UK - We deserve open fluoride information

We deserve open fluoride information
IN Southampton, we are told that we have many current problems, particularly among the young. Teenage pregnancies, underage alcohol and drug abuse, hyperactivity, juvenile obesity and diabetes. It would be a ridiculous notion, would it not, to add contraception, tranquillisers, slimming aids and insulin to our drinking water to counteract these problems? These issues obviously need to be dealt with according to individual need, the same as for other health problems. Why should tooth decay be any different? The Primary Care Trust claims that all its previous attempts to control this have been ineffective - we have a right to know why.
The Strategic Health Authority have apparently not acted illegally. They have acted according to a legal document drawn up by the Government which gives them absolute power, regardless of the results of a consultation and peoples' wishes. The morals and ethics of this, however, are highly questionable.
Reports on the subject, both for and against, highlight the fact that not enough high quality data is available to determine the effects of fluoride. One has to ask, why not? If this data does not exist, after 50 years of fluoridation, then how can statements be made defending the use of fluoride in other parts of the country and locally? Sweeping statements have been made to claim that if fluoride caused health problems, they would have been obvious by now. However, data can only be researched if it is actively sought. Fluoride may well have a bearing on many health problems, but it would remain hidden if not specifically targeted. Presumably we in Southampton are a golden opportunity for high quality data to be gathered. I am not prepared to be a guinea pig, nor wish others to be, for no good reason. Tooth decay affects a minority of children and can be effectively dealt with in other ways. It is not a mass epidemic, and does not require mass medication.
Fluoride alters the structure of developing tooth enamel, and even the pro-fluoride devotees acknowledge that fluoride can cause fluorosis (mottling, staining and pitting of the teeth). If it has this effect on the teeth, what is it doing to the rest of the body? Fluorosis cannot be removed - it has to be concealed by expensive veneers, or the unfortunate child has to live with the effects into adulthood. Not exactly a step forward, particularly for children in socially disadvantaged areas, where we are told tooth decay is prevalent.
Our bodies are made up from mostly water and natural chemicals. Our foods and general environment still contain too many chemicals, a cocktail of which can cause many health problems. We do not need another one.
I can understand why many people are seeking a referendum, but we still need to bear in mind that any vote taken is only as effective as the information available. It is not unheard of for people to vote positively for something they do not really agree with when a certain approach is used, and things are not made entirely clear. We have a right to be given honest and unbiased information , in a clear and open way. There are too many questions and not enough answers