Safe Water Campaign

Another fluoride song

2012-01-04T18:33:00.001Z

Gloucestershire has it's own anti-water fluoridation song - see here - well now here comes another fluoride protest song....

Letter to Telegraph re cosmetic surgery

2011-12-10T23:27:00.001Z

Here's a letter from one of our members to the Daily Telegraph. We have also had a meeting last month to update on issues like Southampton and how the changes to the NHS may impact on government plans to fluoridate. Next meeting not until next year now - do get in touch if you are interested in coming along to hear more.

Theodore Dalrymple reminds us that the NHS has, for a long time, limited access to cosmetic surgery.

Is he aware that one of the crying needs for such treatment is actually being caused by the NHS itself contining to insist that by adding an illegal and poisonous substance; fluorosilicate waste chemical, to our water supplies, the teeth of young children will acquire an enhanced resistance to dental caries?

Contrary to the extravagant claims made by the British Dental Association, ill supported by global peer-reviewed science, even the Government's own review (The York Review) indicated a 42 per cent incidence of dental fluorosis, predicting the same for the total skeleton of which teeth are the only visible evidence.

Of that number,12 per cent of our children will have fluorosed teeth 'of aesthetic concern', in other words, visually repulsive, for which there is no cure; and no NHS funded cosmetic treatment Those children are being ridiculed both at school and in society at large with expressions like "You've got shitty teeth"

If suicide is on the agenda where despair dominates compassion, we do not owe any merit to the NHS for its stupidly uncompromising policy in this aspect of dental health.

Bernard J Seward
Member : Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Southampton City Council vote to oppose Fluoridation

2011-09-29T12:28:00.001+01:00

On Wednesday 14th September, Southampton City Council officially withdrew its support for the water fluoridation scheme in Southampton. The debate was triggered by Hampshire Against Fluoridation's petition signed by 6,500 people — well over the number needed to initiate a council debate. Here is the report from the campaign group:

Two motions on water fluoridation were put forward. The first of these was moved by Councillor Moulton and commits the Council to explore its legal powers in the light of changing legislation contained in the Health & Social Care Bill currently being debated in Parliament. This motion was passed unanimously. The second motion, moved by Councillor Gerry Drake was more hard-hitting, directly calling on the Council to reject fluoridation. In a vote passed by a 2 to 1 majority, the Council voted to oppose water fluoridation.

With this vote, the City Council is now officially opposed to water fluoridation—reversing its original sup- port in 2008 and bringing the Council into line with all other local councils who have opposed the scheme from the beginning. In what was often a heated debate, many councillors denounced the SHA‟s consultation process, arguing that fluoridation was mass medication and an affront to democracy.

However, some councillors displayed an appalling ignorance of the evidence on water fluoridation and appeared unaware of the current data on dental health in the City. Certain Labour councillors branded campaigners purveyors of bad science! Councillors Noon (representing Bargate ward) and
Furnell (representing Millbrook ward) made disparaging com- ments about campaigners, insinuating that we do not use good evidence to support our argument. Cllr Noon asserted that “97% of scientists, including geologists support water fluoridation....” This somewhat bizarre reference to geologists resulted in laughter from the public gallery! Hampshire Against Fluoridation have, of course, continued throughout the campaign to use only the highest quality research evidence. It is not clear exactly which councillors voted for and against the motions and we urge anyone interested to contact their local councillors to find out how they voted.

More about Southampton City Council debate - click read more

The motion put forward by Councillor Drake was as follows: “This Council now opposes the addition of fluoride to Southampton’s water supply and will use all its present and any future powers it may be given to prevent the implementation of a fluoridation scheme”.

While there were many abstentions and some votes against the motion (mainly from the Labour side), the motion was carried and this means that Southampton City Council now has an official anti- fluoridation position. This is important because, in 2008, the council voted to support the SHA‟s plans to implement water fluoridation and this has been used by the SHA to support their decision to go ahead with the scheme. However, this vote was taken BEFORE the Council knew the outcome of the Consultation which resulted in 72% of local respondents registering their opposition to the proposed fluoridation plan.

