UK - Southampton Daily Echo letters
Stop passing the buck, SW
DEAR me, Southern Water's Meyrick Gough (Letters, June 16) seems a trifle fidgety at the idea of customers writing to them about the fluoride issue, reminding them that there is a great deal more to it than the mere observance of the lifeless letter of dubious legislation.
Southern Water has ample scope for objecting to the demand to fluoridate. It should do so in regard to its reputation as a company, to start with.
No one can trust the managers of a business who, on being told by an interfering body having no connection with that business to downgrade their product, are prepared to agree without putting up a fight.
There are also the moral obligations to its customers whom it charges directly for its services. This includes the assurances of quality held out in company literature.
In 2005 Southern Water encouraged people to take part in any consultation and let the health authority know their views. At that time Southern Water apparently believed the consultation genuine, and that the views of the population would matter. It now knows that the people's views were ignored.
On that basis alone it has good grounds to refuse to comply with the SHA's 'request'. In 2005 Southern Water stated that the purpose of consultation was "to ensure that customers living in
the affected areas are in favour".
In 2003 Southern Water had expressed its understanding of the situation in these terms: "Before dosing can go ahead, the health authority must make sure there is a majority of people living in the area who are in favour". On its own account, it stated: "A full indemnity from the health authority is required in the event of any claim being made against Southern Water as a result of dosing fluoride".
It added: "We would want to see a clear majority of our customers in favour". The required indemnity is an indication of the recognition of potential risks.
Just what kind of legislation provides protection for the offenders and none for their
victims? No wonder people believe Southern Water has questions to answer.
Regardless of the feasibility of controlling dosage at the start, which can never be foolproof, there is absolutely no control over the amount taken in by the recipients. For over 15 years Southern Water has hidden behind the buck-passing plea that it cannot judge the medical aspects. Why not? A responsible organisation would have investigated these during that period. Yet it is prepared to add this pollutant to our most vital supply regardless.
G PAYNE, Southampton.
A Euro appeal?
I AM not a fan of the European Human Rights Act, but surely it contravenes one of the basic human rights to have one's health endangered and essential, life-giving water poisoned by the addition of harmful substances such as fluoride. How about appealing to the European courts? MRS V DAVIS, Highbridge.
Make Government take notice...
I HAVE had an idea that just might stop this fluoride business
once and for all. Should all those who oppose the introduction of this to the water supply in Southampton refuse to take water from the city's supply by shutting the stopcocks to the properties, so the properties would be declared unfit for human habitation, this only needs to be done for long enough to get the Government involved. They would have to give in and stop the process.
Gandhi did this civil disobedience thing which changed the way the world thinks, so why not try it in Southampton? Your help to get people to stand together would defeat this SHA which I understand is to be disbanded very shortly.
DAVID BALDWIN, Southampton.
DEAR me, Southern Water's Meyrick Gough (Letters, June 16) seems a trifle fidgety at the idea of customers writing to them about the fluoride issue, reminding them that there is a great deal more to it than the mere observance of the lifeless letter of dubious legislation.
Southern Water has ample scope for objecting to the demand to fluoridate. It should do so in regard to its reputation as a company, to start with.
No one can trust the managers of a business who, on being told by an interfering body having no connection with that business to downgrade their product, are prepared to agree without putting up a fight.
There are also the moral obligations to its customers whom it charges directly for its services. This includes the assurances of quality held out in company literature.
In 2005 Southern Water encouraged people to take part in any consultation and let the health authority know their views. At that time Southern Water apparently believed the consultation genuine, and that the views of the population would matter. It now knows that the people's views were ignored.
On that basis alone it has good grounds to refuse to comply with the SHA's 'request'. In 2005 Southern Water stated that the purpose of consultation was "to ensure that customers living in
the affected areas are in favour".
In 2003 Southern Water had expressed its understanding of the situation in these terms: "Before dosing can go ahead, the health authority must make sure there is a majority of people living in the area who are in favour". On its own account, it stated: "A full indemnity from the health authority is required in the event of any claim being made against Southern Water as a result of dosing fluoride".
It added: "We would want to see a clear majority of our customers in favour". The required indemnity is an indication of the recognition of potential risks.
Just what kind of legislation provides protection for the offenders and none for their
victims? No wonder people believe Southern Water has questions to answer.
Regardless of the feasibility of controlling dosage at the start, which can never be foolproof, there is absolutely no control over the amount taken in by the recipients. For over 15 years Southern Water has hidden behind the buck-passing plea that it cannot judge the medical aspects. Why not? A responsible organisation would have investigated these during that period. Yet it is prepared to add this pollutant to our most vital supply regardless.
G PAYNE, Southampton.
A Euro appeal?
I AM not a fan of the European Human Rights Act, but surely it contravenes one of the basic human rights to have one's health endangered and essential, life-giving water poisoned by the addition of harmful substances such as fluoride. How about appealing to the European courts? MRS V DAVIS, Highbridge.
Make Government take notice...
I HAVE had an idea that just might stop this fluoride business
once and for all. Should all those who oppose the introduction of this to the water supply in Southampton refuse to take water from the city's supply by shutting the stopcocks to the properties, so the properties would be declared unfit for human habitation, this only needs to be done for long enough to get the Government involved. They would have to give in and stop the process.
Gandhi did this civil disobedience thing which changed the way the world thinks, so why not try it in Southampton? Your help to get people to stand together would defeat this SHA which I understand is to be disbanded very shortly.
DAVID BALDWIN, Southampton.
posted by Bill at
9:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home