UK - Southampton - Daily Echo
Olga Senior
Director of communications and corportate affairs at the South Central Strategic Health Authority
The facts on fluoridation'
IN response to the In My View piece by Chris Barker (Daily Echo, April 6) I think it would be useful to set out some of the facts relating to the decision to add fluoride to the local water supply made by the board of South Central Strategic Health Authority.
The issues surrounding the public consultation are more complex than Mr Barker indicates in his article and he has not reported the results of the consultation in their entirety.
In 2003 MPs in a free vote in Parliament passed legislation which gave powers to strategic health authorities to make decisions on increasing the level of fluoride in water supplies following a public consultation.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) carried out a consultation in line with the relevant legislation and the results of that consultation show that there is no clear majority view on this issue amongst the people who would be affected in the area.
Yes, 72 per cent of those people who chose to respond in writing to the consultation were opposed to it. However, responses to public consultations are not representative of the views of everyone in an area.
As is normal in any consultation, regardless of the issue, those people who either strongly support or strongly oppose an issue are likely to respond in writing. That is why the SHA commissioned an independent phone survey of a large sample of randomly selected local people to gather their views on this issue.
Phone surveys carried out in this way are far more representative and give a better indication of local opinion than written responses to a consultation. The results showed that there was no majority view on this issue among local people -despite many claims by groups that there is. 32 per cent of people surveyed supported the proposal, 38 per cent opposed it whilst the remainder either did not know or neither supported or opposed it.
The survey showed that a quarter of those opposed to water fluoridation did so because of concerns it causes long-term side effects, something which is not backed up by any of the reputable, systematic reviews.
It is evident that there are small numbers of people in the local area who, during the consultation and since the decision was made, are intent on generating fear.
The conclusion was that the health arguments in favour of water fluoridation outweigh all other arguments against it.
There are some people dissatisfied with the decision the SHA has made given the polarising nature of the issue.
However the SHA is satisfied, along with major professional health organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association, that water fluoridation is safe and effective.
Director of communications and corportate affairs at the South Central Strategic Health Authority
The facts on fluoridation'
IN response to the In My View piece by Chris Barker (Daily Echo, April 6) I think it would be useful to set out some of the facts relating to the decision to add fluoride to the local water supply made by the board of South Central Strategic Health Authority.
The issues surrounding the public consultation are more complex than Mr Barker indicates in his article and he has not reported the results of the consultation in their entirety.
In 2003 MPs in a free vote in Parliament passed legislation which gave powers to strategic health authorities to make decisions on increasing the level of fluoride in water supplies following a public consultation.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) carried out a consultation in line with the relevant legislation and the results of that consultation show that there is no clear majority view on this issue amongst the people who would be affected in the area.
Yes, 72 per cent of those people who chose to respond in writing to the consultation were opposed to it. However, responses to public consultations are not representative of the views of everyone in an area.
As is normal in any consultation, regardless of the issue, those people who either strongly support or strongly oppose an issue are likely to respond in writing. That is why the SHA commissioned an independent phone survey of a large sample of randomly selected local people to gather their views on this issue.
Phone surveys carried out in this way are far more representative and give a better indication of local opinion than written responses to a consultation. The results showed that there was no majority view on this issue among local people -despite many claims by groups that there is. 32 per cent of people surveyed supported the proposal, 38 per cent opposed it whilst the remainder either did not know or neither supported or opposed it.
The survey showed that a quarter of those opposed to water fluoridation did so because of concerns it causes long-term side effects, something which is not backed up by any of the reputable, systematic reviews.
It is evident that there are small numbers of people in the local area who, during the consultation and since the decision was made, are intent on generating fear.
The conclusion was that the health arguments in favour of water fluoridation outweigh all other arguments against it.
There are some people dissatisfied with the decision the SHA has made given the polarising nature of the issue.
However the SHA is satisfied, along with major professional health organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association, that water fluoridation is safe and effective.
posted by Bill at
9:29 AM
3 Comments:
I urge Brits to use the following links and watch the stunning 2-part videos titled "Fluoride and Cancer" by the biochemist Dr John Yiamouyiannis: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z-Y0kpm2Ok and www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqt8mFfw0GU
Please note, specially, Dr Yiamouyiannis's reference to fluoride damaging DNA and impairing immune systems.
After completing post-doctoral research at Western Reserve University Medical School, Dr Yiamouyiannis became a biochemical editor at the world's largest chemical information centre (Chemical Abstracts Service) and was a science director of the (US) National Health Federation. He also became a world leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride.
Dr Yiamouyiannis stated, "The truth is, fluoridation is chronically poisoning millions."
After watching these videos with an open mind, Brits ought to realize that their MPs who gave power to the South Central Strategic Health Authority to add an accumulative poison to their water supply (fluoride) - for them to drink from the cradle to the grave - are the enemies of the people not their benefactors.
The harmfulness of fluoride at the low levels added to water supplies has been substantiated (NRC 2006).
British Fluoridation Society mamebers and their fluoridating affiliates who assist with the chronic poisoning of Brits (especially infants) should be subjected to measures used for alleged witches in Britain decades ago.
By
Anonymous, at 22 April, 2009
This link www.pauapress.com/fluoride/files/1418.pdf accesses information about adverse health effects from fluoridation that The Establishment claims do not exist.
Via this link you can access, free, Dr Bruce Spittle's book "Fluoride Fatigue" that is sub-titled "Fluoride Poisoning: is fluoride in your drinking water and from other sources making you sick?"
Please turn to page 76 and read about the author who has received numerous medical awards and prizes.
Dr Spittle is the Managing Editor of "Fluoride" the official journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research and has meticulously referenced "Fluoride Fatigue" for the doubting Thomases who still think that fluoridation is safe for all.
By
illusion9, at 23 April, 2009
Also, promoters of water fluoridation lie when they claim that fluoridated water does not increase the incidence of cancer and other illness.
I quote the US Attorney at Law Janie Evins: "In the early 1990's, with trials of 11, 14 and 40 days to allow for extensive expert witness testimony, courts in Illinois, Texas and Pennsylvania each came to the same conclusion: fluoride at one part per million in the water, a) aggravates existing illnesses, b) causes adverse health effects, and c) contributes to a significant increase in cancer deaths."
Attorney Evins wrote this in a legal letter dated 19/02/09 that she sent to the Oral Health Director of the Arkansas Department of Health, Dr Lynn Mouden who had made false claims about fluoridation in order to promote the practice.
The letter is accessible via this link http://fluoridealert.org/arkansas.2-19-09.letter.pdf and would be an eye-opener for those who believe the lies about fluoridation's safety that are peddled by the government and other promoters of water fluoridation.
By
illusion9, at 23 April, 2009
Post a Comment
<< Home