.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Monday, January 31, 2011

USA - Fluoride Action News Letter

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is excited to announce that NH State Representative Lars Christiansen has introduced two bills in the New Hampshire Legislature for the 2011 legislative session. One them, HB312--"An Act relative to notice required for the fluoridation of drinking water", has been referred to the House Health and Human Services committee and will have a public hearing this Tuesday, February 1 at 1pm in room 205 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord, NH [Directions].

The legislation requires that all fluoridating communities in New Hampshire place a statement on all water bills disclosing that the water is fluoridated and warning citizens not to reconstitute baby formula using fluoridated water.

Since the 2006 NRC report on fluoride showed that infants were consuming 3 to 4 times more fluoride than adults, contributing to overexposure, dental researchers and medical experts have agreed that children under 12 months of age should not be consuming fluoridated water. Just this month, the US Department of Health and Human Services recommended lowering "optimal" water fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm to decrease the epidemic of dental fluorosis afflicting over 41% of adolescents aged 12-15. Even at 0.7 ppm, an infant using fluoridated water will still consume up to 175 times more fluoride than a breastfed baby.

We need your help to pass this important legislation, and to keep the momentum going in our fight to end fluoridation. Please take a minute to send NH Legislators a message urging them to support our infant warning bill, HB312. Don't forget to customize the title and opening statement of the message, as this will dramatically increase the impact of our campaign and increase the likelihood that your message will be read by legislators. If you live in NH, are a medical or scientific expert, a victim of fluorosis, or a concerned parent, its important to state that in the opening of the message. Use these links to send a message:

Canada - Happy redneck

Happy redneck
Calgary Herald January 30, 2011 Re: "Disillusioned," Letter, Jan. 28.
Evidently, anyone stupid enough to disagree with Dan Brown's position on fluoride is a redneck and "ultraright."
Really, who else would be foolish enough to question the validity of mass dosing an entire population with a substance that is falling under increasing scrutiny? After all, we've been doing it for years.
Particularly astonishing is that Brown cites a "disregard for medical and scientific advice of qualified experts" when no such evidence exists. A growing body of evidence and significant study point to questionable results, and directly related harmful effects, including possible links to cancer, bone damage and hypothyroidism. Even the possibility of risk, using any definition of common sense, would demand fluoride's removal from the water supply.

Unlike Brown, I will happily maintain an open mind and support fluoridation if he can provide valid scientific proof of its effectiveness and that it does not cause any harm to the human body. Since that evidence does not exist, I'll maintain my "redneck" stance against it, thank you.

Twyla Laakso, Calgary

Dr. Paul Connett Special: What Fluoride Really Does To Your Body 3/3

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Give families free toothpaste to halt tooth decay, dentists say

Give families free toothpaste to halt tooth decay, dentists say
by Denis Campbell Health Correspondent The Observer, Sunday 30 January 2011
With children as young as three needing painful extractions, health experts want parents to stop sugaring babies' bottles and schools not to give chocolates as rewards
Families should receive free toothpaste and toothbrushes, pupils should be banned from sharing birthday cakes with friends and parents told not to sweeten babies' feeding bottles if rising rates of child tooth decay are to be halted, dentists are urging.

Experts want a new approach to tackle the growing number of children, some as young as three, who have to undergo painful extractions. They also want schools to stop rewarding students who do well with chocolate; childminders and nursery staff to ensure that toddlers brush their teeth twice a day; and a big increase in the number of children receiving fluoride varnish.

The call comes from Dr Gill Davies and Dr Colette Bridgman, dental public health specialists who work for Manchester's NHS primary care trust. Writing in the British Dental Journal, they demand that parents play the key role in getting their offspring into good dental hygiene habits from soon after they are born by not giving them high-sugar foods and drinks, ensuring they have regular check-ups and cleaning their teeth regularly.

"It is the parents who have influence over food and diet choices, purchasing and use of toothpaste and the making of appointments for dental care," they write. "How many children are likely to insist that no more biscuits or sugary drinks be bought for a household?"

While tooth decay in 12- to 14-year-olds has fallen over the past 20 years, it has not improved among five-year-olds. "If the oral health of five-year-olds is to be tackled, then clearly health improvement interventions need to commence well before children start school. Action is required from the start to encourage breastfeeding, avoid unhealthy feeding practices and start with good toothbrushing habits," the specialists add.

Davies said that parents who gave their babies bottles of sweet liquid, such as sugared milk, tea or even custard, risked them having a sugary substance washing over their teeth almost non-stop: "Sweetening bottles is a very damaging habit, especially giving a baby such a bottle at bedtime or letting it keep it in the cot overnight, which is ridiculous, because the child's saliva flow is much reduced."

Given that only 10% of the UK has fluoridated water, the authors want other steps taken, such as:

■ Children using family fluoride toothpaste, not children's toothpaste, which is low in fluoride;

■ Schools and nurseries to stop giving children fruit squash at snack times;

■ Every schoolchild to have fluoride varnish painted on their teeth at least twice a year. Currently less than 15% do so;

■ "Meet the dentist" sessions at primary schools;

■ An end to the practice of sharing birthday cakes at schools.

Their recommendations draw on the success of the Manchester Smiles dental health campaign, which began last year. Under it, 6,000 pupils at 80 primary schools have supervised brushing sessions twice daily and dental practices are "buddied" with schools. Under a different scheme, 200,000 families in Manchester have received free toothpaste and toothbrushes since 1999, a plan that Davies and Bridgman believe should be extended nationally.

The dentists warn against bringing back dental health lessons in schools, an idea the Tories backed in opposition, because it helps only middle-class children. Dental health is a stark health inequality: 20% of those from poorer backgrounds account for 80% of decay.

"It's a tragedy that the poorest children have most of the worst dental health, especially as much decay is preventable," said Professor Steve Field, the Birmingham GP who chairs the National Health Inclusion Board, which aims to improve the NHS care of vulnerable groups. "That means discomfort, pain, sleepless nights, days off school and speech problems"

The Department of Health said: "The government has wasted no time in setting out its plans to improve dental services. At their heart is improving preventative care for children. They need a service that helps them maintain good oral health and prevents decay, rather than one that is based solely on treatment."

Dr Paul Connett Special What Fluoride ReallyDoes To Your Body 2 3

Saturday, January 29, 2011

1 Dr. Paul Connett Special: What Fluoride Really Does To Your Body.

UK - Fluoride added to water in only three Cheshire towns: Crewe, Nantwich & Alsager

Fluoride added to water in only three Cheshire towns: Crewe, Nantwich & Alsager
Jan 28 2011 by Allison Dickinson, Crewe Chronicle
CREWE, Nantwich and Alsager are the only towns in Cheshire to have fluoride added to drinking water.
A United Utilities spokesman confirmed the three places and the rural areas of Bickerton, Bulkeley and Burland, Wrenbury Egerton Green and Faddiley are served by the Hurleston Water Treatment Works.
Sandbach is not on a fluoridated supply.
The North West Strategic Health Authority is the body that would decide whether to expand fluoridation - which would require widespread public consultation.
Yvonne Dailey, a consultant for dental public health said: “Fluoridation is one possible intervention to improve dental health but there is a lot to consider. We’ll continue to review the evidence but suggest the public can improve their dental health by restricting sugary snacks and drinks to mealtimes only, using a family fluoride toothpaste twice a day, and spitting out the excess, rather than rinsing.”
Fluoridation of water is in the news after a Southampton resident launched legal action to stop it.
The resident lodged an appeal against the 2009 decision by the South Central Strategic Health Authority to fluoridate supply in Southampton.

YOUR HEALTH: Benefits of fluoridation?

YOUR HEALTH: Benefits of fluoridation


In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that fluoridating community water at recommended levels is safe, misinformation about the health effects of fluoridation continues to circulate. This information is often anecdotal or based on misinterpretation of data and study results, but it has unfortunately generated some controversy on the Internet and in the media. Detailed review of this information has shown that it is not based on scientific or thorough research and only selectively or partially examines the issue of water fluoridation. It is important to note that credible scientific organizations and associations continue to review the evidence and assess the benefits and potential risks of fluoridation. Their reports are publicly available and constitute the basis for continuing support of water fluoridation...........
Dr. Paul Roumeliotis is the Medical Officer of Health and Chief Executive Officer for the Eastern Ontario Health Unit.

Added Comment
I hope that the "Officers of Health" who continue to push this industrial waste into public drinking water will all soon be held as accomplices in the poisoning of many individuals whose only mistake was to believe them.

Fluoride the still best guard against cavities?

Mark Amberg ("New Fluoride Rules Yet to Be Proven Safe," Jan. 19 letter) substantially misrepresented the recent announcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concerning a proposed lowering of the recommended level of fluoride to be used with community water fluoridation.

The new recommendation is not related to the allowable levels of fluoride, just the recommendations. As with virtually all such federal government announcements, the official announcement was published in the Federal Register for public comment. Thereafter, the appropriate government agencies will consider the comments and eventually finalize the recommendations.

