FAN Bulletin 1090: Good and Bad News from the UK
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1090: Good and Bad News from the UK
August 28, 2009,
The way that the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) pushed through fluoridation in Southampton, and other Hampshire communities in the UK, was a shocking exercise in government sponsored propaganda and manipulation. The last minute trashing of the NRC report and the 23 IQ studies by a "government friendly" consulting firm (Bazian Ltd.) was the last straw in a campaign which would have made George Orwell blink.
However, it has produced some good news. Citizens were so appalled by the way they were treated (72% of those polled voted against fluoridation) that they have sought and secured a "judicial review" on the way this measure was pushed through.
We heard yesterday that the very fact that this judicial review is in the works has put on hold the efforts of another SHA (North West SHA) to force through fluoridation. This hiccup has also allowed the authority to look at the staggering costs of such a program. Their current water program costs less than £6 million (about 9 million dollars) - it would jump to £200 million if fluoridation was introduced!
Here is the letter we received yesterday from Linda and Dave Forrest:
Dear All,
We have obtained some excellent news today. Please see attached extract from the Chief Executive's Report to be presented to the SHA's Board Meeting on 3 September 2009 (http://fluoridealert.org/uk.n.sha.extract.9-3-09.pdf). The main points stated in the report are:-
1. "It would be irresponsible for NHS North West to commit further resources to water fluoridation until the outcome of the Judicial Review is known and this has significant consequences".
2. "It is apparent from this report that costs have increased significantly"……….." Based on the most recent figures, the capital cost of a region-wide fluoridation scheme is around £200 million"…………. "The current annual operating cost of a region-wide scheme is £5.78 million".
3. "The Board is asked to note that no further work will be done on the Water Fluoridation Project until after the outcome of the Judicial Review is known. A further report will be provided at that time".
Our thanks must go to Hampshire Against Fluoridation and all the people who have helped them for their tremendous effort to stop fluoridation. Without their efforts our SHA might now be proposing for us to have a Consultation. The nearly doubling of the costs might also have had an impact on their decision. We will obviously have to stay vigilant and hope the Judicial Review is successful.
Best wishes,
Linda and Dave
So heartiest congratulations to Hampshire Against Fluoridation for all the painstaking efforts to fight this proposal in Southampton. You can email Linda and Dave Forrest and the citizens comprising Hampshire Against Fluoridation via John Spottiswoode who I am sure will share your thoughts with the gang.
Let's celebrate this news around the fluoridation fighting world. However, in reading further what the Chief Executive (North West SHA) had to say about the granting of the judicial review to Hampshire Against Fluoridation it sounds pretty ominous. We shouldn't drink too much champagne.
Apparently, the Honourable Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that the South Central SHA's "decision-making process was unimpeachable." Having observed this process very closely in four separate trips to Southampton (including appearing in three public fora) all I can say is WOW! If this is what the judge considers an "unimpeachable" process, the UK is in deep trouble. The whole thing was a sham from beginning to end - the end coming with Bazian Ltd., demonstrating that they don't know the difference between "concentration" and "dose." Even a high school student should be able to work out this difference. Whether or not fluoride causes harm depends on how much water one drinks whether the concentration of fluoride is 1, 2, 3 or 4 ppm.
To be more specific: these consultants argued that the NRC (2006) review findings were not relevant to Southampton. However, the NRC recommended that the current US EPA standard of 4 ppm be lowered. How can Bazian argue that a level of harm occurring at some level less than 4 ppm (NRC, 2006) was not relevant for people drinking water at 1 ppm? Especially, when the authority to decide what that number "less than 4 ppm" should be (the US EPA Water Division) has yet to make the determination! Of course, we know why Bazian argued this; this is what the British government wanted, and Bazian Ltd. belongs to the oldest profession in the world.
The Chief Executive officer of North West SHA wrote (http://fluoridealert.org/uk.n.sha.extract.9-3-09.pdf):
14. ...Permission (for a judicial review) was sought on two grounds.
1. When the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 were laid before Parliament, statements were made indicating that it remained Government policy that Strategic Health Authorities should proceed with water fluoridation only when the local population was in favour. However the regulation itself does not put that policy into effect.
2. That NHS South Central did not have regard to the cogency of the arguments for and against fluoridation.
15. A decision on these matters was announced on 23rd July 2009. The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting gave limited permission for a Judicial Review of Ground 1. He also said that determination of the claim required the active participation of the Secretary of State for Health and declared him an interested party. He did not uphold Ground 2 on the basis that it was not reasonably arguable and that in all other respects the "decision-making process was unimpeachable."
16. In response to this, the applicant has sought an oral hearing to try to overturn the decision against Ground 2.
Meanwhile, below are excerpts from other related stories on the situation in the UK. We are very glad to see that the local Southampton newspaper (Daily Echo) is calling for a referendum. The SHA chiefs answered back,"EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds!". Their arrogance is breathtaking. But again the good news is that the UK fluoridation juggernaut has been delayed, allowing more reasonable (and honest) people to deliberate.
