Yesterday's meeting

From the chairman hampshire Against Fluoridation

I thought that it went fine in that they were clearly unaware of much of what we had to say and so perhaps could be shocked into reconsidering their position (but doubtful). The fact that they clearly had not come across a lot of what we were saying was disturbing in itself.

Dr Jeyanthi John, their Dentist, was clearly a very strong supporter of fluoridation and had been brought up in a fluoridated area. She denied that dental fluorosis was a problem at all, saying that she had never seen a serious case, accepting that this was anecdotal. Of course in the early days of fluoridation it takes a while for fluorosis cases to build up as it only affects those with teeth growing, so the problem at first appears negligible. But this sort of anecdotal denial can be very strong coming from a medical professional.

We also had two of the 'lay' members of the PCT Board there, Pauline Quan Arrow the Chair who was brought up in the USA and was clearly in favour of fluoridation on what appeared to be a limited understanding of the science. There was also Liz Bailey another Board member who looked interested in what we had to say but did not appear to have a scientific background.
Anyway on other points:
We told them clearly the case against fluoridation so they can no longer be guilty of plain ignorance.
They promised to come back with a response as to why the hundreds of research papers showing fluoridation problems are either acceptable or not acceptable. Dr John is doing this, so I expect a very harsh analysis, but some findings should get through even to her.

I clearly stated that I considered what they were doing as an infringement of my human right to access to clean, unpolluted water and stated that I did NOT give my consent to fluoridation.
I told them that they will be held personally responsible for what they are doing
When asked, they clearly stated that the intention is to add fluoride to achieve a reduction in dental health problems (i.e. for a medicinal purpose).
We asked them to withdraw their proposal to fluoridate water and suggested that they could take the extra information we had given them as good reason to do so.
I think that we now have to wait for a response, but carry on as normal with our activities and plans. As stated before we went I very much doubt that our meeting will have any effect on their position as they have strong pressures from 'on high' to go for it.

I doubt that there is any point in a further meeting unless they show that they have considered what we have told them seriously and are considering withdrawing the fluoridation proposal.