The author failed to mention that the federal government agencies did not question the effectiveness or safety of community water fluoridation, but rather strongly reaffirmed their endorsement of community water fluoridation based on strong scientific evidence.

Their recommended lower level of fluoride in the water simply reflects primarily that there are many more sources of fluoride now than there were 60 years ago when community water fluoridation was begun, and as a result cavity rates are much lower, on average, than they used to be.

Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing cavities for both children and adults. It is by far the most cost-effective way to prevent cavities.

- Steven M. Levy, D.D.S., M.P.H., University of Iowa College of Dentistry, Iowa City

5:47 AM on January 28, 2011
Levy gets grant money to study fluoride. Here's some of his findings:
"Current evidence strongly suggests that fluorides work primarily by topical means through direct action on the teeth and dental plaque. Thus ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries (cavity)
prevention," report Warren and Levy in Dental Clinics of North America, April 2003.
"There has been an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis," reports Steven Levy, DDS, Professor, University of Iowa, in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association....With more severe forms of fluorosis, caries risk increases because of pitting and loss of the outer enamel," writes Levy.
"There is no specific nutritional requirement for fluoride...given the increased prevalence of fluorosis, it may be necessary to revise downward the adequate intake levels for fluoride," write Levy and Warren.
"The optimal level of fluoride intake is not known with certainty," writes Levy.
"Total fluoride intake is the true fluorosis risk factor However, this is very difficult to quantify," writes Levy who found:
· 77% of soft drinks had fluoride levels greater than 0.60 ppm

· Two ounces daily baby chicken food provides their maximum dose

· Children's specially-flavored toothpaste increases fluoride ingestion

· Soy-based infant formulas deliver more fluoride than milk-based

· Other foods high in fluoride are teas, dry infant cereals, dried chicken, fish and seafood products

· Fluoridated water added to powdered concentrate ups fluorosis risk

· Grape juices, especially white, contain very high fluoride levels

· 42% of all tested juices and juice drinks had fluoride levels greater than 0.6 ppm

· Fluoride supplements are generally not recommended

· Cereals processed in a fluoridated area contained from 3.8 to 6.3 ppm fluoride

Why is Levy defending fluoride instead of passing on his taxpayer funded information to the public who paid for it?

Friday, January 28, 2011

Fight the power!

Perhaps if a few hundred people in the West Midlands rang them up as well it might have an effect

CoC Fluoride

Despite 65 years of use in other U.S. cities, fluoride's benefits are questioned

Santa Clara Debates Water Fluoridation
Despite 65 years of use in other U.S. cities, fluoride's benefits are questioned
Text SizeAAABy Kelsey Williams, Peninsula Press on January 27, 2011
More than 65 years after the United States began fluoridating its water, Santa Clara County is just now beginning a debate over whether to offer fluoridation for many of its 1.8 million residents who do not already have it.

Todd Hansen, chief operating officer of the HealthTrust in Campbell, Calif. has been working to get fluoridated water for San Jose residents and eventually the whole of Santa Clara County for the past two years......


James Reeves wrote on 01/27/2011 at 5:41 p.m. PST
There are many large scientific studies to show that that drinking fluoridated water has no effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer and other health problems. The best source for scientific information on fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.org).

If fluoride were "proven," there should be evidence of its success in Kentucky, which has been 100% fluoridated for over 40 years. Kentucky, however, leads the nation in the number of dental cavities in children, and in the number of completely toothless adults, according to government records. The same ineffectiveness is evident in many states and cities.

Most of Europe (16 countries) has considered and has rejected fluoridation and is 98% fluoride free. The WHO (United Nations) reports that they have a better tooth decay rate than any fluoridated country.
If you want fluoride in your water, put it in your own glass of water; leave the rest of us out of it.

UK - Lymington Times Fluoride challenge decision will take 'weeks' warns judge

Fluoride challenge decision will take 'weeks' warns judge

A DECISION on whether fluoride will be added to Southampton's water supply, which will affect around 8,000 Totton residents, might not be made for weeks following a judicial review.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to the city's supply in 2009 after the local primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
The plan affects 190,000 people around Southampton, including
8,000 Totton residents because of the layout of the pipes.
A two-day legal challenge to the scheme was heard in the High Court last week and the judge will now consider whether the SHA examined all available evidence fully, as well as whether it listened properly to residents' views.
During consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38% opposed, compared with 32% in support.
Deferring his judgement, Justice
Edward Holman said he had "no idea" how long it might take to reach his conclusions, but warned it would be "measured in weeks, not days".
Totton councillor David Harrison, who is against fluoridation, said after the case: "I am really angry that the SHA spent some £200,000 of public health money on a consultation that they then happily disregarded.
"This unelected, unaccountable body has a limited lifespan now that the new coalition government has decided to abolish it — how stupid and stubborn headed of these people to carry on spending our money on legal fees, trying to force things through in the face of overwhelming opposition.
"Tooth decay is best prevented by good oral hygiene [and] we should make sure that children are in the habit of brushing their teeth twice a day. The money should have been spent on extra staff employed at our children's centres, helping promote this obvious truth."
He also said he was working with New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and they have already lodged a complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman, which will be considered once the result of the legal challenge is heard.
A spokesperson for the SHA refused to comment on the judicial review and told the 'A&T1: "No statement will be made until the judge has made his decision."
At a meeting of Hampshire County Council's health overview and scrutiny committee this week, Coun. Harrison proposed that the chairman, Coun. Pat West,, write to the SHA to make a final plea to halt the plans.
He told committee members: "Whatever the result of the legal challenge, it is clear that the strategic health authority has already lost in the court of public opinion. Now we know that the SHA is to be abolished, the question of adding fluoride to tap water of not should rest with elected councillors like ourselves."

UK - Daily Echo letters

Such a grim irony FLUORIDE: You have your say
READERS will not have missed the grim irony in the Echo report (Jan 21) on the ongoing fluoridation scandal, in which the people who wish to force the population to receive this unnecessary chemical in their most vital of all supplies are referred to as 'health bosses'.
That a substance which, to the extent that it is actually desired or required, is already fully available - but to which some people are allergic - and which is widely believed to be closely linked to other health problems, could be seriously considered to have benefits outweighing the objections is self-evidently preposterous.
Naturally-occurring fluoride is present in various foods besides water, so there is no possible way of regulating the amount individuals get.
Arguments concentrate on the effects of drinking the water; but it is said that fluoride is also taken in through the skin - so we will be subject to it when washing. Can anyone, likewise, tell us to what extent this is so?
G PAYNE, Southampton.

Why hold opinion poll to just ignore findings?
ACCORDING to new reports, the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has stated it was not told the public's view must be taken into account.
Strange then that they commissioned an opinion poll of their own at great public expense, only to ignore the result anyway.
The SHA continues to insist that water fluoridation is safe and effective, yet in 2000, a UK Systematic Review of water fluoridation failed to demonstrate the safety of fluoridation, whilst confirming
the high rate of dental fluorosis and the low quality of evidence for adding fluoride to drinking water. So what has changed?
It is weU known that fluoride accumulates in the bones and displaces calcium, and a study in 1984 (Teotia, India) found a higher incidence of metabolic bone diseases such as osteoporosis and rickets in high endemic Quorosis areas.
We have had dire warnings from India and China about the crippling bone diseases in their populations due to fluoride exposure, and recent news from
America that fluoride levels are to be lowered because they know it is dangerous. Locally, doctors in Southampton have been shocked to find a rising epidemic of childhood rickets, so further fluoride exposure could have be disastrous.
Far from heading all these omens however, the SHA continues to pursue an agenda to mass medicate an unconsenting population, whatever the cost and whatever the consequences.

Give us a choice!I do not normally complain but this fluoride in our water really is starting to annoy me!
Unfortunately, we humans cannot live without water - please please DO NOT PUT TOXINS in it! If someone wants fluoride in their water, they can add it themselves! If the Government and the NHS are so keen, they can give out free fluoride tablets to whoever requests it. We should be given a CHOICE.
As regards to young children with bad teeth, there are lots of toothpaste containing fluoride -perhaps the money should be spent teaching lazy parents good oral health and teach children how to clean their teeth properly
Address supplied.

Ugly fluoride again!
I note that the issue of fluoridation has again raised its ugly head, and wonder why there are still people who are happy, indeed intent, on promoting the addition of a toxic ion, namely fluoride, to domestic drinking water. It is a poison, which, once ingested, inhibits amongst others the main route of cell respiration, and causes damage to most organs, including the brain, where it interferes with its development in the foetus, infant and toddler and lowers IQ.
I regret that the proponents of fluoridation are, or choose to remain, ignorant of its toxicity.
The airing of the subject will at least alert intelligent people to the dangers inherent in deliberately increasing this type of environmental pollution and its consequent health risks.
Anyone who reads the history of fluoridation in America, and of the real reason for its promulgation, will learn about how it all started, and of the disastrous consequences, hi any exercise to promote the public understanding of science, the myth of water fluoridation should come top of the list.

GRAHAM GODFREY, Address supplied.