The other motion which received unanimous support, was put forward by Councillor Jeremy Moulton. It is much wordier and merely commits the Council to debating the issue again when the Health & Social Care Bill has been finalised. As it stands, it seems that Councils WILL have the power to either implement or REVERSE fluoridation schemes when SHA‟s are phased out in 2013.

However, there may be amendments to the Bill so it is a question of waiting and watching what happens. The wording of the motion is abridged below: “Council welcomes the petition and thanks all those who have signed it for doing so. Council acknowledges that this is an issue of concern to many........Council further notes that the new pub- lic health role for the Council is subject to the passage of the Health & Social Care Bill.....It is unclear what requirements would be placed on a Council in the future if it were minded to propose the termination of a scheme. Council further notes that the Health & Social Care Bill is current- ly progressing through Parliament and is now in the House of Lords, and that those with strong views on fluoride might wish to make representations to Parliament on the Bill....Finally, Council resolves to urgently debate the issue of local fluoridation again should powers be granted to the Authority which give it any powers to influence the progression of a fluoridation scheme”.

What now?

HAF has sent a letter to the SHA requesting it to shelve the scheme. In promoting the Health & Social Care Bill, the Government has emphasised how important it is for public health decisions to be made by democratically accountable local councils. For the SHA to push ahead would be ridiculous now that Southampton City Council is committed to reversing any scheme when and if they have the power to do so. The HAF letter adds “Based on just the cost of the consultation, it would have been possible to implement a targeted scheme such as the one introduced in Northamptonshire. In fact, the cost of good targeted programmes would be less than the predicted revenue costs of the fluoridation scheme and provide children with lifelong dental hygiene skills... Over the next 18 months there is the opportunity for the SHA to take a strong leadership role in improving oral health by sup- porting the development of effective, targeted dental health schemes in the area—leaving a lega- cy to be proud of”.

More info at: www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.org

Call for action re water fluoridation

2011-09-28T12:33:00.000+01:00

England’s ‘water fluoridation functions’ to be passed to local authorities - see below the Alliance for Natural Health's briefing - see original with links here and also further info - well done to the Alliance for highlighting this key issue.

KEY POINTS

Legislation currently passing through the UK Parliament will shift responsibility for water fluoridation to local authorities, e.g. councils
The Health and Social Care Bill appears to grant wide new powers to the UK Secretary of State for Health
Nothing will change for the residents of Southampton, site of recent fluoridation controversy
The Bill will not absolutely require local opinion to be consulted before fluoridation proceeds
The target fluoride concentration will remain at 1 mg/litre, ignoring recent developments in the USA and (in 2007) in Ireland

The thorny subject of fluoridation of the water supply has raised its head once again in the UK, with the expected and imminent passing into English law of the Health and Social Care Bill 2011. The Bill received its third reading in Parliament on 7th September, and now goes to the House of Lords. Unfortunately, the current wording of the Bill appears to give sweeping powers to the UK Secretary of State – currently Health Minister Andrew Lansley – while cutting out local opinion and ignoring current fluoride science. Get involved by writing a letter to Mr Lansley to voice your concerns over the erosion of democracy and reliance on outdated science!

Shifting power to the Health Minister

Under the new Bill, which under UK law becomes an Act when passed by Parliament, ‘water fluoridation functions’ will pass from the notoriously authoritarian Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) to local authorities, such as county or district councils. Since such bodies are, in theory, much more answerable to the people who vote them in, this change should give more say to residents when the ugly subject of water fluoridation comes up.

The subject of water fluoridation and the role of SHAs became highly controversial in 2010, when Southampton SHA decided to begin adding fluoride to the water in the face of strong local opposition. Following a High Court decision supporting Southampton SHA, it had been hoped that abolition of SHAs might result in a change of policy – unfortunately, however, these hopes have now been dashed.

Why? Well, firstly because it now emerges that Primary Care Trusts, of which SHAs form a part, will not be abolished until April 2013. As such, nothing will change for the unfortunate residents of Southampton, who have fought long and hard to prevent fluoridation of their water supply.

Sweeping new powers?

