UK "Your comments from the Daily Echo website"
Your comments from the Daily Echo website
IT'S an arrogant snub.
Anti-fluoridation campaigners have reacted angrily to health chiefs' refusal to personally receive a letter urging them to change their minds over the controversial scheme for Southampton and surrounding areas.
They say the move is proof South Central Strategic Health Authority is unwilling to listen to the people.
More than 20 members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to the SHA's Newbury HQ yesterday to deliver an open letter signed by 170 concerned people. But they were not even allowed in to deliver the letter.
After a debate with security guards, a single protester was eventually allowed inside.
But none of the 12 SHA board members, who a year ago yesterday voted in favour of adding fluoride to the water delivered to almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton, were there to accept the letter.
Instead it was handed to a receptionist.
The Wickham Man, Fareham says ...
When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF.
What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.
Totton Tim, Totton says ...
And what interest is this matter to Wickham Man of Fareham when the areas Intended for fluoridated are Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams?
goard, Southampton says ...
Wickham Man where are your brains - in your pocket? No doubt SHA did not pluck out of the air knowledge of Fluoride - surely they got their information from top drawer chemists.
Do you not realise our representatives ALSO sought the best.
Greenj, Southampton says ...
i would have some respect for the Wickham Man's views if he had done the chemistry and research work to understand that the scientific case against fluoride is extremely strong. It is arrogant to assume that the people objecting have not investigated this and fully understand the science.
The majority of scientists in the world are actually opposed to water fluoridation.
A Nobel Prizewinner wrote in to object to the Southampton fluoridation proposal, as did many scientists from the UK and around the world. So, Wickham Man, if you want to pontificate about science, please get your facts right and do not make silly assumptions about ignorance on one side of the debate.
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says ...
This only confirms Quangos' total arrogance and bad manners.
They took no notice of the overwhelming majority that objected to fluoridation of water, and now could not even show common courtesy of receiving the petitioners with some respect shown to those who travelled to deliver the document.
Government should demand a curbing of disrespect to members of public by those who are paid handsomely out of our taxes.
The flawed science of fluoridated water
I do wish that the board members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority would have the wisdom to look again at their proposal to force fluoridation on a huge number of people in the region.
To my mind, the science is flawed. The substance which it is proposed be added to the water supply is not the same as that which occurs naturally in other parts of the country. It is wasteful, for most water is not consumed
but is used for other purposes and it is not ethical. How can it be right to medicate the population at large compulsorily? The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights both acknowledge the right of individuals not to be medicated without their consent and the Declaration of Helsinki does not permit massmedication. MICHAEL FIELDING, Winchester.
IT'S an arrogant snub.
Anti-fluoridation campaigners have reacted angrily to health chiefs' refusal to personally receive a letter urging them to change their minds over the controversial scheme for Southampton and surrounding areas.
They say the move is proof South Central Strategic Health Authority is unwilling to listen to the people.
More than 20 members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to the SHA's Newbury HQ yesterday to deliver an open letter signed by 170 concerned people. But they were not even allowed in to deliver the letter.
After a debate with security guards, a single protester was eventually allowed inside.
But none of the 12 SHA board members, who a year ago yesterday voted in favour of adding fluoride to the water delivered to almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton, were there to accept the letter.
Instead it was handed to a receptionist.
The Wickham Man, Fareham says ...
When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF.
What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.
Totton Tim, Totton says ...
And what interest is this matter to Wickham Man of Fareham when the areas Intended for fluoridated are Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams?
goard, Southampton says ...
Wickham Man where are your brains - in your pocket? No doubt SHA did not pluck out of the air knowledge of Fluoride - surely they got their information from top drawer chemists.
Do you not realise our representatives ALSO sought the best.
Greenj, Southampton says ...
i would have some respect for the Wickham Man's views if he had done the chemistry and research work to understand that the scientific case against fluoride is extremely strong. It is arrogant to assume that the people objecting have not investigated this and fully understand the science.
The majority of scientists in the world are actually opposed to water fluoridation.
A Nobel Prizewinner wrote in to object to the Southampton fluoridation proposal, as did many scientists from the UK and around the world. So, Wickham Man, if you want to pontificate about science, please get your facts right and do not make silly assumptions about ignorance on one side of the debate.
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says ...
This only confirms Quangos' total arrogance and bad manners.
They took no notice of the overwhelming majority that objected to fluoridation of water, and now could not even show common courtesy of receiving the petitioners with some respect shown to those who travelled to deliver the document.
Government should demand a curbing of disrespect to members of public by those who are paid handsomely out of our taxes.
The flawed science of fluoridated water
I do wish that the board members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority would have the wisdom to look again at their proposal to force fluoridation on a huge number of people in the region.
To my mind, the science is flawed. The substance which it is proposed be added to the water supply is not the same as that which occurs naturally in other parts of the country. It is wasteful, for most water is not consumed
but is used for other purposes and it is not ethical. How can it be right to medicate the population at large compulsorily? The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights both acknowledge the right of individuals not to be medicated without their consent and the Declaration of Helsinki does not permit massmedication. MICHAEL FIELDING, Winchester.
posted by Bill at
10:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home