Threat to democracy'
WHATEVER the outcome of the Judicial Review on Fluoridation one thing is clear - the present legislation must be revoked.
Laws that empower the state to enforce medication without consent through drinking water, is against everything that a decent society stands for.
It is a threat to democracy and a violation of human rights and medical ethics
Reports that the SHA stated neither the Chief Dental Officer nor the Department of Health informed them that the public's view must be taken into account, suggests a conspiracy at the very highest level to impose this policy on unwilling communities whatever the cost.
We do not live in a corrupt dictatorship -let us not be governed by corrupt laws.
Jenny Johnson
Upper Clatford.

'Unadulterated' water: surely there should be a system of choice
ONCE again the prospect of drinking water adulterated with fluoride has raised its ugly head in the water supply of Totton.
In order to retain 'unadulterated' water residents in an area including Rushington, parts of Hounsdown and most of central Totton will have to visit providers of drinking water, lemonade etc in other areas
(obviously at a higher cost than that provided by the kitchen tap!). Within my own family it would create the absurd situation whereby one household would be forced to have fluoridated water, the other (in another part of Totton) would escape entirely.
The majority of people will take measures to protect then- families by purchasing
bottled water (at great expense). We must also have regard to the health of children at any schools within the affected area. Surely there should be a system by which those wishing to drink this substance could obtain it, while others could continue to imbibe the current provision of 'unadulterated' water

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Canada - Committee backs push to turn off fluoride taps

Committee backs push to turn off fluoride taps
Fluoride-infused water could soon be history in Calgary after a city committee voted Wednesday to remove it from people’s taps.
But council still needs to have a final say before it halts the flow.
After several hours of hearing evidence from both sides of the controversial debate, the city’s Utilities and Environment committee voted to exclude fluoride from Calgary’s water supply.
Ald. Gael MacLeod was the lone opponent of removing the chemical, but she was outnumbered by her fellow aldermen.
Jones, the committee’s chairman, said the decision is not final because council has to weigh in on the matter.
“But at least we’re moving forward,” he said.
The majority who spoke called for the removal of fluoride from the city’s water supply while medical practitioners who addressed the committee cautioned against it.
MacLeod and Jones attempted to refer the matter to a health panel, but that motion was defeated.
“I am disappointed it’s not going back to committee ... I want more information,” said MacLeod during the debate.
“The public health benefits appear to be well documented.”
More than 40 people made their case before the committee, including Colleen Cran, a former dental assistant.
She said she and her family have been drinking bottled water for years now after her son suffered from dental fluorosis, a condition caused by overexposure to fluoride.
“It’s an industrial waste by-product and we’ve been sold on the story that it reduces tooth decay in children,” she said.
Michelle Robinson, who’s also opposed to fluoridation, called the process mass medication and should be stopped.
“If fluoridation is wanted (by some), there are other options rather than mass water consumption,” she said.
“As a Calgarian in a free society, I should be able to make the decision on how to approach my health and the health of my family.”
The divisive issue has been the subject of several plebiscites, which finally favoured adding fluoride to the water in 1989.
Officials with Alberta Health Services implored council members to take extreme caution in making a decision.
Dr. Luke Schwart, an oral health expert said studies shown that cases of dental fluorosis in Calgary vary from moderate to very mild and that a huge number don’t have issues.
“We don’t have severe fluorosis in Calgary,” he said, calling the oral condition a “cosmetic issue.”
Dr. Richard Musto, a medical officer of health, insisted water fluoridation should continue.
“The key and the beauty of fluoridation is that we’re putting it in the water at an effective and safe level that’s going to be accessible to everybody,” he said.
The matter is expected to come before council on Feb. 7, said Jones.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Canada - Opposing positions on fluoride

Opposing positions on fluoride:transcripts
In their own words
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 | 6:34 PM ET Comments10Recommend2.
CBC News
Abridged interview transcripts
A look at opposite sides on the debate over fluoridation in community drinking water

Click Title to see full report and video

USA - Fluoride will do more than just damage teeth

Fluoride will do more than just damage teeth
January 25, 2011
Recent national coverage (Jan. 8) of officials calling for a reduction of fluoride in water mentions only spotting of teeth. There are many more threats.
A July 2009 letter from Elizabeth Doyle of the Environmental Protection Agency Health Human Assessment office stated: "The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits EPA from adding any substance (including fluoride) for water supplies for medical purposes."
Why discuss spotting of teeth when the SDWA and U.S. EPA hold the power to eliminate fluoride?
The American Dental Association issued a warning in November 2006, urging parents not to prepare infant formula with water containing fluoride. Are dentists announcing the major shift in position from the ADA regarding "fluoride"?
Fluoride is actually a hazardous waste taken from the scrubbers in smoke stacks of industry and phosphate fertilizer companies. "Fluoride" is too toxic for ocean or river dumping, but mysteriously acceptable for placing in our water for drinking or bathing. Dr. Paul Connett has been stating the facts for years. He visited Lafayette in April 2009 to help defeat fluoride.
Every tube of toothpaste with fluoride carries a warning: "Keep away from children. If too much is swallowed accidentally, contact your physician or report to a Poison Control Center."
Lafayette saw the light in April 2009 and voted, 8-1, to reject fluoride in our water. If we check www.fluoridealert.org, a brief movie — "Professional Perspectives" — features dentists, doctors and scientists giving reasons for rejecting fluoride immediately.

UK - Daily Echo Letters

Hat's off to heroine Gerri for taking this fight to the top
I WAS one of the those people that was at the consultation back in 2009. The consultation, if you can call it that, was a sham.
We, the public, felt we were back at school. You could be seen but not heard.
As most of us already know fluoride is an industrial waste chemical produced by the steel and aluminium industry. So why would they want to put this toxic waste in our water supply? These chemicals can build up in the body over time and cause all sorts of health problems.
The fact remains that our water should be left alone. As I have said many times water is there for drinking not for treating. The water companies are there to keep pure water as pure as possible. But it would be contaminated if this toxic waste is added. The water companies themselves don't want it. Doesn't that say it all. All this about saving children's teeth is complete and utter rubbish. They, the SHA, are using children as an excuse to get away with trying to add fluoride.
If children drink water it probably will hardly touch their teeth. They will have plenty going into their little bodies though which will do them more harm in the long run with a toxic fluoride added.
We want to see an end to this flu-pride debate by getting a decision in favour of keeping it out of our water for good.
As I am writing this letter I would like to also thank Gerri Milner for taking this case to the High Courts.
She has children herself and wants to fight for the right of keeping our water as pure as possible, fit for drinking, so well done to her.
Also fifteen thousand signatures were taken to 10 Downing Street last year. Fifteen thousand signatures.
I think the public have made it very clear that they do not want fluoride in their drinking water. Not now or anytime in the future.


Regarding the issue of fluoride in our water. It is to be hoped that Judge Justice Holman will recognise that the vast majority of Hampshire residents voted against this and back democracy.
It was a free vote in a free country, a cause I believe my generation fought and thousands died for, just 20 years after another generation also gave their lives and sadly today are still giving their lives in the cause of freedom.
Apart from the medical dangers of this poison (plus the disgusting taste) it will be a very sad and serious day if democracy is defeated.
J Bailey Shirley Warren

The horrible taste was most likely the chlorine as far as I know it is tasteless.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

USA - Danger of Bone Cancer From Fluoride in Toothpaste, Drinking Water

Danger of Bone Cancer From Fluoride in Toothpaste, Drinking Water
CHICAGO, IL, January 24, 2011 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- As reported in the January 13, 2011 New York Times, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) warned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the move to phase out a fluoride-based pesticide "could create unintended consequences for public health, food safety, and the economy."

Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. said today that Senator Inhofe may be right about such possible "unintended consequences."

"However," said Dr. Epstein, "he is unaware that these consequences would be clearly beneficial, as they protect against the risks of bone cancer from the use of fluoride in most brands of toothpaste to prevent cavities, and from the fluoridation of drinking water."
In 1977, the National Academy of Sciences expressed concerns on the strong relation between the fluoridation of drinking water and risks of bone cancer to young boys, Dr. Epstein points out.
A decade later, the International Agency for Research on Cancer reported that fluorides in drinking water induced bone cancer in rats. This finding was confirmed by the National Toxicology Program in its 1989, 1990, and 1991 reports.
"Not surprisingly, Procter & Gamble, the leading manufacturer of fluoridated toothpastes, denied that these results were statistically significant," Dr. Epstein said today. "Surprisingly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supported this claim."
Well-documented evidence links bone cancer to fluoride exposure, Dr. Epstein advises. ............................
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Email: epstein@uic.edu
Join us on Facebook

UK - Daily Echo letter

Keep water for its intended purpose
RE fluoride - our water is precious. It should not be tampered with. We need pure, safe water for our wellbeing. We drink it to stay healthy. It is a human right to drink it for this purpose, that is what our water supply is here for. It is not there for the purpose of giving medication by force.
Nothing, absolutely nothing should enter our water supply, except that which keeps it pure and safe and able to be used for its intended purpose.
D COVE, Southampton.

