UK - Andy Burnham to bankrupt NHS with push to fluoridate UK drinking water
Andy Burnham to bankrupt NHS with push to fluoridate UK drinking water
George Glasser
"Let’s press ahead with fluoridation of water supplies, given the clear evidence that it can improve children’s dental health." 12/06/2009 - Health Secretary Andy Burnham’s speech to NHS Confederation Annual Conference.
"The NHS must slash its budget by up to £20billion as part of the Government’s new spending cut plans, Health Secretary Andy Burnham has warned." 19/11/2009 – Daily Mail.
While the NHS titters at the edge of financial oblivion, Health Secretary Andy Burnham (former Vice President of the British Fluoridation Society) is pressing ahead with plans to implement his pet project: The fluoridation of UK drinking water at a possible cost of billions of pounds to financially stressed NHS Trusts.
If you listen to the propaganda, you would believe that fluoridating the drinking water is a simple process – a matter of machine adding drops of fluoride to drinking water. ‘And it only costs pennies per month, per person!’ However, that’s not the case. It’s quite costly to fluoridate drinking water.
In fact, because of the highly corrosive nature of the fluoride added to the water, a separate facility is required because, otherwise, the corrosive fumes from the fluoride will damage other water treatment equipment and they are also a health hazard to the personnel.
Because fluoride is poisonous, fluoridating drinking water requires failsafe instrumentation to assure that the right amount of fluoride is added to the water.
Alarms and monitoring equipment are essential to the process because if there is an accidental overfeed, a whole area population could be poisoned.
Finally, personnel need specialised training to handle the fluoride and maintain the equipment.
All these factors add-up to a very costly endeavor.
So, in spite of what Health Secretary Burnham would have you believe, the tooth fairy doesn’t flitter over the reservoir at night sprinkling fluoride dust into the water.
The fluoridation amendment, 2002 UK Water Bill spelled out guidelines for the SHAs to follow before implementing a fluoridation scheme.
By law, a Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is required, first, to do a fluoridation feasibility study which can cost upwards to £50K+.
Then the SHA has to do a public consultation to see if the people actually want their water fluoridated which can cost from £300K – £1.0M+. However, it’s a foregone conclusion that the decision of the SHA health bosses supersedes public opinion.
After all, they are the self-titled "Health Bosses," and make the final decision on everything regarding your health. So, even if the public says no, the fluoridation scheme will continue as planned – public opinion is irrelevant.
Then if someone contests the consultation process on valid legal grounds, as in South Hampshire, you can add another £600K or more on top of that for legal fees and court costs.
Next, the SHA has to work out legal agreements with the water companies. (How much do corporate lawyers cost per hour and how long will they drag out the process so they can get a generous cut of the action from the public purse?)
At that point, the water company comes into the picture – they’re responsible for designing and building the fluoridation facilities. They’re not altruistic and do not have the public interest at heart. They’re ‘for profit private companies.’ One can be assured they will make substantial profit on every aspect of the facility designs and engineering.
Next, we have the construction which the water companies will oversee and hire subcontractors to construct the facilities. Of course, the water company will take a cut of the action off the top of construction costs and charge administration fees on top of that.
All this costs money, and where does the money come from?
The funding, of course, comes out of the SHA budget – not the tooth fairy like Health Secretary Burnham’s PR people would have you believe. The government only offers a £15K fluoridation grant, which doesn’t even cover the feasibility study costs.
Not only is the SHA responsible for paying the start-up cost and all the legal fees, but they are also responsible for funding the ongoing manning and maintenance of the facilities and cost of fluoride to put in the water (the water company will at least double the cost on the fluoride).
From the time the SHA starts the bureaucracy in motion to implement a fluoridation scheme to its hypothetical completion; we are probably looking at five years with ever-increasing costs due to inflation.
A feasibility study done to fluoridate Manchester a few years ago indicated that the start-up costs would be £35M in 2006 - £102M in 2007 - £210M in 2009.
They estimated that it would take another £5M per year for chemicals, manning, and maintenance, which again will come out of the Manchester SHA budget while they are simultaneously cutting costs in order to survive.
In spite of facing bankruptcy, the Manchester health bosses push onward and keep spending even more money on their suicidal plan to fluoridate the drinking water.
As part of a cost cutting measure to save £44K a year in 2006, Manchester SHA health bosses told NHS hospital nurses that they had to supply their own milk for tea – if they got caught using hospital milk, they would be subject to disciplinary action and possible sacking.
Meanwhile, the Manchester SHA is closing hospitals, axing essential services, and laying-off staff, but the health bosses can still find £210M in the budget to fluoridate the city’s drinking water.