Paul Connett
June 27, 2009, Daily Echo backs calls for a referendum on fluoride issue, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"GIVE us a vote. The Daily Echo today backs calls for a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water. Campaigners argue that faith in democracy has been damaged by health chiefs approving the scheme to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes, despite widespread opposition. Calls for a direct referendum on the controversial plans have been made by opponents of fluoride, and one of the city's most powerful politicians. Earlier this month campaigners delivered a 15,300-name petition to Downing Street, urging the Prime Minister to step into the row over fluoridation. During last year's public consultation, more than 10,000 responses were submitted to South Central Strategic Health Authority. Of those from people in the affected area, 72 per cent said they were against it..."
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Daily-Echo-backs-calls-for-a-referendum-on-fluoride-issue
July 20, 2009, Southampton: Fluoride referendum would be ignored by health authority chiefs, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds! That's the message from health chiefs who say they will plough ahead with plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies regardless of whether the public get another chance to air their views. Bosses at South Central Strategic Health Authority say it has already taken on board the opinions of county residents during a mass consultation - and another huge scale vote would not alter the outcome. The Daily Echo is backing growing calls for a referendum on fluoridation for Southampton and surrounding areas, because campaigners argue the people's voices were ignored. Today they branded the SHA "arrogant" for refusing to reconsider the decision in face of fierce opposition. They were backed by one MP who claimed health chiefs were "in denial" over public opinion.
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Fluoride-referendum-would-be-ignored-by-health-authority-chiefs
July 24, 2009, Southampton: Health regulators will not examine controversial decision, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"HEALTH regulators will not scrutinise the controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies. The health service ombudsman says it won't examine concerns over South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) public consultation on the scheme because of a potential legal challenge going through the courts. But they left the door open to carrying out an investigation if the judicial review fails to answer campaigners' complaints. New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Totton county councillor David Harrison jointly asked the regulator to examine the way the SHA carried out last year's consultation, before giving the scheme the go-ahead in February. They claimed the authority had been "hopelessly biased" in its advice to residents on the arguments surrounding the plans to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes. The politicians are also unhappy because they believe health bosses ignored public opinion by approving fluoridation for parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. The Daily Echo has backed campaigners' calls for a referendum on the scheme, giving residents the final say on the plans..."
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Health-regulators-will-not-examine-controversial-decision
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1090: Good and Bad News from the UK
August 28, 2009,
The way that the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) pushed through fluoridation in Southampton, and other Hampshire communities in the UK, was a shocking exercise in government sponsored propaganda and manipulation. The last minute trashing of the NRC report and the 23 IQ studies by a "government friendly" consulting firm (Bazian Ltd.) was the last straw in a campaign which would have made George Orwell blink.
However, it has produced some good news. Citizens were so appalled by the way they were treated (72% of those polled voted against fluoridation) that they have sought and secured a "judicial review" on the way this measure was pushed through.
We heard yesterday that the very fact that this judicial review is in the works has put on hold the efforts of another SHA (North West SHA) to force through fluoridation. This hiccup has also allowed the authority to look at the staggering costs of such a program. Their current water program costs less than £6 million (about 9 million dollars) - it would jump to £200 million if fluoridation was introduced!
Here is the letter we received yesterday from Linda and Dave Forrest:
Dear All,
We have obtained some excellent news today. Please see attached extract from the Chief Executive's Report to be presented to the SHA's Board Meeting on 3 September 2009 (http://fluoridealert.org/uk.n.sha.extract.9-3-09.pdf). The main points stated in the report are:-
1. "It would be irresponsible for NHS North West to commit further resources to water fluoridation until the outcome of the Judicial Review is known and this has significant consequences".
2. "It is apparent from this report that costs have increased significantly"……….." Based on the most recent figures, the capital cost of a region-wide fluoridation scheme is around £200 million"…………. "The current annual operating cost of a region-wide scheme is £5.78 million".
3. "The Board is asked to note that no further work will be done on the Water Fluoridation Project until after the outcome of the Judicial Review is known. A further report will be provided at that time".
Our thanks must go to Hampshire Against Fluoridation and all the people who have helped them for their tremendous effort to stop fluoridation. Without their efforts our SHA might now be proposing for us to have a Consultation. The nearly doubling of the costs might also have had an impact on their decision. We will obviously have to stay vigilant and hope the Judicial Review is successful.
Best wishes,
Linda and Dave
So heartiest congratulations to Hampshire Against Fluoridation for all the painstaking efforts to fight this proposal in Southampton. You can email Linda and Dave Forrest and the citizens comprising Hampshire Against Fluoridation via John Spottiswoode who I am sure will share your thoughts with the gang.
Let's celebrate this news around the fluoridation fighting world. However, in reading further what the Chief Executive (North West SHA) had to say about the granting of the judicial review to Hampshire Against Fluoridation it sounds pretty ominous. We shouldn't drink too much champagne.