Monday, January 24, 2011

UK - Daily Echo letters

Natural fluoride has to be calculated for
SUPPORTERS of fluoridation insist there is no firm evidence of any harmful effects at the recommended level of one part per million ( 1ppm). But, this does not take into account the sources of natural fluoride in our diet.
Because fluoride readily combines with calcium, it is thought to be beneficial for teeth and bones. But it is one of the few trace elements where doses for beneficial and toxic effects are not widely separated.
It has been known (in America) for over 20 years that excess fluoride can cause calcification of tendons, ligaments, the development of bone spurs and the degeneration of cartilage between joints, that is characteristic of osteoarthritis.
Fluoride can also accumulate in brain tissue and can damage the central nervous system.
Is this not sufficient evidence for legal action against water companies who oppose the wishes of the majority of residents in their area?
HELEN WOOLLIN, Westcliff-on-Sea.
Body has ignored public over fluoride
IN view of the latest research in the USA and bearing in mind the Southampton citizens' concerns in regards to the introduction of fluoride poison into our water supply, one would think those responsible would finally get the message and act in a responsible manner thus saving the £400,000 waste of public money, by withdrawing from the courts' judicial reviews. NO CHANCE.
Hell-bent on getting their own way, they have ignored the public outcry and 'the Democratic Great Debate'. The SCSH Authority have been on a self-destruct course from the beginning and couldn't care less. Thankfully they are soon to be confined to the tidy bin in 2012. It can't come soon enough. There should be no big pay offs or golden handshakes. They have proved themselves to be completely irresponsible.
Good riddance.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Truth About Fluoride

Brushing your teeth with soap

Brushing your teeth with soap
By DR. GIFFORD-JONES, Special to QMI Agency
Last Updated: January 22, 2011 2:00am
Do you enjoy paying dental bills? Or having dentists scraping plaque from your teeth? If it's a pleasure, there's no need to read this column. But I've never enjoyed these regular checkups. Now there's a way to retire dentists, prevent cavities, protect gums and rid teeth of plaque, using cheap, ordinary soap.

My first reaction when I read this report was, "Come on, Dr Judd, you must be kidding! Who would ever brush their teeth with soap?" But Dr. Gerald F. Judd is no nut. He's a retired Emeritus Professor of chemistry at Purdue University.

I admire people who have the intestinal fortitude to question well-established theories that may be wrong. Besides, I discovered he and I both believe dentists are wrong on another issue.

Dr. Judd reports that acid destroys enamel and that cavities would vanish if people rinsed acids from their mouths quickly. Tap water is all that's needed to do the job.

He also claims that bacteria cannot damage the tooth's hard outer enamel that is composed of calcium hydroxy phosphate. The proof is that bones and teeth are resistant to earth-bound organisms. After all, we've all seen pictures of skeletons that have been unearthed after hundreds of years with teeth still intact.

But why use soap to clean teeth? Judd says glycerine is present in all toothpastes and it's so sticky that it requires 27 washes to clean it off. This means that teeth remain coated with a film and cannot rebuild enamel. And if they're not clean, adenosine diphosphatase cannot provide phosphate to enamel.

His next point is what I wanted to hear. Brushing with soap destroys bacteria and viruses. No professor at The Harvard Medical School told me about that. Or that brushing with ordinary bar soap not only cleans teeth but also removes hard plaque stuck to the bottom of enamel.

Removing plaque from teeth is vital as it invades gums, separating them from teeth. This sets the stage for gingivitis, poorly anchored teeth and eventually possible loss of teeth. It's shocking that 25% of North Americans over age 43, and 42% of those over 65 years of age, have no teeth!

Dr. Judd also believes that the fluoridation of water and the use of fluoride toothpaste is a useless, dangerous biological poison. He says calcium fluoride seeps into enamel, making it weak and brittle, destroying 83 enzymes along with adenosine diphosphatase.

I couldn't agree more. Look at the warning on fluoride toothpaste. Parents are told to watch children under six years of age while they brush their teeth. To be safe, only a tiny amount of toothpaste is used, and none should be swallowed. That should tell you something! In 1974, a three-year old child had fluoride gel placed on his teeth. The hygienist handed him a glass of water but rather than rising out his mouth, he drank it. A few hours later, he was dead.

If fluoride toothpaste is the answer to dental decay, why is it that 98% of Europe is fluoride-free? Sweden, Germany, Norway, Holland, Denmark and France stopped using fluoridation 29 years ago. These are not backward, depressed nations.

The sole argument for fluoridation is that it reduces tooth decay. But several studies involving as many as 480,000 children found no beneficial evidence between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, Professor of Dentistry at the University of Toronto, says children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste or drink fluoridated water, and mothers should never use Toronto tap water to prepare baby formula.

Will I practice what I've preached in this column? You bet, as I'm curious to know whether I can say goodbye to the dental hygienist who scrapes plaque off my teeth, not to mention the cost. The test will take three months and I'll report the result.

No doubt all hell from the dental profession will descend on me. This doesn't worry me. What does is that my dentist will read this column and keep a big rusty drill handy for my next appointment.

Visit Dr. Gifford-Jones' website at DocGiff.com. For comments, e-mail info@docgiff.com. Dr. Gifford-Jones' common sense-based medical column offered with the occasional dash of humour has been published in Canadian newspapers for 30 years.

UK - Fluoride Judicial Review reveals inconsistency between UK Gov policy and Regulation

Fluoride Judicial Review reveals inconsistency between UK Gov policy and Regulation
Judgement reserved in Milner case against Strategic Health Authority
by the ANH-Intl team
The case brought against the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) by Southampton resident and opponent of water fluoridation Geraldine Milner has been heard in the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Milner’s case was about whether or not the SHA acted legally in making its decision (back in February 2009) to fluoridate the water in Southampton and some of the surrounding areas, despite opposition from 72% of the respondents in the public consultation. It was also about whether or not the SHA board sufficiently evaluated the cogency of all the given arguments in the consultation responses. At the end of the two-day judicial review (JR), Mr Justice Holman reserved Judgement for some future date.
In March 2005, in a Parliament debate preceeding required approval for draft regulations concerning fluoridation, Lord Warner (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health), re-iterated a key policy statement made two years earlier. He said that "it is fundamental to our policy that a strategic health authority should only arrange for its drinking water to be fluoridated where the local population is in favour". Such statements tend to stick in the minds of those against water fluoridation.
Inconsistency, ambiguity and confusion
As both sides of the case were heard, it became clear that there were key inconsistencies between stated government policy made in Parliament debates about Fluoridation, and the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (ENGLAND) Regulations (2005), and also later, in issued guidance from the Chief Dental Officer! Key in this case was the issue of regard for public support or opposition to the fluoridation proposal, and the influence that this should have on the SHA’s decision. Suggestion and exploration within the courtroom of the meaning of Regulation 5 revealed that even this was ambiguous and confusing, and inconsistent with the ‘explanatory note’ at the end of the Regulation document. This all appeared to prompt the Judge (Mr Justice Holman) to remark: “This case would seem to point up a state of confusion about what government policy was, and so it may be that it would be desirable in Judgement, for cases in the future, to clarify what the position is of the Secretary of State, and Government”.
Commenting afterwards, Stephen Peckham, Chairman of the Hampshire Against Fluoridation group said: “I think what we have done (during the JR) is pick at the English language and the law, and what we have found is that there is huge ambiguity! Its not clear what the interpretation is!” It seems that the language of the law can be interpreted to suit both sides of the argument!
Rights to choice, justice and democracy
Ms Milner feels strongly about freedom of choice for the residents of Southampton, and their rights to democracy and justice. After what she described as the two most nerve-wracking days of her life, she was greeted by various representatives of the press outside the Courts of Justice in the Strand, central London. She thanked various parties, including her legal team, the Judge and her supporters, and said: “I have done my best for the people of Southampton, justice and democracy. We will have to wait and see what the judge decides. Until then it is a case of being patient”.
The Judicial Review was also attended by anti-fluoridation campaigners from Southampton and beyond. Their views on fluoridation were clear from the badges they were wearing, and from their banners, which they waved whilst outside the courts.

The outcome of this case is eagerly awaited. Not least, we have been given to understand, by those heath authorities who have intended to follow suit and introduce fluoridation to their own areas (possibly driven by the cash incentives). Perhaps though, if the SHAs are indeed removed by the new Government, this unhappy situation in the UK will be removed also!


See also National Archives (Department of Heath) for the earlier 2004 draft regulations governing water fluoridation (consultation) (ENGLAND). Notice that the text of Regulation 5 reflected the stated government policy in this draft version of the regulations, regarding the requirement for majority support!

Notice also the House of Commons note on Fluoridation Legislation, and the 2008 push for fluoridation.

