UK - Daily Echo - Letters
Your fluoride views
I WOULD like to comment on the front page of the Echo, dated March 23, headlined "Fluoride will go ahead". So the SHA seem determined to put this toxic waste into our water supply before they go in 2012.
I phoned the SHA and told them that you don't need to fluoridate our water now because, on the other page of the Echo, it said that 14,000 new NHS dentist places were now available around the Southampton area, so we will have enough dental care.
There was a very long pause on the phone and all the reply I got was "Oh, I haven't seen that report yet". Also, the question I would like to have answered is who will take responsibility for this fluoride if we get overdosed with it? If it does go in, that is.
Somebody has got to take full responsibility for this and the SHA won't be around to do that. How convenient. Also, I phoned the water company to ask questions, but they just said that I had to phone the health authorities. But I wanted to speak to someone at the water company; after all, I am their paying customer, but they would not talk to me. They have been given orders that all queries go to the health authorities.
Why? Are. they so governed by those people. I still don't see why the water companies can't say no as they are the ones who have the responsibility for keeping our water safe for us to drink, so they will not be doing their job. The water company is stall a private company so why not say no? Also, why are they keeping so quiet about all this. They have admitted only one response and that is that they don't want it really, so, again, why don't they stand with the people and refuse this stupid proposal.
We are their paying customers and many people don't want to pay for added fluoride. The water company should be listening to us as the SHA never has. We pay the company to keep our water pure. That is what we all request.
MRS KINCHINGTON,
Address supplied.
In my view
Amanda Roussos
complementary therapist from Whitenap near Romsey
Chemistry isn't right
I FIND the whole fluoride issue very scary on a number of levels, but mainly because it seems to me it is a simple choice. If the individual wants to fluoridate their water, that is up to them. It doesn't have to be done on a mass level.
We have been asked our opinion and made it clear we are against it. For any authority to go against that opinion is the action of a police state and, unfortunately, we are seeing this attitude increasingly from government.
The idea of a mass experiment on a random sector of the general public smacks of a war crime in peace time, especially in view of the fact that fluoride is poisonous.
Who are these people and how did they get into positions of authority? It is a non-starter, so what is going on?
It is difficult to find toothpaste without fluoride as it is. This being the case, if our dental health hasn't improved with the used of fluoridated toothpaste, why would it do so if it was put in the water?
It is generally accepted that most people in hospital die as a result of the effects of their medication rather than their health problem itself; do we not have the right to choose any more?
The Government wants us to take more responsibility for ourselves but keeps taking away our freedom of choice. Surely it is the responsibility of each individual to look after their teeth in the manner they see fit and if the food industry started to put fresh wholesome food on the supermarket shelves, grown and nurtured and presented for consumption in the way nature intended, maybe our teeth wouldn't be in the state they are. The common factor coming from this is the word "chemical". What a surprise!
The bottom line is that the Government is giving permission for the water companies to poison us, in the full knowledge of what they are doing, and then saying we can't sue.
Does the Government represent the people or the chemical companies, and who has power over whom?
The whole situation is so farcical, and illogical, that someone somewhere has to be making vast amounts of money or have ulterior motives.
We are at the top of a very slippery downward slope and I would like to see government start taking full responsibility for their actions.
I also find it interesting that the latest CAP rulings and the way they are being followed through, are equally illogical and also allegedly being done for the protection of the public and similarly have a link back to Pharmaceuticals. It is just a thought or am I not allowed to think anymore?
Who is kidding whom? There is something very wrong here.
I would like to know what authority the SHA have in contaminating my water supply, I purchase my water from the water board, uncontaminated.
I pay for it, not the SHA. Is it legal for them to be allowed to interfere with something which I have purchased without my permission?
What would they do if they went out for a meal and when it was served they found that it had been covered with a sauce which they didn't want? Would they pay for it? Of course not. If the SHA want to contaminate my drinking water then they should pay my water bill. BOB GRANT, Address supplied.
