IN Saturday's Daily Echo we reporter how former Health Secretary Andy Burnham had repeated his belief that fluoridalion would be a positive step for children in Southampton.
The Labour leadership hopeful said that, although in favour of the chemicat being added to Hampshire taps, tie views of people had to be respected.
Mr Burnham said that the amount of fluoride that was added to the supply was "negligible" and that better dental health would promote "self-confidence" in city youngsters.
The MP stopped in Hampshire to thank party supporters in Southampton and the New Forest for their backing in the leadership race, now entering its final
Mr Burnham said: "It's often the poorest kids in society that suffer the most without it Fluoridation has been proven to be a safe and effective way of improving not just children's but everybody's dental health and one part per million is neglible.
"Having said that I am very aware that there are strong views on the matter. There's been very robust debate and the views of local people have to be respected."Here are some of your comments...
The Edge of Reason, Southampton says...
I don't think anyone has listened to the public about putting fluoride in the water. If they had the debate would be finished. After consultation those who said no outweighed those who said yes.
Using the excuse that it will improve everyone's dental health is in my opinion absolute garbage. Giving people access to NHS dentists will improve dental health.
If parents cannot be bothered to teach their children to brush their teeth, then it should be taught in school.
As a 16-year-old I joined the Army and was taught how to brush my teeth properly. I thought it was stupid but I did it. I believe children in primary schools would think it fun to clean their teeth in school, therefore improving their dental health without having chemicals in the water.
Condor Man, Southampton says-He's not a minister of state, why should he have any influence over the decision made? Both Denham and Whitehead backed the flouride bid for the same reason. They should have increased funding for NHS dentists instead.
da boss, upper bassett/known as chilworth says-Forty different poisons in our water and they charge us! His surname says it all.
Bassett-Mikey, Bassett says...
The question is now nothing to do with fluoride in the water -it is about the total lack of regard to democratic process. Folk said no - these people have no right to go against this. Their argument from day one was flawed anyway.
Lets remember who it is going against our wishes. Let's make serious efforts to strip them of their authority. Thats actually what elections are about The more vocal the opposition the better.
JP Muffin, Biackfield says...
Generally speaking, it is those that are better informed and/or better educated (those who have read current research on the matter too) who have been the ones to have most objected to fluoridation. Contrary to what Burnham says, the case is not proven, as these people well know.
Those who do not know what all the fuss is about are generally speaking ill informed and have not read the research.
It appears to follow that the better-educated are also within the slightly higher income bracket, with bottled waters being a regular item on their shopping list.
Those 'decision-makers' who have decided that fluoridation will take place regardless of opinion know only too well that, while many of those opposed to it will still be unable to control what comes out of their taps (because they lack the capital for the many extortionately priced alternatives) they will nonetheless commit even further to the buying of bottied-waters and all manner of filters that are coming onto the market, thus still stimulating the economy.
In short, the rich will pay for water from all manner of sources, while the poor will slug back whatever they're given.