Finally, those interested may also like to look at the Explanatory Memo to the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (ENGLAND) Regulations 2005
See Clean Drinking Water campaign

Links to references at Alliance for Natural Health

Friday, January 21, 2011

UK - Lymington Times - Fluoride challenge in High Court showdown

Fluoride challenge in High Court showdown
A JUDICIAL review into whether fluoride will be added to Southampton's water supply, which would affect around 8,000 Totton residents, began on Wednesday.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to the city's supply in 2009 after the city's primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
The plan affects 190,000 people around Southampton, including Totton because of the layout of the pipes.
The two-day legal challenge to the scheme, which is being made on behalf of Southampton resident Geraldine Milner, opened in the High Court on Wednesday, with the judge looking at whether the SHA examined all available evidence fully, as well as whether it listened properly to residents' views.
Ms Milner's counsel David Wolfe
told a judge that if the scheme goes ahead the mother of three teenagers would be left "with no choice taut to drink water to which fluoride has been added".
He told Mr Justice Holman this was contrary to government policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it could be shown that the local population was in favour.
Mr Wolfe also said the application for the judicial review was not about the actual merits and health arguments over fluoridation but was about the legality of the compulsory scheme, the first of its kind in the UK for 20 years.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to London for the hearing and placard waving members also held a demonstration on the steps of the court.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of HAP, said: "Local anger about the SHA's decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval."It is not just local people—all local MPs and councils in the area affected by the scheme either oppose water fluoridation or have been critical of the decision made by the SHA.
"If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rollered ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion. We should all be very grateful to her."
Dentist Zac Cox added: "Fluoridating our tap water is not only ineffective but it is also dangerous. The fact that the USA have decided to lower their fluoride levels indicates that they know it is dangerous, and are preparing themselves for lawsuits."
During the consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a MORI poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed, compared with 32% in support.

UK Daily Echo - HAMPSHIRE: High Court judge says it will be weeks before his decision is revealed

HAMPSHIRE: High Court judge says it will be weeks before his decision is revealed
FLUORIDE: Now we wait
By Jon Reeve
THE talking is over, but the waiting goes on.
A High Court judge has said it will be weeks before he reveals whether the decision to add fluoride to water supplies in Hampshire was legal.
After two days of legal sparring at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, health bosses and anti-fluoridation campaigners now face an anxious wait to find out if either side has landed a knockout blow.
Deferring his judgement, Mr Justice Edward Holman admitted he had "no idea" how long it might take to reach his conclusions, but warned it would be "measured in weeks, not days".
'Legally correct'
Yesterday, the court heard arguments from barristers for South Central Strategic Health Authority and the Government, saying the decision to approve fluoride was legally correct.
Southampton mum-of-three Gerri Milner has brought the judicial review, arguing the SHA should not have ignored public opposition to the scheme, and that it failed to properly evaluate arguments against it.
Speaking after the hearing, she last night hinted she would be prepared to take her legal battle further if the ruling goes against her.
But in reality, every day that passes makes the prospect of the chemical being added to the tap water of nearly 200,000 people in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams less likely.
The Government is scrapping SHAs by spring of next year, with responsibility for fluoridation passing to local councils.
Southampton City and Hampshire County councils both say the existing scheme should not go ahead.
As revealed this week by the Daily Echo, if the SHA, which set aside £400,000 to fight this legal challenge, is successful and - as it has vowed to - presses ahead with the scheme, the authorities' leaders say they will urge the Government to step in to stop it.
In court yesterday, John Howell, for the SHA, insisted board members had properly assessed arguments against fluoridating water, including those from campaigners, the county council and local MPs. Mr Howell also argued there was no way the board's decision could be ruled invalid because of statements by ministers that fluoridation would only ever happen with public support.
Mr Howell said: "It's not for the SHA to try to look for Government statements to see if they're consistent or not. "There's plainly no legal obligation on the SHA to have regard to the ministerial statements."
James Eadie, representing the Secretary of State for Health, added that public opposition was only one factor the SHA had to consider when choosing whether or not to approve fluoridation.
He said: "The SHA has got to do the analysis, and if it concludes that the health arguments do outweigh all other factors, it makes the request (forcing a water company to add fluoride)."
Mr Eadie also argued that statements made by ministers did not change Government policy.
He said: "All that is important is what Parliament ultimately does, and what it says in the legislation."
Speaking afterwards, Ms Milner said she would be "overwhelmed" if her case wins, but added: "If it's not overturned I'm assured I'm going to be back and forth to these things for a while."

Thursday, January 20, 2011


UK - Anti-fluoride campaigners take to High Court

Anti-fluoride campaigners take to High Court
Campaigners have mounted a High Court bid to prevent fluoride being added to their water without their consent because they are concerned over its health consequences.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent 5:34PM GMT 19 Jan 2011
They say they will have "no choice" but to drink fluoridated water if South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) is allowed to add it.
The potential side-effects, they argue, range from bone cancer to thyroid problems and dental fluorosis, brown spots on the teeth.
SCSHA wants to add the chemical to supplies in Southampton and parts of south west Hampshire, arguing it is the best way to cut tooth decay, particularly in poorer children.
Public health experts fiercely dispute that fluoridation causes any health problem other than dental fluorosis in a small number of people.
About 5.5 million people in Britain, just less than a tenth of the population, drink fluoridated tap water, including most of Birmingham. However, no area has had fluoride added to its supply in the last 20 years.
In February 2009 SCSHA instructed Southern Water to fluoridate the supply in an area covering about 195,000 people.
That came despite 72 per cent of respondents to a public consultation opposing the measure.
An opinion poll commissioned by the SCSHA produced a narrower result, with 38 per cent against the scheme, 32 per cent in favour and 29 per cent "don't knows".
The challenge has been brought by Geraldine Milner, a mother of three from Southampton, who is backed by campaign groups.
David Wolfe, acting for Ms Milner, said that if the scheme went ahead she and others would be left "with no choice but to drink water to which fluoride has been added".
He accused the health authority of unlawfully attempting to force through fluoridation and failing in its legal obligation to assess the arguments for and against it.
Mr Wolfe said: "Four out of five local authorities and three out of four local MPs expressed their opposition within the consultation process. Ms Milner is in good company, whether she is right or wrong."

John Howell, QC, for the SCSHA, said the authority was not legally bound to follow the results of any consultation.
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, demonstrators said there was "huge controversy" over water fluoridation.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said countries including Canada, Ireland and the US were "actually lowering the amount of fluoride" because of health concerns, particularly over dental fluorosis.
Elizabeth McDonagh, chairman of the National Pure Water Association, said there were serious questions over whether fluoridation raised the risk of bone growth abnormalities, arthritic pains, hormonal problems with the thyroid gland, and osteosarcoma.
"It is a very insidious poison in my opinion," she said, adding: "It is absolutely clear, the SCSHA wholly ignored local people's views."
Ms Milner said: "It is about Southampton residents' fundamental freedom of choice over their bodies and rights to democracy and justice."
According to the British Fluoridation Society, adding one part fluoride per a million parts of water cuts the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth by 2.25 teeth per child on average. The greatest benefit is among children in deprived areas. A long-term American study of 2.3 million deaths found no link between fluoridation and cancer, it said.

USA - Who can we believe about fluoride?

Leroy Gebhart: Who can we believe about fluoride?
Published: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 3:00 p.m.
Your recent article “U.S. says too much fluoride in water” indicated that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were proposing to reduce the level of fluoride that could be added to public water supplies due to the high incidence of dental fluorosis (yellowing/browning, streaking and pitting of teeth) in children. Currently, the DHHS allows water utilities to add between .7 to 1.2 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water (mg/L) to our water supply. The proposed standard is targeted at .7 mg/L of water

Based on the government’s own statistics, 33 percent to 41 percent of children between the ages of 6-19 have symptoms of dental fluorosis and if one includes those children for whom it couldn’t be definitely determined if they had dental fluorosis, it increases to 40 percent to 48 percent!

When you have almost 50 percent of children suffering from dental fluorosis, I would call that an epidemic, especially when one considers that fluoride is meant to protect children’s teeth. In this instance, the DHHS appears to be deliberately downplaying the significance of the level of dental fluorosis in children, whereas, its normal response is to call a few events an epidemic or disaster. But this is understandable since the DHHS has heavily promoted the use of fluoride for decades, and with the evidence so overwhelming now that children are ingesting too much fluoride, the DHHS is being forced to reluctantly lower the level of fluoride in the water supply.

But is .7 mg of fluoride safe? Will that level prevent dental fluorosis?.........

USA - Fluoride issue shows council failed to hear valid concern

Fluoride issue shows council failed to hear valid concern
January 20, 2011 2:00 AMA few months back, when Portsmouth resident Rick Horowitz suggested that the City Council study the use of fluoride in the city's drinking water, he was dismissed by the City Council and derided by some of the region's public health professionals.
What a difference a few months can make.
On Jan. 8, The Associated Press reported: "In a remarkable turnabout, federal health officials say many Americans are now getting too much fluoride because of its presence not just in drinking water but in toothpaste, mouthwash and other products, and it's causing splotches on children's teeth and perhaps more serious problems."
Detailing the more serious problems, AP reported: "The Environmental Protection Agency released two new reviews of research on fluoride. One of the studies found that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures and crippling bone abnormalities."....................

UK - Daily Echo - Fluoride: Was the decision legal?