Apparently, the Honourable Mr. Justice Mitting ruled that the South Central SHA's "decision-making process was unimpeachable." Having observed this process very closely in four separate trips to Southampton (including appearing in three public fora) all I can say is WOW! If this is what the judge considers an "unimpeachable" process, the UK is in deep trouble. The whole thing was a sham from beginning to end - the end coming with Bazian Ltd., demonstrating that they don't know the difference between "concentration" and "dose." Even a high school student should be able to work out this difference. Whether or not fluoride causes harm depends on how much water one drinks whether the concentration of fluoride is 1, 2, 3 or 4 ppm.
To be more specific: these consultants argued that the NRC (2006) review findings were not relevant to Southampton. However, the NRC recommended that the current US EPA standard of 4 ppm be lowered. How can Bazian argue that a level of harm occurring at some level less than 4 ppm (NRC, 2006) was not relevant for people drinking water at 1 ppm? Especially, when the authority to decide what that number "less than 4 ppm" should be (the US EPA Water Division) has yet to make the determination! Of course, we know why Bazian argued this; this is what the British government wanted, and Bazian Ltd. belongs to the oldest profession in the world.
The Chief Executive officer of North West SHA wrote (http://fluoridealert.org/uk.n.sha.extract.9-3-09.pdf):
14. ...Permission (for a judicial review) was sought on two grounds.
1. When the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 were laid before Parliament, statements were made indicating that it remained Government policy that Strategic Health Authorities should proceed with water fluoridation only when the local population was in favour. However the regulation itself does not put that policy into effect.
2. That NHS South Central did not have regard to the cogency of the arguments for and against fluoridation.
15. A decision on these matters was announced on 23rd July 2009. The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting gave limited permission for a Judicial Review of Ground 1. He also said that determination of the claim required the active participation of the Secretary of State for Health and declared him an interested party. He did not uphold Ground 2 on the basis that it was not reasonably arguable and that in all other respects the "decision-making process was unimpeachable."
16. In response to this, the applicant has sought an oral hearing to try to overturn the decision against Ground 2.
Meanwhile, below are excerpts from other related stories on the situation in the UK. We are very glad to see that the local Southampton newspaper (Daily Echo) is calling for a referendum. The SHA chiefs answered back,"EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds!". Their arrogance is breathtaking. But again the good news is that the UK fluoridation juggernaut has been delayed, allowing more reasonable (and honest) people to deliberate.
Paul Connett
June 27, 2009, Daily Echo backs calls for a referendum on fluoride issue, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"GIVE us a vote. The Daily Echo today backs calls for a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water. Campaigners argue that faith in democracy has been damaged by health chiefs approving the scheme to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes, despite widespread opposition. Calls for a direct referendum on the controversial plans have been made by opponents of fluoride, and one of the city's most powerful politicians. Earlier this month campaigners delivered a 15,300-name petition to Downing Street, urging the Prime Minister to step into the row over fluoridation. During last year's public consultation, more than 10,000 responses were submitted to South Central Strategic Health Authority. Of those from people in the affected area, 72 per cent said they were against it..."
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Daily-Echo-backs-calls-for-a-referendum-on-fluoride-issue
July 20, 2009, Southampton: Fluoride referendum would be ignored by health authority chiefs, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds! That's the message from health chiefs who say they will plough ahead with plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies regardless of whether the public get another chance to air their views. Bosses at South Central Strategic Health Authority say it has already taken on board the opinions of county residents during a mass consultation - and another huge scale vote would not alter the outcome. The Daily Echo is backing growing calls for a referendum on fluoridation for Southampton and surrounding areas, because campaigners argue the people's voices were ignored. Today they branded the SHA "arrogant" for refusing to reconsider the decision in face of fierce opposition. They were backed by one MP who claimed health chiefs were "in denial" over public opinion.
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Fluoride-referendum-would-be-ignored-by-health-authority-chiefs
July 24, 2009, Southampton: Health regulators will not examine controversial decision, By Jon Reeve, Daily Echo
"HEALTH regulators will not scrutinise the controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies. The health service ombudsman says it won't examine concerns over South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) public consultation on the scheme because of a potential legal challenge going through the courts. But they left the door open to carrying out an investigation if the judicial review fails to answer campaigners' complaints. New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Totton county councillor David Harrison jointly asked the regulator to examine the way the SHA carried out last year's consultation, before giving the scheme the go-ahead in February. They claimed the authority had been "hopelessly biased" in its advice to residents on the arguments surrounding the plans to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes. The politicians are also unhappy because they believe health bosses ignored public opinion by approving fluoridation for parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. The Daily Echo has backed campaigners' calls for a referendum on the scheme, giving residents the final say on the plans..."
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Health-regulators-will-not-examine-controversial-decision
posted by Bill at
9:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home