The one thing you can be sure of with any government project is that you can safely add 500% onto the estimated cost. This is because the private sector knows that once they have got the contracts, they can milk dim-witted bureaucrats and sycophant politicians for any amount of public funds.
Consequently, who knows how much it will cost to fluoridate Manchester’s drinking water? The actual cost of fluoridating Manchester could be a billion pounds by the time they’re finished because the cost seems to double with every passing year.
Now, how realistic are fluoridation schemes? Well, not very.
First of all, it will take upwards to five years to implement a regional fluoridation scheme and cost hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions.
Then offering the promoters the benefit of the doubt, and agreeing the fluoridation will "Dramatically reduce tooth decay in children," it will take another five years to see any significant improvement in dental health among the population.
So, the bottom-line is that it will take at least ten years or more before any improvement in dental health is seen - that is, if fluoridation actually worked.
Does that do anything to improve children’s dental health in the short term?
It’s very doubtful unless you believe in the tooth fairy like the SHA health bosses and Health Secretary Andy Burnham.
Who really stands to profit from fluoridation?
The water companies because they will take a cut of the action off the top and charge administration fees for every aspect of the operation; and subsequently, transforming fluoridation into a long-term profit generator for the company.
Next and most important, who are the losers?
Well, it’s the usual losers in any ill-fated government health scheme: The unquestioning public who are dependent on the NHS for their health care.
Why is the UK public the loser in the fluoridation game?
Well, it’s because Health Secretary Burnham’s ambitious scheme to fluoridate the UK is financed by the Strategic Health Authorities who are always in a state of financial crises.
What does this mean to a nation that depends on the NHS for its health care?
Further cutting of essential services?
Shutting down more hospitals, birthing centres, cancer facilities, and causality units?
Sacking even more nurses and essential personnel to balance the budget? (137 thousand NHS personnel are to be losing their jobs in the next five years.)
Denying even more people access to life-saving drugs and treatments?
Putting even more people into quality of service postcode lotteries?
So, what's next from Health Secretary Burnham; DIY organ transplants as a means to cut NHS spending so he can see his pet project implemented?
Burnham is now talking about further draconian cutbacks in NHS funding - £20billion, but he still seems to have the money to pour into fluoridation schemes, even at the cost of bankrupting the NHS.
George Glasser
"Let’s press ahead with fluoridation of water supplies, given the clear evidence that it can improve children’s dental health." 12/06/2009 - Health Secretary Andy Burnham’s speech to NHS Confederation Annual Conference.
"The NHS must slash its budget by up to £20billion as part of the Government’s new spending cut plans, Health Secretary Andy Burnham has warned." 19/11/2009 – Daily Mail.
While the NHS titters at the edge of financial oblivion, Health Secretary Andy Burnham (former Vice President of the British Fluoridation Society) is pressing ahead with plans to implement his pet project: The fluoridation of UK drinking water at a possible cost of billions of pounds to financially stressed NHS Trusts.
If you listen to the propaganda, you would believe that fluoridating the drinking water is a simple process – a matter of machine adding drops of fluoride to drinking water. ‘And it only costs pennies per month, per person!’ However, that’s not the case. It’s quite costly to fluoridate drinking water.
In fact, because of the highly corrosive nature of the fluoride added to the water, a separate facility is required because, otherwise, the corrosive fumes from the fluoride will damage other water treatment equipment and they are also a health hazard to the personnel.
Because fluoride is poisonous, fluoridating drinking water requires failsafe instrumentation to assure that the right amount of fluoride is added to the water.
Alarms and monitoring equipment are essential to the process because if there is an accidental overfeed, a whole area population could be poisoned.
Finally, personnel need specialised training to handle the fluoride and maintain the equipment.
All these factors add-up to a very costly endeavor.
So, in spite of what Health Secretary Burnham would have you believe, the tooth fairy doesn’t flitter over the reservoir at night sprinkling fluoride dust into the water.
The fluoridation amendment, 2002 UK Water Bill spelled out guidelines for the SHAs to follow before implementing a fluoridation scheme.
By law, a Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is required, first, to do a fluoridation feasibility study which can cost upwards to £50K+.
Then the SHA has to do a public consultation to see if the people actually want their water fluoridated which can cost from £300K – £1.0M+. However, it’s a foregone conclusion that the decision of the SHA health bosses supersedes public opinion.
After all, they are the self-titled "Health Bosses," and make the final decision on everything regarding your health. So, even if the public says no, the fluoridation scheme will continue as planned – public opinion is irrelevant.