• I READ with dismay the disturbing and thought provoking letters from A wills and Mrs Henderson (Soapbox - Fluoride March 24), about tooth veneers and fluoridated water in catering establishment respectively. I wonder if someone could tell me whether the White Swan in Mansbridge will be affected by fluoridation it it goes ahead? If so, I shall not be going there in the future. I feel very disappointed at the thought as my family have enjoyed many happy times there over many years. Through no fault of their own, they will have lost our custom. I do hope the MP reads this letter. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
• REFERENCE fluoridation - what does SHA expect children to do just because the water is fluoridated if they do not drink water now?
Are they going to stop drinking soft drinks and religiously clean their teeth just because you fluoridate our water. I don't think so, which defeats the object of fluoridation.
M LAST, Southampampton
This next letter from Mr "Maldents" was printed so to be fair here it is even if his arguments are not.
« I WOULD like to add my voice to those opposing the introduction of fluoride to our water.
Seventy-two per cent of the one per cent who responded to the SHA consultation were against this so this means everybody is against it. If fluoride is heavily diluted in water it becomes as toxic as lead, but I will continue to use concentrated fluoride in toothpaste as I always avoid swallowing any toothpaste as it is harmless. In fact, instead of adding fluoride to the water supply to poison our children, we should encourage them to use it in concentrated form by brushing their teeth more often. The British Dental Association is in favour of adding fluoride to our water supply, but I have decided not to listen to them as I saw an obscure website on the internet which said it was dangerous. The vocal public demonstrations led by non-dentists and uninformed scaremongering members of the public are what we should be listening to.
The USA has had fluoride for many decades and, as we all know, thousands there die every year from fluoride poisoning. Furthermore, fluoride contains long-name-scary-sounding-oxide, so it must be dangerous. Fluoride is a chemical by-product and as this also sounds a bit scary, it makes me want to oppose it. We must all join together to stop this as fluoride is a bigger menace than Nick Clegg, nuclear weapons and Simon Cowell combined. MR D MALDENTS, Southampton.
I WOULD like to comment on the front page of the Echo, dated March 23, headlined "Fluoride will go ahead". So the SHA seem determined to put this toxic waste into our water supply before they go in 2012.
I phoned the SHA and told them that you don't need to fluoridate our water now because, on the other page of the Echo, it said that 14,000 new NHS dentist places were now available around the Southampton area, so we will have enough dental care.
There was a very long pause on the phone and all the reply I got was "Oh, I haven't seen that report yet". Also, the question I would like to have answered is who will take responsibility for this fluoride if we get overdosed with it? If it does go in, that is.
Somebody has got to take full responsibility for this and the SHA won't be around to do that. How convenient. Also, I phoned the water company to ask questions, but they just said that I had to phone the health authorities. But I wanted to speak to someone at the water company; after all, I am their paying customer, but they would not talk to me. They have been given orders that all queries go to the health authorities.
Why? Are. they so governed by those people. I still don't see why the water companies can't say no as they are the ones who have the responsibility for keeping our water safe for us to drink, so they will not be doing their job. The water company is stall a private company so why not say no? Also, why are they keeping so quiet about all this. They have admitted only one response and that is that they don't want it really, so, again, why don't they stand with the people and refuse this stupid proposal.
We are their paying customers and many people don't want to pay for added fluoride. The water company should be listening to us as the SHA never has. We pay the company to keep our water pure. That is what we all request.
MRS KINCHINGTON,
Address supplied.
In my view
Amanda Roussos
complementary therapist from Whitenap near Romsey
Chemistry isn't right
I FIND the whole fluoride issue very scary on a number of levels, but mainly because it seems to me it is a simple choice. If the individual wants to fluoridate their water, that is up to them. It doesn't have to be done on a mass level.
We have been asked our opinion and made it clear we are against it. For any authority to go against that opinion is the action of a police state and, unfortunately, we are seeing this attitude increasingly from government.
The idea of a mass experiment on a random sector of the general public smacks of a war crime in peace time, especially in view of the fact that fluoride is poisonous.
