House of Lords
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Conservative
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 22 April 2013 (HL372), and in the light of the water supply being fluoridated in Birmingham but not Manchester, on what evidential basis their assessment was made that there are no significant differences in the general health of the populations of Manchester and Birmingham, other than differences in average decayed, missing and filled teeth.
Hansard source
(Citation: HL Deb, 17 November 2016, cW)
Lord Prior of Brampton
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
Health profiles maintained by Public Health England (PHE) show that there are no significant differences in the general health of the populations of Manchester and Birmingham that might be attributable to water fluoridation. PHE’s Water fluoridation: Health monitoring report for England 2014 compared a range of dental and non-dental health indicators in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in England. The report concluded that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure as there were reduced levels of tooth decay in fluoridated areas and no evidence of potential harm for the health indicators measured. A copy of this report is attached.
Water fluoridation report (PDF Document, 1.5 MB)
Almost a third of adults living in and around Birmingham are obese – twice as high as the EU average. But no difference according to the PHE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1338462/Why-folk-Birmingham-biggest-stomachs.html
Fluoride affects the thyroid.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 22 April 2013 (HL372), and in the light of the water supply being fluoridated in Birmingham but not Manchester, on what evidential basis their assessment was made that there are no significant differences in the general health of the populations of Manchester and Birmingham, other than differences in average decayed, missing and filled teeth.
Hansard source
(Citation: HL Deb, 17 November 2016, cW)
Lord Prior of Brampton
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
Health profiles maintained by Public Health England (PHE) show that there are no significant differences in the general health of the populations of Manchester and Birmingham that might be attributable to water fluoridation. PHE’s Water fluoridation: Health monitoring report for England 2014 compared a range of dental and non-dental health indicators in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in England. The report concluded that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure as there were reduced levels of tooth decay in fluoridated areas and no evidence of potential harm for the health indicators measured. A copy of this report is attached.
Water fluoridation report (PDF Document, 1.5 MB)
Almost a third of adults living in and around Birmingham are obese – twice as high as the EU average. But no difference according to the PHE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1338462/Why-folk-Birmingham-biggest-stomachs.html
Fluoride affects the thyroid.
posted by Bill at
1:28 PM
3 Comments:
What a silly piece of pro-fluoride propaganda is that PHE report. ie. - "no evidence" of various harms really means "...there is no evidence which we will accept - and we haven't done any meaningful research ourselves..."!
But what really mystifies me for this "England" report are the "population figures" for the three tables on p 28.29.30. What is England's most recent population figures? Around £60,000,000 odd? So how do they get these figures of 250 million plus ... and that's just the non-fluoridated areas!!! Is there something I am missing here?
By
Cllr Chris, at 19 November, 2016
American figures to support the PHE?
By
Bill, at 19 November, 2016
Maybe Bill. But I'm thinking that they have added the populations together for each year of any one study. But it is not at all clear. Is it even of statistical use or validity? Like the rest of the report, it is superficial, impossible to follow with no references to any original research that a normal interested internet user might sensibly want or be able to follow. It brings the whole report into question. It is of dubious validity (to say the least!). But ... they ticked the "legal" box ... they produced a "fluoridation report" .... which is all they are really required to do. The fact that it is superficial statistical "adjusted" nonsense is neither here nor there!!
By
Cllr Chris, at 19 November, 2016
Post a Comment
<< Home