Then if someone contests the consultation process on valid legal grounds, as in South Hampshire, you can add another £600K or more on top of that for legal fees and court costs.
Next, the SHA has to work out legal agreements with the water companies. (How much do corporate lawyers cost per hour and how long will they drag out the process so they can get a generous cut of the action from the public purse?)
At that point, the water company comes into the picture – they’re responsible for designing and building the fluoridation facilities. They’re not altruistic and do not have the public interest at heart. They’re ‘for profit private companies.’ One can be assured they will make substantial profit on every aspect of the facility designs and engineering.
Next, we have the construction which the water companies will oversee and hire subcontractors to construct the facilities. Of course, the water company will take a cut of the action off the top of construction costs and charge administration fees on top of that.
All this costs money, and where does the money come from?
The funding, of course, comes out of the SHA budget – not the tooth fairy like Health Secretary Burnham’s PR people would have you believe. The government only offers a £15K fluoridation grant, which doesn’t even cover the feasibility study costs.
Not only is the SHA responsible for paying the start-up cost and all the legal fees, but they are also responsible for funding the ongoing manning and maintenance of the facilities and cost of fluoride to put in the water (the water company will at least double the cost on the fluoride).
From the time the SHA starts the bureaucracy in motion to implement a fluoridation scheme to its hypothetical completion; we are probably looking at five years with ever-increasing costs due to inflation.
A feasibility study done to fluoridate Manchester a few years ago indicated that the start-up costs would be £35M in 2006 - £102M in 2007 - £210M in 2009.
They estimated that it would take another £5M per year for chemicals, manning, and maintenance, which again will come out of the Manchester SHA budget while they are simultaneously cutting costs in order to survive.
In spite of facing bankruptcy, the Manchester health bosses push onward and keep spending even more money on their suicidal plan to fluoridate the drinking water.
As part of a cost cutting measure to save £44K a year in 2006, Manchester SHA health bosses told NHS hospital nurses that they had to supply their own milk for tea – if they got caught using hospital milk, they would be subject to disciplinary action and possible sacking.
Meanwhile, the Manchester SHA is closing hospitals, axing essential services, and laying-off staff, but the health bosses can still find £210M in the budget to fluoridate the city’s drinking water.
The one thing you can be sure of with any government project is that you can safely add 500% onto the estimated cost. This is because the private sector knows that once they have got the contracts, they can milk dim-witted bureaucrats and sycophant politicians for any amount of public funds.
Consequently, who knows how much it will cost to fluoridate Manchester’s drinking water? The actual cost of fluoridating Manchester could be a billion pounds by the time they’re finished because the cost seems to double with every passing year.
Now, how realistic are fluoridation schemes? Well, not very.
First of all, it will take upwards to five years to implement a regional fluoridation scheme and cost hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions.
Then offering the promoters the benefit of the doubt, and agreeing the fluoridation will "Dramatically reduce tooth decay in children," it will take another five years to see any significant improvement in dental health among the population.
So, the bottom-line is that it will take at least ten years or more before any improvement in dental health is seen - that is, if fluoridation actually worked.
Does that do anything to improve children’s dental health in the short term?
It’s very doubtful unless you believe in the tooth fairy like the SHA health bosses and Health Secretary Andy Burnham.
Who really stands to profit from fluoridation?
The water companies because they will take a cut of the action off the top and charge administration fees for every aspect of the operation; and subsequently, transforming fluoridation into a long-term profit generator for the company.
Next and most important, who are the losers?
Well, it’s the usual losers in any ill-fated government health scheme: The unquestioning public who are dependent on the NHS for their health care.
Why is the UK public the loser in the fluoridation game?
Well, it’s because Health Secretary Burnham’s ambitious scheme to fluoridate the UK is financed by the Strategic Health Authorities who are always in a state of financial crises.
What does this mean to a nation that depends on the NHS for its health care?
Further cutting of essential services?
Shutting down more hospitals, birthing centres, cancer facilities, and causality units?
Sacking even more nurses and essential personnel to balance the budget? (137 thousand NHS personnel are to be losing their jobs in the next five years.)
Denying even more people access to life-saving drugs and treatments?
Putting even more people into quality of service postcode lotteries?
So, what's next from Health Secretary Burnham; DIY organ transplants as a means to cut NHS spending so he can see his pet project implemented?
Burnham is now talking about further draconian cutbacks in NHS funding - £20billion, but he still seems to have the money to pour into fluoridation schemes, even at the cost of bankrupting the NHS.
posted by Bill at
9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home