Fluoride: Was the decision legal?
By Jon Reeve
HEALTH bosses were today due to explain why they were right to give the green light to controversial plans to add fluoride to Hampshire tap water.
Barristers for South Central Strategic Health Authority and the Government were to be given their chance to outline the reasons why they believe a legal challenge to the scheme is wrong in the second day of a landmark High Court hearing.
Almost two years after the SHA's board unanimously approved fluoridation for parts of Southampton and surrounding areas, and on the day the Health Secretary hammered another nail into the body's coffin, lawyers yesterday began debating whether they were right to do so.
In a nondescript courtroom nestled in a corner of London's otherwise vast and imposing Royal Courts of Justice, the future of the disputed plan affecting nearly 200,000 people became the responsibility of just one man.
Mr Justice Holman, who revealed to the court he grew up in the New Forest, will decide if the SHA should legally have listened to the will of the people. A public consultation held by the authority prompted more than 10,000 responses.
Of those from people in the affected area, covering two thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, 72 per cent said they did not want fluoride in their water. In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent of those quizzed expressed opposition, compared to 32 per cent who backed the scheme, which health chiefs argued was needed to improve city childrens' teeth.
But after being told they only had to pay regard to public opinion, and had to consider the "cogency" of arguments raised (a legal term meaning are they good points and are they based on sound scientific evidence?), they gave the scheme a resounding thumbs up.
Yesterday, on day one of the judicial review, barrister David Wolfe, who is representing the Southampton mum who has brought the legal challenge, outlined the repeated assurance from ministers that the final say on fluoridation would be the people's. He quoted then health minister Melanie Johnson, speaking in October 2003, who told the House of Commons: "There is a difficulty in weighing up the responses, but whatever the case, local opinion must be in favour of the proposal.
"Local opinion must support the measure overall. Whatever mechanism is used, a clear majority of people should be in favour."
Mr Wolfe, who is trying to convince the judge the Government policy was that residents' views should be paramount in decision making, told the court of similar statements by Lord Warner, the Government's health representative in the House of Lords, made in both 2003 and 2005.
He said: "They are very clear, unequivocal and formal statements, made in possibly the most formal situations imaginable."
Despite those assurances, the court heard no such rule was included in the legislation that was passed through Parliament, changing the rules to give health authorities the power to force water companies to fluoridate supplies. Instead it said SHAs could only go ahead with a scheme to add fluoride if the authority was "satisfied that the
health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding".
Mr Wolfe said: "To form that view, the SHA must consider the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced." And in February 2008, Chief Dental Officer, Barry Cockcroft, went further in issuing guidance to health bosses telling them they were not conducting a public vote. *
He wrote: "Given that the consultation regulations require Strategic Health Authorities to take account of the cogency of the representations and their relevance to the 'health arguments', a SHA cannot base its decision solely on a simple count of the representations for or against the proposal." But whether of not SHA board members did cogently evaluate the evidence forms the second string of the legal challenge.
Mr Wolfe said there was "no way" they could have, because they were not properly informed of vast swathes of opposition arguments, including detailed questioning of the benefits, cost efficiency of the scheme and potential environmental impacts, which were raised by campaigners and local politicians.
He said: "The cogency of the arguments needed to be before the board members and they needed to evaluate them.
"Important arguments were raised by consultees, which were either not conveyed to the board at all or in the most pithy terms, without the supporting material to allow them to evaluate the cogency of the arguments.
"These were not nit-picky points - they questioned the headline reasons given for fluoridation. We say the cogency exercise has not been completed."
The remainder of the legal arguments were due to be completed today but the judge is expected to defer his decision.

The battlng mum who took on the mighty NHS
SHE is the private mum of three who has taken on the might of the NHS.
As the judicial review into South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate Hampshire tap water finally got underway, more than 18 months after the legal process first began, one woman had more reason than others to feel pleased with herself.
Judge Mr Justice Holman made a point of making sure which of the people crammed into his courtroom was Gerri Milner, the Southampton resident behind the legal challenge.
And he gave his heartfelt thanks to her for taking the time to attend the two-day hearing, before asking if she would move seats so he could see her properly past the assembled lawyers arguing her case.
Speaking at the end of the first day of the case, Ms Milner said she had felt compelled to act because of the way, in her eyes, fluoridation had been "bulldozed" through.
She told the Daily Echo: "When I saw the weight of anger about it, I thought: 'I've got to do something about it'.
"I'm the chairman of my local tenants' and residents' association, and I'm not the sort that would go out with placards in the rain, but I am the sort that will go and do what I can within the legal system. "I really believe I'm doing the right thing. "I think the health authority has acted a bit naively really. "I don't think they have taken into consideration all the arguments against, some of which I think are very valid."

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

UK - Southampton's fluoridation decision 'unlawful'

19 January 2011
Southampton's fluoridation decision 'unlawful'
A health authority tried to illegally force the fluoridation of Southampton's water, the High Court has heard.
Resident Geraldine Milner is taking legal action to challenge the decision made in 2009 by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).
The SCSHA, which believes the move will improve dental health, gave the go-ahead despite a public consultation showing 72% opposed the idea.
The judicial review will decide if SCSHA properly considered the views.
Ms Milner's counsel David Wolfe told a judge that, if the scheme goes ahead, the mother of three teenagers would be left "with no choice but to drink water to which fluoride has been added".
As opponents of fluoridation demonstrated outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Wolfe said approximately 195,000 people in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire "would have fluoride added to their water whether they liked it or not".
'Legal obligation'
He told Mr Justice Holman this was contrary to government policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it could be shown that the local population was in favour.
The SCSHA used statutory powers to instruct Southern Water, the local water provider, to go ahead with fluoridation in February 2009 to improve dental health.
The decision came after 72% of those who responded to a public consultation opposed fluoridation, with just 28% in favour.
An opinion poll commissioned by the SCSHA produced a narrower result, with 38% against the scheme and 32% in favour and 29% "don't knows", the court heard.
Mr Wolfe accused the SCSHA of failing in its legal obligation to properly assess the cogency of the arguments for and against mass fluoridation.
He said the application for judicial review was not about the actual merits and health arguments over fluoridation.
It was about the legality of the compulsory scheme, the first of its kind in the UK for 20 years.
Mr Wolfe said: "Four out of five local authorities and three out of four local MPs expressed their opposition within the consultation process.
"Ms Milner is in good company, whether she is right or wrong."
The health authority is opposing Ms Milner's legal challenge.
The hearing continues.

Fluoride debate reaches High Court over Southampton plan

Fluoride debate reaches High Court over Southampton plan
19 January 2011 Last updated at 11:27 Help A decision by the strategic health authority to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton will go before the High Court later.
Resident Geraldine Milner began a legal challenge against the decision made in 2009 by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).
The SCSHA, which believes the move will improve dental health, gave the go-ahead despite a public consultation showing 72% opposed the idea.
Dentist Dr Uchenna Okoye and anti-fluoridation campaigner Stephen Peckham debated the issue on BBC Breakfast.

UK - TV - Fluoride - Yes or No?

Fluoride - Yes or No?
4.50PM Tue Jan 18 2011
Final decision imminent

Plans to add fluoride to water supplies in parts of the South will be debated at a landmark hearing. And health officials are standing firm over their decision to back the scheme. They say adding the chemical will reduce dental decay. The fluoridation plans affect 160,000 homes in Southampton, another 24,000 in Eastleigh and thousands more on the edge of the New Forest. Our social affairs correspondent Christine Alsford talked to

Sarah Peckham, dental therapist; Dr Jeyanthi John, Consultant in Dental Public Health; Royston Smith, Leader of Southampton Council; and Arshad Sharif who is opposed to fluoridation.
By: Christine Alsford

UK - Daily Echo - HAMPSHIRE: Landmark case brought by resident is due to start today

HAMPSHIRE: Landmark case brought by resident is due to start today
By Jon Reeve
Fluoride row finally reaches High Court
A LANDMARK court case that will decide the future of a controversial scheme to fluoridate Hampshire tap water was due to start today.
A High Court judge is set to examine whether or not health bosses were right to approve the plans in a bid to improve children's dental health in Southampton, despite public opposition.
If the legal challenge, which has been brought by city resident Geraldine Milner, is successful, it could mean the scheme - the first in the country to be approved by a health authority rather than an elected council - is stopped.
But South Central Strategic Health Authority, which has set aside £400,000 to fight the judicial review, insists it did everything it was required to by law during a public consultation held before its board gave the plans the green light, nearly two years ago. Despite Government plans to scrap all SHAs by next spring, it insists it would press ahead with work to see the chemical added to the water supplies of parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, if their defence is successful.
As revealed in yesterday's Daily Echo, the leaders of Southampton City and Hampshire County councils, the bodies which will take over responsibility for fluoridation, both say they would call on the Government to stop the SHA introducing it in its "dying days".
Ahead of the start of the two-day hearing, campaigners were due to stage a demonstration on the steps of London's Royal Courts of Justice against the NHS body continuing to defend its case. Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: "Local anger about the SHA's decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval. "If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rolled ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion."

