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

UK Against Fluoridation

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.”



  • The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now concede that fluoride's predominant action on the tooth is topical, not systemic, as it works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Both groups admit that using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula elevates the risk of dental fluorosis and they advise using very low or non-fluoridated water to lessen the risk. Pediatricians rarely inform parents of this advice.

    "Topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are readily available. It makes no sense to expose the whole body to this toxic substance or force it on people who do not want it,"

    By Anonymous jwillie6, at 18 January, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home