My Letter to Lord Colwyn and his reply. We endured 8 years to fend off fluoridation in Southampton. We had a consultation over 3 months in which 72% of those who took an interest voted NO. Despite this Lord Colwyn still wishes we suffer the same gruelling process. Does he want another million of NHS funds wasted. Because if there is a next time it will be more like 90% opposed.

Dear Lord Colwyn,

I have a great respect for the dental profession but on one issue I do differ and that is the attempted imposition of fluoridation being forced onto an unwilling informed public.

In Southampton we stopped the implementation of Fluoridation after a long 8 year battle when the SHA were finally beaten. We don't want to go through that again especially as the total cost to the NHS was about one million pounds.

Your conviction that Birmingham proved that fluoridation worked in six years did that take into account any increase in the number of dentists? Southampton was flooded with dentists leading up to the decision to fluoridate.

My son has fluorosis yet he was brought up in un-fluoridated Southampton. I know a chef with severe fluorosis who's mother believed in fluoride tablets. Fluoride is in so many products people are getting too much now.

Have you seen the make up of the product Hexafluorosilicic acid they put into the water? It is only 98% pure and the 2% is a lot when hundreds of tonnes are put into the water each year. This waste is composed of lead, mercury and even radio-active isotopes.

Look it up yourself - it is true.

Yours sincerely

Bill Edmunds

Dear Mr Edmunds

Thank you for writing to me. Unfortunately, we will have to agree to disagree on the subject of water fluoridation which, on the basis of the accumulated scientific evidence, I firmly believe to be a safe and effective method of reducing children's risk of dental caries.

Systematic reviews conducted by independent researchers in the UK, the United States and Australia over the past 15 years have highlighted how water fluoridation leads to reductions in the average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth per child as well as increases in the proportion of children who never experience dental caries at all.

It is noteworthy that a Public Health England health monitoring report published last year found as many as 45% fewer hospital admissions of 1 to 4 year olds for dental caries (primarily to have decayed teeth extracted under a general anaesthetic) in fluoridated areas than in non-fluoridated areas.

To my mind, it is highly regrettable that the proposed fluoridation scheme for Southampton did not proceed. Water fluoridation would have made a big difference to the dental health of Southampton children, particularly those in the most socially deprived areas of the city. I very much hope that, at some point in the future, Southampton City Council will reconsider the issue and go out to public consultation on a scheme.

The prevalence of dental fluorosis of possible aesthetic concern is relatively small, both in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. A National Research Council report published in 2006, which was reviewing the recommended upper limits for naturally occurring fluoride levels in US water supplies, concluded that the prevalence of severe dental fluorosis at water fluoride concentrations below 2 ppm (twice the target concentration for fluoridation schemes in the UK) was 'near zero'.

You mention fluoride tablets or supplements. The Department of Health quite specifically recommends against their prescription by health professionals in fluoridated areas. There is also published guidance to parents on the need to supervise their children's toothbrushing with a fluoride toothpaste, whether they reside in a fluoridated or non-fluoridated area.

The dental health benefits of fluoride are not in doubt. The World Health Organisation, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public

Health England and many other authoritative bodies acknowledge the significant contribution made by fluoride, including fluoride toothpaste and fluoridated water, to reductions in dental caries.

The British Society of Paediatric Dentistry has recently said: "The decay preventing effects of fluoride in water and fluoride in toothpastes are additive so that children living in communities receiving fluoridated water and who use a fluoride-containing toothpaste benefit from both." The Faculty of Dental Health of the Royal College of Surgeons states: "Local authorities without water fluoridation should be encouraged to introduce schemes to tackle the significant inequalities in children's oral health across the country."

The materials used in the water fluoridation process must comply with the requisite quality standards specified in European and British standards. You mention lead and mercury. These elements are present in all water supplies naturally, as you will see by checking water quality reports published on water company websites. From my inquiries, I note that the average lead and mercury levels in the non-fluoridated water supplied to the Palace of Westminster are higher than those reported for the fluoridated water supplied to Birmingham. In both cases, however, the amounts in question are significantly below the maximum permitted concentrations.

I reiterate my point that water fluoridation has been shown to be a safe and effective means of combating one of the commonest diseases to afflict children. The adjustment of the fluoride content of water to the optimal for good oral health seems to me to be a very worthwhile public health objective.

Yours sincerely,