UK - Southampton Daily Echo
MP Wrote that he was policy-bound on fluoride
IT IS heartening to read that certain groups of Southampton's citizens intend to petition the John Den ham Labour MP for Southampton with regards to fluoridation.
To what avail? I wrote to him, offering information regarding the scientific and medical research findings on the detrimental effects of fluoridation.
His reply dated June 10 2008 was: "No fluoridation scheme would go ahead unless there has been wide consultations, in which both proponents and opponents had been encouraged to participate, and it was clearly evident that local community was in favour.
The extra funding announced by the minister means that should local people decide to support fluoridation, Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) have the resources to implement it. You have asked for my thoughts regarding this issue, perhaps I should clarify as a Government minister I will be backing Government policy." One wonders why the sudden and very unusual visit to Southampton, for an unelected quango to order the addition of fluoride into Southampton's water supply at a fluoride to water ratio of one part per million (Ippm) a ratio which was found, in Japanese medical research (Dr. Tsutsuis's study. Valerian, Val Perceptions "On the Toxic Nature of Fluorides" September/October 1995) to produce cancer in cells.
And (b) A proposed port tax on shipping coming into Southampton at a • time when the port is attracting more custom, ie large container ships and cruise liners.
A tax of such magnitude which if imposed will mean shipping lines going elsewhere resulting undoubtedly in unemployment, the closure and loss of many businesses affecting the overall welfare and prosperity of the city. JOHN HAYWARD, Southampton.
WHEN parliament allowed health authorities the power to decide to put fluoride into drinking water it bypassed the most obvious right of the people to have their supply as unpolluted as possible. It is one thing for the law to say what levels of contaminants may be accept-
able or tolerable when they occur naturally, but quite another to permit such things to be added.
Considerable attention has been given to additives in food capable of causing medical or behavioural problems. Yet here we have a highly suspect chemical being put into the most basic and vital food of all.
It may be of interest that Southern Water state that there will be no reduction in charges for those who will thus receive water of poorer quality.
G PAYNE, Southampton
Slick U-tum Jeremy
IT is interesting to see that the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test has now changed his mind after supporting the move to add fluoride to the city's drinking water.
Why has he made this U-turn I wonder? Could it be that he now realises he may lose votes otherwise? It is strange for someone to vote in favour of the move knowing that it would be the South Central Strategic Health Authority's final decision, and then to say afterwards he doesn't think it should have that power. He should have voted against it if he was concerned that the authority was unaccountable.
The only major party with two parliamentary candidates who are opposed to it are the Liberal Democrats. Local Lib Dem MPs Sandra Gidley and Chris Huhne are also strongly against. Labour MPs Alan Whitehead and John Denham are strangely quiet on this issue.
I am against the principle of trying to medicate one part of the community by subjecting everyone to fluoride in their drinking water, and will work closely with Hampshire Against Fluoridation to fight these plans.
There was a clear majority against adding fluoride to drinking water in the health authority's own consultation, and that has been ignored. It is an injustice and a completely undemocratic decision by a group of unelected individuals.
DAVID CALLAGHAN, Prospective Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton Test
IT IS heartening to read that certain groups of Southampton's citizens intend to petition the John Den ham Labour MP for Southampton with regards to fluoridation.
To what avail? I wrote to him, offering information regarding the scientific and medical research findings on the detrimental effects of fluoridation.
His reply dated June 10 2008 was: "No fluoridation scheme would go ahead unless there has been wide consultations, in which both proponents and opponents had been encouraged to participate, and it was clearly evident that local community was in favour.
The extra funding announced by the minister means that should local people decide to support fluoridation, Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) have the resources to implement it. You have asked for my thoughts regarding this issue, perhaps I should clarify as a Government minister I will be backing Government policy." One wonders why the sudden and very unusual visit to Southampton, for an unelected quango to order the addition of fluoride into Southampton's water supply at a fluoride to water ratio of one part per million (Ippm) a ratio which was found, in Japanese medical research (Dr. Tsutsuis's study. Valerian, Val Perceptions "On the Toxic Nature of Fluorides" September/October 1995) to produce cancer in cells.
And (b) A proposed port tax on shipping coming into Southampton at a • time when the port is attracting more custom, ie large container ships and cruise liners.
A tax of such magnitude which if imposed will mean shipping lines going elsewhere resulting undoubtedly in unemployment, the closure and loss of many businesses affecting the overall welfare and prosperity of the city. JOHN HAYWARD, Southampton.
WHEN parliament allowed health authorities the power to decide to put fluoride into drinking water it bypassed the most obvious right of the people to have their supply as unpolluted as possible. It is one thing for the law to say what levels of contaminants may be accept-
able or tolerable when they occur naturally, but quite another to permit such things to be added.
Considerable attention has been given to additives in food capable of causing medical or behavioural problems. Yet here we have a highly suspect chemical being put into the most basic and vital food of all.
It may be of interest that Southern Water state that there will be no reduction in charges for those who will thus receive water of poorer quality.
G PAYNE, Southampton
Slick U-tum Jeremy
IT is interesting to see that the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test has now changed his mind after supporting the move to add fluoride to the city's drinking water.
Why has he made this U-turn I wonder? Could it be that he now realises he may lose votes otherwise? It is strange for someone to vote in favour of the move knowing that it would be the South Central Strategic Health Authority's final decision, and then to say afterwards he doesn't think it should have that power. He should have voted against it if he was concerned that the authority was unaccountable.
The only major party with two parliamentary candidates who are opposed to it are the Liberal Democrats. Local Lib Dem MPs Sandra Gidley and Chris Huhne are also strongly against. Labour MPs Alan Whitehead and John Denham are strangely quiet on this issue.
I am against the principle of trying to medicate one part of the community by subjecting everyone to fluoride in their drinking water, and will work closely with Hampshire Against Fluoridation to fight these plans.
There was a clear majority against adding fluoride to drinking water in the health authority's own consultation, and that has been ignored. It is an injustice and a completely undemocratic decision by a group of unelected individuals.
DAVID CALLAGHAN, Prospective Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton Test
posted by Bill at
10:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home