UK - 'Yes' to fluoridation – amid waves of protest
'Yes' to fluoridation – amid waves of protest
27th Feb 2009
Southampton is to forge ahead with plans to add fluoride to its tap water, despite protests.
The final decision was made at a meeting of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) following three months of public consultation in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire.
It makes Southampton the first place in England to introduce fluoridation since Health Minister Alan Johnson's ‘fluoridation for all' proposal in February 2008.
The special meeting, held at the city's St Mary's stadium, attracted representatives from both sides of the fluoridation argument, including chief dental officer Barry Cockcroft, representatives from the British Dental Association (BDA), MPs, members of pressure group, Hampshire Against Fluoridation, and other anti-fluoride campaigners.
The plans had been put forward in a bid to improve the city's poor record on dental health in children, particularly in more deprived areas.
The decision comes after the public consultation in which more than 10,000 people had their say.
More than seven out of ten of all respondents who live in the affected area said they were against the plans, while an independent phone survey also showed more people against the scheme than for it.
But Southampton City Primary Care Trust (PCT), who made the proposals, said that the public vote could not be the deciding factor and that medical evidence shows fluoridation will reduce tooth decay – and failed to back up claims of serious negative side effects.
The PCT also says other measures to beat tooth decay have not worked, and fluoridation is the most effective method left available.
A Department of Health spokesman welcomes the decision. He said: ‘We believe that fluoridation is a scientifically supported and effective means of addressing health inequalities by reducing tooth decay in children and adults, especially those from poorer backgrounds.
Story continued on page 4South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision on fluoridation has been made following a 14-week consultation, during which the views of local people were listened to, and taking into account medical evidence and the oral health needs of the people of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton and Netley.'
The British Dental Association also welcomed the move. BDA scientific adviser, Professor Damien Walmsley, said: ‘The BDA commends South Central's decision as we believe that fluoridation is a safe and effective method of reducing dental decay and oral health inequalities. The significance of today's decision is not confined to the people it will affect directly. Other SHAs in England have been waiting to see if South Central – as the first SHA to consult on fluoridation since the law changed in 2003 – would succeed before launching their own consultation.'
Now the decision has been approved by the SHA's board, the amount of fluoride in the water will be increased from 0.08 parts per million to one part per million by 2010 at the earliest. The SHA will enter legal negotiations with Southern Water to determine how the process will be carried out and how much it will cost.
The forces ranged against the plans included Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Hampshire County Council and local Liberal Democrat MPs Sandra Gidley (Romsey) and Chris Huhne (Eastleigh).
MP Sandra Gidley said: ‘The board members have got this completely wrong and have chosen to ride roughshod over the overwhelming opinion of the public. Whilst there is a lot of research on the subject of water fluoridation, much of it – like the board's judgement – is sub-standard. It would be far cheaper and more effective to provide toothpaste and brushes to those who can't afford it rather than introducing a mass medication programme.'
Stephen Peckham, a member of Hampshire Against Fluoridation and a reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, added to the argument against the plans.
He said: ‘Clearly, the SHA officers are determined that fluoridation should go ahead whatever. The York Review authors point out that there is no evidence to demonstrate that water fluoridation reduces inequalities. Neither is there any evidence to demonstrate that at the historically low levels of dental decay in the majority of children (12 year old rates are better than the UK average) water fluoridation will have any effect. Yet water fluoridation will cause an increase in dental fluorosis with children requiring repeated remedial treatment.
He added: ‘This decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton is not evidence based, safe or ethical.'
Other proposals for fluoridation are in the pipeline elsewhere in the country – including Manchester – but officials were believed to be watching developments in Southampton before committing to the consultation process.
27th Feb 2009
Southampton is to forge ahead with plans to add fluoride to its tap water, despite protests.
The final decision was made at a meeting of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) following three months of public consultation in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire.
It makes Southampton the first place in England to introduce fluoridation since Health Minister Alan Johnson's ‘fluoridation for all' proposal in February 2008.
The special meeting, held at the city's St Mary's stadium, attracted representatives from both sides of the fluoridation argument, including chief dental officer Barry Cockcroft, representatives from the British Dental Association (BDA), MPs, members of pressure group, Hampshire Against Fluoridation, and other anti-fluoride campaigners.
The plans had been put forward in a bid to improve the city's poor record on dental health in children, particularly in more deprived areas.
The decision comes after the public consultation in which more than 10,000 people had their say.