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

UK - Hampshire Against Fluoridation Press Release

PRESS RELEASE January 2011

Fluoride decision faces legal test
Two years after unanimously voting to impose water fluoridation on the region, the South Central SHA’s decision will come under scrutiny by a High Court Judge. The Judge will be deciding whether the SHA properly took into account government policy and adequately assessed the cogency of the arguments submitted during the consultation. The Judicial Review is being made on behalf of Ms Geraldine Milner a lifelong resident of Southampton.
The SHA’s disregard of local opposition and failure to demonstrate that there was local support for fluoridation is one ground on which its decision of 26 February 2009 will be challenged. During the consultation 72% of respondents objected to the proposal and in a survey of residents affected only 32% were in favour. Yet when the legislation was debated in Parliament the Minister explicitly stated that fluoridation would not go ahead unless there was local support.
Stephen Peckham, Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said “Local anger about the SHA’s decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval. And it is not just local people. All local MPs and Councils in the area affected by the scheme either oppose water fluoridation or have been critical of the decision made by the SHA. If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rolled ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion. We should all be very grateful to her.”
The SHA is also being challenged about whether it adequately took into consideration all the evidence submitted to it. Their casual dismissal of much of the evidence on fluorosis and fluoride ingestion seems cavalier given that the same evidence has been cited by the US Government as a reason for reducing fluoride levels to 0.7ppm - well below levels recommended by the UK government.

Local dentist Zac Cox said “Fluoridating our tap water is not only ineffective but it is also dangerous. The fact that the USA have decided to lower their Fluoride levels indicates that they know it is dangerous, and are preparing themselves for lawsuits. Fluorosis has hit 41% of children in the States, and you can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of these kids will be taking legal action. Treatment of fluorosis can be incredibly expensive, not to mention damaging to the teeth.” Zac, who has also worked for five years in a fluoridated community in New Zealand went on to say “Studies done where fluoridating the water supply has been stopped have shown no difference or even a decrease in tooth decay NOT an increase as you might expect. In the USA where they do fluoridate their water they are having terrible problems with tooth decay. It makes no difference to tooth decay rates in children whatsoever.”


USA - Fear of fluoride not so wrong

Fear of fluoride not so wrong
Posted: January 17, 2011 - 7:32pm
The following editorial appeared in the Texarkana Gazette.)
Well, now, maybe the Texarkanas are not the bastions of bumpkinism people thought when we sank our teeth into the fluoride debate. Time, tests and tainted teeth tell the tale of the wisdom of voter sooth-daying, or tooth-saying.

From time to time, people have mounted campaigns to add fluoridation to the cities’ water supply. A few years ago, the fight became so fierce it ended in public referenda. The voters said no, a decision that, in some quarters, labeled us as unenlightened, if not primitive.

Now comes the federal government with a warning and a directive. Cut the amount of fluoride in water supplies. Although it has kept its promise of fighting cavities and tooth decay, fluoride also is causing problems.

The federal change in recommended fluoride levels is the first in 50 years.

About 2 out of 5 adolescents have tooth streaking or spottiness because of too much fluoride, a government study found recently, according to a wire report. In some extreme cases, teeth can even be pitted by the mineral_though many cases are so mild only dentists notice it. The problem is generally considered cosmetic.

Health officials note most communities have fluoride in their water supplies, and toothpaste has it too. Some are even given fluoride supplements.

The cosmetic problem is not the only hazard, though. A 5-year-old report said people who consume excessive fluoride can end up with crippling bone abnormalities and brittleness.

Even the American Dental Association, one of fluoride’s staunchest advocates, is on board with lowering fluoride levels. Yet officials are quick to point out that anti-fluoridation groups should not view a reduction in levels as a clear-cut victory to rid waterworks of fluoride. The mineral has proven its effectiveness against tooth decay.

As the wire report pointed out, anti-fluoridation interests have been portrayed as everything from alarmists to conspiracy theorists who believed fluoridation of public water supplies is intended to make people less resistant to governmental authority.

Hence, places that resisted fluoridation came to be labeled as backward.

Now those places, few as they may be, don’t look quite so ignorant and lacking in vision. Perhaps proponents will stop smiling condescendingly, through their speckled teeth, at those who have weighed both the risks and benefits of adding fluoride to potable water.

Canada - Fluoride debate spreads south

Fluoride debate spreads south
Lethbridge to discuss issue next month
By Richard Cuthbertson, Calgary Herald January 18, 2011 1:02 AM
A contentious debate facing Calgary over whether fluoride should be ditched from the drinking water will soon migrate south with the City of Lethbridge gearing up next month for its own round of talks on the divisive issue.

Prompted by a citizen in that city, the subject is now scheduled for a February committee meeting in Lethbridge that will likely feature a presentation by a University of Calgary professor opposed to fluoridation.

But the renewed movement to can fluoride in two of southern Alberta's largest cities has this province's health authority worried, as they maintain the compound is effective and safe in drinking water.

Dr. Richard Musto, a medical officer of health with Alberta Health Services, suggests this is part of a broader push against fluoride emanating from a group lobbying out of the United States. He is urging politicians to keep fluoride.......

UK - Daily Echo - Would fluoride fund be better spent elsewhere?

Would fluoride fund be better spent elsewhere?
CONSIDERING the recent news from the USA regarding the 41 per cent of children and teenagers with "rampant fluorosis of the teeth" in their country due to ingesting too much fluoride, and the decision by the Department of Health and Human
Services in the USA to lower the levels from over Ippm to 0.07 ppm, can we assume that the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) will take note of this and abandon their own hare brained scheme to poison us all?
Southampton already has 0.08 ppm naturally occurring in the water and to add any more would expose the very children, the SHA purport to protect, to levels now known to be unsafe.
I hope they have also heard the other breaking news from that same country that the Environmental Protection Agency is to cease the use of sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant because it has been found that too much of the chemical is being ingested and is putting health at risk, especially children.
With all the cutbacks needed in these cash-strapped times one wonders if the £400,000 of NHS money the SHA has on hold to fight any objection to their "mass medicating" scheme would be better spent on other essential services.
Mrs PLACE, Southampton.

UK- Daily Echo - Fluoride: Fight may call on Government

Battle to stop fluoridation could go to the very top.
Fluoride: Fight may call on Government
By Jon Reeve
COUNCIL bosses could call on the Government to step in to stop health chiefs adding fluoride to Hampshire water supplies in the months before their powers disappear.
A High Court legal bid to stop the controversial scheme starts tomorrow, but the health bosses who approved the plans say they will press ahead with the project if they win the case.
That is despite the Health Secretary confirming Strategic Health Authorities (SHA) will be scrapped early next year, with the say over future fluoridation proposals falling to elected councils instead. And the heads of Southampton City and Hampshire County councils have told the Daily Echo they would fight any moves to introduce fluoride before power is handed to them, in a bid to make the process more democratic.
The two-day judicial review in London comes after a campaigner claimed South Central Strategic Health Authority should have paid more attention to public opinions expressed during its consultation.
More than 10,000 people had their say, with 72 per cent of respondents from the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against fluoridation.
The SHA insists it did everything required by law before approving fluoridation.
During the consultation, the county council passed a motion saying it was opposed to the plans, as did the borough and district councils in Eastleigh, New Forest, Test Valley and Fareham.
Southampton's councillors voted to support fluoridation, but have since changed their view to call for a binding referendum to be held to ensure public support before it could ever go ahead. City council leader Royston Smith said despite not normally agreeing with single-subject public votes, he believes residents must have the final say "because it's quite a fundamental thing to be putting something in people's water".
And he believes the SHA should not be allowed to continue with its plans when it is about to disappear.
Cllr Smith said: "Now we've got a new government, I would ask them to consider, just morally, if they think it's right that a quango that's on its way out can in law continue to fluoridate water against the wishes of the population.
"They should morally abandon their plans and leave it to the new regime that's being put in place."
Hampshire County Council leader, Cllr Ken Thornber, said the authority would challenge any moves to add fluoride to water supplies. He said: "At the moment we do not have the power to prevent South Central Strategic Health Authority fluoridating the water if they win (the judicial review), but we may have in the future.
"We would continue to defend the right of local people to say no to the imposition of this proposal and if necessary appeal again directly to the Secretary of State to prevent this happening."

Monday, January 17, 2011

Canada - The case against fluoride

The case against fluoride
By Naomi Lakritz, Calgary Herald January 17, 2011 3:03 AM
..........One of the reasons the market for organic produce has burgeoned is that frightened consumers want to reduce the amount of chemicals they're taking in. Remember back in 2006 when Wendy Mesley, host of CBC's Marketplace, had the levels of toxins in her blood tested? " ... the results show I'm full of carcinogens," said Mesley, who had breast cancer.

Aren't we concerned about herbicides on our lawns, pesticides on our fruit, carcinogens in our cosmetics, methylparabens in our shampoo and mercury in our tuna? Then, we should also be concerned about fluoride in our drinking water. Get it out of there. We ingest more than enough of a witches' brew of chemicals every day, given all the products we use that have dubious stuff in them. When we have the choice to avoid a chemical, we should exercise that choice.

