UK - Southampton's fluoride ‘yes’ may open floodgates
Southampton's fluoride ‘yes’ may open floodgates
11:43am Monday 2nd March 2009
By Jon Reeve
FLUORIDATING Southampton’s water could be opening the floodgates for similar schemes across Hampshire.
Health chiefs elsewhere in the county have already admitted they are looking at asking for the controversial chemical to be added to supplies in their area.
With anger still raging over South Central Strategic Health Authority’s decision to back fluoridation for 200,000 residents in and around Southampton, despite fierce public opposition, campaigners fear other schemes will also be “bulldozed”
through.
Portsmouth City Teaching Primary Care Trust, which abandoned plans for a study on adding fluoride in 2006, is reportedly looking at proposing fluoridation in its area as soon as April.
As with the Southampton scheme, any move to fluoridate Portsmouth’s water would not be confined purely to the city.
The water distribution system means many areas are served through the same network of pipes from one treatment plant.
The area served by Portsmouth Water Company includes much of Fareham and Gosport boroughs.
Fareham Borough Council leader, Sean Woodward told the Daily Echo he would take a “very dim view” of any proposal to add fluoride in his authority’s area.
“The council’s policy is unchanged from when we successfully opposed it 15 years ago. We’re not going to have that in Fareham,” he said.
“I am by profession a biologist, so I like to think I know a bit about the dangers of fluoride.
Fluoridation is wholly wrong.”
A survey last year revealed even less Portsmouth residents back fluoridation than the 32 per cent of people affected by the Southampton scheme who supported it in a phone poll during the public consultation.
But Portsmouth’s director of public health, Paul Edmondson-Jones has said he is still in favour of the idea and is looking to revisit it very soon because of the benefits he believes it will bring.
Like Southampton, the city has a poor record on dental health, with more children suffering tooth decay than both regional and national averages.
Following last week’s decision, Hampshire’s Green Party representative in the European Parliament, Caroline Lucas is talking to the EP Environment Committee to question the European Commission’s stance on fluoridation.
“We must be vigilant of further attempts to affect our water in this way,” said the MEP.
“This ill-advised decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton demonstrates a contempt for the views of many local people – and for the evidence against fluoridation itself “It sets a worrying precedent for future fluoridation plans in the South East.”
11:43am Monday 2nd March 2009
By Jon Reeve
FLUORIDATING Southampton’s water could be opening the floodgates for similar schemes across Hampshire.
Health chiefs elsewhere in the county have already admitted they are looking at asking for the controversial chemical to be added to supplies in their area.
With anger still raging over South Central Strategic Health Authority’s decision to back fluoridation for 200,000 residents in and around Southampton, despite fierce public opposition, campaigners fear other schemes will also be “bulldozed”
through.
Portsmouth City Teaching Primary Care Trust, which abandoned plans for a study on adding fluoride in 2006, is reportedly looking at proposing fluoridation in its area as soon as April.
As with the Southampton scheme, any move to fluoridate Portsmouth’s water would not be confined purely to the city.
The water distribution system means many areas are served through the same network of pipes from one treatment plant.
The area served by Portsmouth Water Company includes much of Fareham and Gosport boroughs.
Fareham Borough Council leader, Sean Woodward told the Daily Echo he would take a “very dim view” of any proposal to add fluoride in his authority’s area.
“The council’s policy is unchanged from when we successfully opposed it 15 years ago. We’re not going to have that in Fareham,” he said.
“I am by profession a biologist, so I like to think I know a bit about the dangers of fluoride.
Fluoridation is wholly wrong.”
A survey last year revealed even less Portsmouth residents back fluoridation than the 32 per cent of people affected by the Southampton scheme who supported it in a phone poll during the public consultation.
But Portsmouth’s director of public health, Paul Edmondson-Jones has said he is still in favour of the idea and is looking to revisit it very soon because of the benefits he believes it will bring.
Like Southampton, the city has a poor record on dental health, with more children suffering tooth decay than both regional and national averages.
Following last week’s decision, Hampshire’s Green Party representative in the European Parliament, Caroline Lucas is talking to the EP Environment Committee to question the European Commission’s stance on fluoridation.
“We must be vigilant of further attempts to affect our water in this way,” said the MEP.
“This ill-advised decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton demonstrates a contempt for the views of many local people – and for the evidence against fluoridation itself “It sets a worrying precedent for future fluoridation plans in the South East.”
posted by Bill at
9:38 AM
1 Comments:
Please note the proof below that fluoride in water damages teeth.
This is admitted in a dental patient brochure that was obtained from a dental surgery.
The brochure is titled, 'Patient Brochure # 12 (PEB # 12) Fissure sealants and Preventive Resin Restorations'.
I quote: '...there have been some UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES (from fluoridated water). The one of relevance to this document refers to the way in which decay operates within a tooth. Fluoride causes a tremendous increase in the hardness of the enamel and a decrease in the solubility of the enamel in response to an acid attack caused by plaque. DECAY DOES NOT BECOME SO EVIDENT TO THE DENTIST as it did previously. Instead of the decay forming an open cavity which was easily visualised and easily felt by a sharp metal probe, decay now tends to start INSIDE a tooth BELOW THE ENAMEL. This is because the bacteria and saliva can get through at the very fine crack on the surface, we call the fissure and commence decaying at the softer portion of the tooth inside called the dentine. As a result of this, the decay can go undetected for many, many years and ends up in what dentists refer to now as a 'fluoride bomb'. The inside of the tooth is completely decayed but the outside looks fairly normal. Sometimes there is a slight discolouration evident through the enamel, but often the DECAY CANNOT EVEN BE FELT WITH A SHARP METAL PROBE- this is a major concern to dentists because for decades we have relied on diagnosis of decay by feeling the softening of the enamel with a metal probe. We can no longer do this'
The author of this article goes on to advise three treatments that have been devised to try to overcome these problems that have been caused by what the brochure's author says is 'fluoride in water'.
Groups of words have been capitalized above for to show the emphasis that was placed on these words in bold lettering in the brochure.
TO ORDER THIS BROCHURE IN AUSTRALIA: International phone + 61 2 6568 3773 or fax + 61 2 6568 3774.
TO ORDER THIS BROCHURE IN THE US: Phone 1877 227 0855 or fax 1877 227 0105.
By
Rambling Rose, at 02 August, 2009
Post a Comment
<< Home