceptable. Do we really have a choice? We can choose to accept the views of certain MPs, we can choose to accept the views of an industry, which, in the long-term, will undoubtedly benefit from fluoridation and perhaps we can choose to accept the views of our Primary Care Trust.
There are certain images that will stick in our minds about some MPs and Government experts who were called upon to advise those MPs. Who remembers an MP appearing on television, eating a beefburger, telling us it was safe to do so, just before the discovery of CJD?
Who remembers that we were told thalidomide was safe?
Who remembers that we were told foot and mouth was under control and then the Government had to call the Army in to help control it?
Who can even remember that we were once told, at great expense to the taxpayer, how we should brush our teeth in a certain way, only for this to be retracted at a later date?
Do you really trust what you are told?
It seems that if we all believed what we're told, then we truly would ignore the human rights disaster that is about to be fluoridation.
As it is, we have come across a wide range of people who have shown a blatant misunderstanding of the broader issues associated with fluoridation.
Has it been considered that a baby will consume more fluoride per kilogram of its body weight than an adult? No.
Why when other countries in Europe, and American states that are far bigger than any county in the North-west, have removed, or are planning to remove, fluoridation schemes, are we proposing to introduce one?
More importantly, why would a Government indemnify a water company against insurance loss if it thought what they were doing wasn't going to affect people?
We should not underestimate the long-term effects of fluoridation. You have to choose - is this something you really want?"
By Jane Lavender
Ian Upton, chairman of the Bolton Against Fluoride Group, put forward his arguments against adding fluoride to the borough's water supply.
"ADMITTEDLY, the debate on the fluoridation of the North-west's water supply is a complex issue; it involves the understanding of the chemistry, the social issues and the cost issues that are perhaps related to our health service.
But having it forced on us with no consideration of our human rights is totally unacceptable. Do we really have a choice? We can choose to accept the views of certain MPs, we can choose to accept the views of an industry, which, in the long-term, will undoubtedly benefit from fluoridation and perhaps we can choose to accept the views of our Primary Care Trust.
There are certain images that will stick in our minds about some MPs and Government experts who were called upon to advise those MPs. Who remembers an MP appearing on television, eating a beefburger, telling us it was safe to do so, just before the discovery of CJD?
Who remembers that we were told thalidomide was safe?
Who remembers that we were told foot and mouth was under control and then the Government had to call the Army in to help control it?
Who can even remember that we were once told, at great expense to the taxpayer, how we should brush our teeth in a certain way, only for this to be retracted at a later date?
Do you really trust what you are told?
It seems that if we all believed what we're told, then we truly would ignore the human rights disaster that is about to be fluoridation.
As it is, we have come across a wide range of people who have shown a blatant misunderstanding of the broader issues associated with fluoridation.
Has it been considered that a baby will consume more fluoride per kilogram of its body weight than an adult? No.
Why when other countries in Europe, and American states that are far bigger than any county in the North-west, have removed, or are planning to remove, fluoridation schemes, are we proposing to introduce one?
More importantly, why would a Government indemnify a water company against insurance loss if it thought what they were doing wasn't going to affect people?
We should not underestimate the long-term effects of fluoridation. You have to choose - is this something you really want?"
posted by Bill at
9:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home