More than seven out of ten of all respondents who live in the affected area said they were against the plans, while an independent phone survey also showed more people against the scheme than for it.
But Southampton City Primary Care Trust (PCT), who made the proposals, said that the public vote could not be the deciding factor and that medical evidence shows fluoridation will reduce tooth decay – and failed to back up claims of serious negative side effects.
The PCT also says other measures to beat tooth decay have not worked, and fluoridation is the most effective method left available.
A Department of Health spokesman welcomes the decision. He said: ‘We believe that fluoridation is a scientifically supported and effective means of addressing health inequalities by reducing tooth decay in children and adults, especially those from poorer backgrounds.
Story continued on page 4South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision on fluoridation has been made following a 14-week consultation, during which the views of local people were listened to, and taking into account medical evidence and the oral health needs of the people of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton and Netley.'
The British Dental Association also welcomed the move. BDA scientific adviser, Professor Damien Walmsley, said: ‘The BDA commends South Central's decision as we believe that fluoridation is a safe and effective method of reducing dental decay and oral health inequalities. The significance of today's decision is not confined to the people it will affect directly. Other SHAs in England have been waiting to see if South Central – as the first SHA to consult on fluoridation since the law changed in 2003 – would succeed before launching their own consultation.'
Now the decision has been approved by the SHA's board, the amount of fluoride in the water will be increased from 0.08 parts per million to one part per million by 2010 at the earliest. The SHA will enter legal negotiations with Southern Water to determine how the process will be carried out and how much it will cost.
The forces ranged against the plans included Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Hampshire County Council and local Liberal Democrat MPs Sandra Gidley (Romsey) and Chris Huhne (Eastleigh).
MP Sandra Gidley said: ‘The board members have got this completely wrong and have chosen to ride roughshod over the overwhelming opinion of the public. Whilst there is a lot of research on the subject of water fluoridation, much of it – like the board's judgement – is sub-standard. It would be far cheaper and more effective to provide toothpaste and brushes to those who can't afford it rather than introducing a mass medication programme.'
Stephen Peckham, a member of Hampshire Against Fluoridation and a reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, added to the argument against the plans.
He said: ‘Clearly, the SHA officers are determined that fluoridation should go ahead whatever. The York Review authors point out that there is no evidence to demonstrate that water fluoridation reduces inequalities. Neither is there any evidence to demonstrate that at the historically low levels of dental decay in the majority of children (12 year old rates are better than the UK average) water fluoridation will have any effect. Yet water fluoridation will cause an increase in dental fluorosis with children requiring repeated remedial treatment.
He added: ‘This decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton is not evidence based, safe or ethical.'
Other proposals for fluoridation are in the pipeline elsewhere in the country – including Manchester – but officials were believed to be watching developments in Southampton before committing to the consultation process.
posted by Bill at
10:29 AM
1 Comments:
The use of the specified chemicals for water fluoridation is illegal
under the Poisons Act
Fluorosilicates are Part 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972, and have no medicinal use, as the Medicines Control Agency has repeatedly stated. Their addition to the public water supply therefore constitutes a criminal action, existing legislation on fluoridation notwithstanding. Reference to a poison in the Poisons Act includes substances containing that poison. It is
consequently in violation of ss 23 and 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which forbids the administration of any poisonous or noxious substance.
Water fluoridation violates the European Convention on Human Rights
Paragraphs 56, 57 and 59 of the Home Office Guidance Notes on the application of the Human Rights Act establish that fluoridation violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act, and also Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Since fluoridation is the illegal administration of a registered poison with no medicinal authorisation, it constitutes a State sanctioned
criminal act against the public, and is incompatible with the Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Where children are involved - indeed, specifically targeted - such an act also raise issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights
Under Article 35 of the Charter, the right to health care includes the right to refuse health care, for whatever reason. It establishes the individual's right to receive particular drugs or treatments - or to prevent them from having such treatment administered against their wishes.
The above are but the tip of the iceburg as far as illegal actions implemented by the PCT and condoned by national government. It is clear that the Southampton PCT is in violation of E.U. laws and as such should be prosecuted for those violations. There is no substantive or verifiable scientific evidence showing any benefits whatsoever for the use of fluorides in the water supply. In reality flourides are neuro toxins, are poisonous and extremely harmful to the human bio system at whatever age. These noxious substances have been recorded in use by Hitler and Stalin as a method of keeping a population under control. Perhaps we should be asking different questions as to the real objectives for their use in these modern times.
By
Anonymous, at 20 October, 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home