Take fluoride out of the water -- and remove it from the toxic overload our bodies are already dealing with.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

AP: US Says Too Much Fluoride in Water

USA Water fluoridation should be by choice

Water fluoridation should be by choice
January 15, 2011
Regarding the Jan. 8 article, "Feds to lower fluoride levels in water," it states that the wise citizens of Portland are one of the few large cities to decline to fluoridate (or poison) their water.
Fluoride is in the water and toothpaste. Kids and adults are given pills of fluoride and their teeth are painted with fluoride. We are being medicated without our permission.
We now have people with spottiness and streaking because of too much fluoride. If it makes teeth hard, it might also make the brain hard and bones too hard.
One of the reasons stated for fluoride in all our water is so poor people have access to it. Then the news is turned around and people are supposed to buy non-fluoridated water for their baby's formula.
Will these same poor people go buy water? Will they even be told? Do you think it's true that this poison is saving children's teeth?
The research is flawed because before fluoride, people did not take care of their teeth like they do in the present day. Do your homework, people.
If people want fluoride, let them add it to their own water.

— Helen Bibelheimer, Keizer

Read more: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110115/OPINION/101150316/Water-fluoridation-should-be-by-choice#ixzz1BC02YzNA

Fluoride-gate - U.S. Paves Way for Legal Action

Fluoride-gate - U.S. Paves Way for Legal Action
Sunday, 16 January 2011, 7:01 pm
Press Release: Fluoride Action Network
Fluoride-gate - U.S. Paves Way for Legal Action in N.Z.
U.S. lawyers are actively compiling a case against the people who are, or who have been, responsible for promoting fluoridation.
According to an explosive article release to the U.S. Press this week[1] “A series of disclosures are surfacing about the actions of water fluoridation promoters that point to a likely tsunami of Fluoridegate investigations, hearings, and explosive courtroom entanglements.”
Tennessee state legislator Frank Niceley states, "There is a real Fluoridegate scandal here. Citizens haven't been told about harm from fluorides, and this needs to be investigated by the authorities and the media."
And Washington D.C. toxic-tort attorney Chris Nidel says, "I think when we look back we'll ask why Fluoridegate didn't surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts."
In 2006 the American Dental Association and US Public Health Service’s CDC[2] quietly issued a warning not to use fluoridated water for making up baby formula, ignored by the NZ Ministry of Health. In December 2010 the U.S. decided that water with more than 0.7 ppm, the lowest level recommended in NZ, was a health risk to the whole population. Just in the last week the US Environmental Protection Association has moved to ban a fluoride-containing pesticide, because of the added risk of fluoride exposure[3].
“This all shows that current exposure to fluoride is a known health risk” points out Mark Atkin, legal advisor for health group Fluoride Action Network New Zealand (FANNZ).
“Once the U.S. lawyers have compiled the case, it would be easier for lawyers in New Zealand to do the same. There are 26 councils (out of a total of 69) that still continue to fluoridate even though they have been warned of the risks.” according to Mr Atkin.
“Councillors’ excuse that they are following the advice of the Ministry of Health, is no defence. We have provided them with comprehensive scientific information proving there is a risk, refuting Ministry advice. The responsibility of fluoridation rests squarely on each Council.” says Mr Atkin.
Adds Mary Byrne, spokesperson for FANNZ,” Fluoridation is the deliberate addition of a hazardous industrial waste to the public drinking water[4]. This is outrageous and unacceptable, and these people need to be held accountable

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Alex Jones - Bombshell: Government Admits Fluoride is Hurting Children!

Wales - Thousands benefit from toothbrushing scheme

Thousands benefit from toothbrushing scheme
Section Health | Published on 14 Jan 2011

All Community Dental Services in Wales are now delivering the Designed to Smile (D2S) scheme, Health Minister Edwina Hart has announced today ].

Over 30,000 children are now benefiting from the scheme, delivered through 500 schools, improving their oral health and preventing tooth decay.

Following successful pilots in north and central south Wales the programme was rolled out nationally in 2009 and is now being expanded to nurseries and playgroups. In the scheme dental health support workers deliver a supervised tooth-brushing programme in schools and provide toothbrushes and toothpaste to school children along with oral health advice.

Significant progress has been made across Wales with more children from deprived areas taking part in tooth brushing schemes designed to provide children with the tools they need to develop and maintain good oral health from an early age. Part of this service is delivered via mobile dental health units that provide specialist preventive care and treatment to schools.............

"We won't give up!" Meridian TV

"We won't give up!"

A campaigner against fluoride being added to her city's water supply has vowed to take the fight to the European courts if necessary. Health bosses have decided nearly 200,000 residents should receive fluoridated water to tackle tooth decay - 160,000 in Southampton, a further 24,000 in Eastleigh plus another eight thousand
on the edge of the New Forest. Three quarters of people asked in a public consultation say they are against the plans. Our social affairs correspondent Christine Alsford has this exclusive report

By: Christine Alsford

"We won't give up!" Video

UK - Daily Echo - New research sees USA move away from Water Fluoridation.

New research sees USA move away from Water Fluoridation.
The future of controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water will be decided in court next week. A judicial review is being held in London's High Court examining whether South Central Strategic Health Authority was right to approve the scheme despite public opposition. But as JON REEVE reports, while the future of the practice in the UK is decided through the legal process, health experts in America have just announced a major reduction in the amount of fluoride in tap water there.
IT has been polarising opinion in Hampshire for years.
But as the future of fluoridation in the county is debated in the courts, with implications for other schemes around Britain, across the pond there are already changes being made in the country that delivers more fluoridated water to its people than any other in the world.
In the United States, where cities like New York and Chicago have been fluoridated since the 1940s, the government has just changed its rules on how much of the chemical can be added to water supplies.
The move to slash limits has come in response to growing fears about side effects.
America's Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have changed their guidelines, which previously recommended a
range of between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million (ppm).
The difference was designed to allow for the varying climates across the US, with less fluoride needed in warmer areas where people drink more water.
But that guidance has now been downgraded so nowhere should have more than 0.7ppm.
The plans for Hampshire, affecting nearly 200,000 people across two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, would see 1ppm added to tap water.
Peter Silva, from the EPA, said the move is based "on the most up-to-date scientific data", suggesting around 40 per cent of American children now suffer dental fluorosis
He said: "EPA's new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride."
In most cases, fluorosis is mild, with barely visible white markings or spots forming on the enamel of teeth, but in more extreme cases it can lead to brown stains and mottling.
Opponents of fluoridation argue it can cause misery for sufferers, who have to undergo expensive and repeated treatment to correct its effects.
But the chairman of the British Fluoridation Society has previously insisted fears over fluoroste are overstated. • Professor Michael Lennon said: "Few cases are unsightly; indeed, the mildest forms give teeth a 'pearlised' appearance which, research has shown, adolescent children think is more attractive than teeth without fluorosis."
So could the shift in US policy change anything here?
A spokesman for South Central Strategic Health Authority said it would be inappropriate to comment on fluoridation issues so close to the judicial review.
But should the authority successfully defend the legal action, don't be surprised to see a further challenge, citing the' policy of our American cousins.

UK - Daily Echo SHA's brush with justice?

SHA's brush with justice?
By Anna Peckham
On behalf of Hampshire Against Fluoridation.
AFTER nearly two years of argument about the decision by the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to impose water fluoridation on the region, a hearing at the High Court in London later this month is finally set to examine the controversial issue.
This will be a test case and will look at the process of consultation and whether the decision to go ahead with fluoridation despite a lack of local support was what Parliament envisaged when the legislation was debated.
This has been a contentious issue from the beginning with 72 per cent of consultation respondents opposed to the scheme. Since the decision, all democratically elected councils and MPs in the affected areas have raised serious concerns and have asked for the decision to be reviewed. However, the SHA continues to insist that it has the right to ignore local opinion and will push forward with its plans regardless.
This makes no sense and has angered many. Such persistence is even more nonsensical given the fact that by 2013 the SHA will be abolished and public health decisions will be taken by the very same councils who have demanded a rethink about fluoridation! Moreover, the SHA is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting a judicial review and forcing this scheme through in their dying days despite knowing that local people and all locally elected councils and MPs are unhappy with this stance. To add to this debacle, once the SHA is abolished, there is the possibility that local councils may even decide to scrap the scheme.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation calls for an end to this profligate waste of NHS money which should be used for frontline services and not spent on a scheme that the majority of people do not .want. We would rather see oral health problems dealt with by targeted approaches which are proven to be effective in reducing dental health inequalities. Such interventions must begin at the pre-school stage with dental teams offering imaginative and effective programmes which are already being used in some parts of the UK. There is mounting scientific controversy about water fluoridation. Indeed, in a dramatic recent statement, the US government has announced that it is significantly lowering fluoride levels in water due to scientific concern. This follows similar moves in Canada, Eire and Hong Kong in recent years. Worldwide, fluoridation is only practised in a few countries with many communities deciding to stop the practice altogether.
It is clearly unethical to force people to ingest fluoride through the public drinking water supply and we hope that this will not be imposed upon us in Hampshire