Who are these people and how did they get into positions of authority? It is a non-starter, so what is going on?
It is difficult to find toothpaste without fluoride as it is. This being the case, if our dental health hasn't improved with the used of fluoridated toothpaste, why would it do so if it was put in the water?
It is generally accepted that most people in hospital die as a result of the effects of their medication rather than their health problem itself; do we not have the right to choose any more?
The Government wants us to take more responsibility for ourselves but keeps taking away our freedom of choice. Surely it is the responsibility of each individual to look after their teeth in the manner they see fit and if the food industry started to put fresh wholesome food on the supermarket shelves, grown and nurtured and presented for consumption in the way nature intended, maybe our teeth wouldn't be in the state they are. The common factor coming from this is the word "chemical". What a surprise!
The bottom line is that the Government is giving permission for the water companies to poison us, in the full knowledge of what they are doing, and then saying we can't sue.
Does the Government represent the people or the chemical companies, and who has power over whom?
The whole situation is so farcical, and illogical, that someone somewhere has to be making vast amounts of money or have ulterior motives.
We are at the top of a very slippery downward slope and I would like to see government start taking full responsibility for their actions.
I also find it interesting that the latest CAP rulings and the way they are being followed through, are equally illogical and also allegedly being done for the protection of the public and similarly have a link back to Pharmaceuticals. It is just a thought or am I not allowed to think anymore?
Who is kidding whom? There is something very wrong here.
I would like to know what authority the SHA have in contaminating my water supply, I purchase my water from the water board, uncontaminated.
I pay for it, not the SHA. Is it legal for them to be allowed to interfere with something which I have purchased without my permission?
What would they do if they went out for a meal and when it was served they found that it had been covered with a sauce which they didn't want? Would they pay for it? Of course not. If the SHA want to contaminate my drinking water then they should pay my water bill. BOB GRANT, Address supplied.
• I READ with dismay the disturbing and thought provoking letters from A wills and Mrs Henderson (Soapbox - Fluoride March 24), about tooth veneers and fluoridated water in catering establishment respectively. I wonder if someone could tell me whether the White Swan in Mansbridge will be affected by fluoridation it it goes ahead? If so, I shall not be going there in the future. I feel very disappointed at the thought as my family have enjoyed many happy times there over many years. Through no fault of their own, they will have lost our custom. I do hope the MP reads this letter. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
• REFERENCE fluoridation - what does SHA expect children to do just because the water is fluoridated if they do not drink water now?
Are they going to stop drinking soft drinks and religiously clean their teeth just because you fluoridate our water. I don't think so, which defeats the object of fluoridation.
M LAST, Southampampton
This next letter from Mr "Maldents" was printed so to be fair here it is even if his arguments are not.
« I WOULD like to add my voice to those opposing the introduction of fluoride to our water.
Seventy-two per cent of the one per cent who responded to the SHA consultation were against this so this means everybody is against it. If fluoride is heavily diluted in water it becomes as toxic as lead, but I will continue to use concentrated fluoride in toothpaste as I always avoid swallowing any toothpaste as it is harmless. In fact, instead of adding fluoride to the water supply to poison our children, we should encourage them to use it in concentrated form by brushing their teeth more often. The British Dental Association is in favour of adding fluoride to our water supply, but I have decided not to listen to them as I saw an obscure website on the internet which said it was dangerous. The vocal public demonstrations led by non-dentists and uninformed scaremongering members of the public are what we should be listening to.
The USA has had fluoride for many decades and, as we all know, thousands there die every year from fluoride poisoning. Furthermore, fluoride contains long-name-scary-sounding-oxide, so it must be dangerous. Fluoride is a chemical by-product and as this also sounds a bit scary, it makes me want to oppose it. We must all join together to stop this as fluoride is a bigger menace than Nick Clegg, nuclear weapons and Simon Cowell combined. MR D MALDENTS, Southampton.
posted by Bill at
9:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home