Not only that, but the Health and Social Care Bill states that new regulations governing consultation of the proposals – the next crucial step, as far as the public is concerned – are to be made by the Secretary of State. They are as yet unwritten – as the Bill puts it, the Secretary of State will have the power to dictate “such requirements as may be prescribed...as to the steps to be taken for the purposes of consulting and ascertaining opinion in relation to the proposal”.. Worryingly, there appears to be no requirement for local authorities or the Secretary of State to take public opinion into account. Such a requirement originally appeared in proposed water fluoridation legislation but was then quietly dropped, triggering legal action by Southampton residents.

To summarise the proposed new powers for the UK Secretary of State for Health in relation to water fluoridation:

Decide the form of any consultation over proposed fluoridation, with no requirement to consult the public
Choose the members of the committees and Boards involved in making the decisions about fluoridation
Decide what procedures the decision-making bodies follow
However, the regulations prevent the Secretary of State from changing or ending fluoridation arrangements without a valid proposal from one or more of the local authorities involved.

Higher levels of fluoride than the USA

The new Health and Social Care Bill does not include an amendment to change the concentration of fluoride that will be added to water supplies. Therefore, this concentration will be maintained at the general target concentration of 1 mg per litre of public drinking water. However, in January 2011, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed lowering the level of fluoride per litre of water from the current recommended range of 0.7–1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water. The Irish government similarly reduced levels in 2007 in response to effects of fluoride on children (notably as a result of the high incidence of dental fluorosis).

This begs the question: why hasn’t the British legislation been brought into line with the USA and Ireland?

UK government out of touch on fluoride

This June saw the publication of the opinion of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER). This confirmed that young UK and Irish children will easily exceed the fluoride upper limit by drinking less than half a litre of water daily. The report also states that “No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation as compared with topical application of fluoride”!

In the light of this SCHER opinion, and of the reduction in levels of fluoride being used in the US, the UK government’s Health and Social Care bill seems very out of touch with regard to water fluoridation.

Democracy or not?

Indeed, it appears that SHAs are being abolished in favour of sweeping new powers for the Secretary of State for Health. If one person can decide the conditions for membership and actual membership of the committees considering fluoridation proposals, as well as the procedure those committees will follow when coming to a decision, how democratic is the new procedure actually going to be? Will ‘answerable’ local councils bring more democracy to fluoridation decisions, or will it be the ‘Southampton Scenario’ all over again?

Call to action

If you’re in the UK, write to Andrew Lansley MP, Secretary of State for Health: express your dismay that the UK government is ignoring recent developments in fluoridation science and regulaton. The correct address is:
Department of Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London

SW1A 2NS

Fluoridation plans abandoned as it is too expensive

2011-09-12T19:03:00.004+01:00

UK Councils Against Fluoridation report the good news that the Health Authority have abandoned plans to fluoridate the North West. The Chief Executive of the North West Strategic Health Authority, Mark Ogden, recommended his Board to abandon its long-planned project to fluoridate North West England. This is good news as it makes any plans for fluoridation across Gloucestershire less likely.

Mark Ogden told the Board that the government's new proposals to abolish the Strategic Halth Authorities included in the Health and Social Care Bill mean that the SHA would not have enough time to carry out the detailed 'public consultation' required of it before the SHA ia abolished. He also reported that the costs of any such consultation would be very large, and that the capital costs of the project would be around £200 million. This is far higher than had been expected initially, and in the present financial crisis are unaffordable.

UK Councils Against Fluoridation responded saying: "Well, we told you so!These costs come as no surprise to UKCAfF- we have been quoting this figure of £200 million for at least three years, since we were tipped off from a source inside United Utilities. And it will not be welcome in the South either, where the South Central SHA believes that it can convert a water treatment works for less than one tenth of the cost quoted by United Utilities. And if fluoridation is too expensive in the North West, it is unlikely to be affordable in the South. This is the first real crack in the Health Police's doomed attempts to force 40% of people in the UK to drink its prohibited medicine. It is yet another indication of how the Health and Social Care Bill has been cobbled together without any thought of just how its fanciful proposals might actually be put into practice. Even if the Bill is defeated and the SHAs survive, these astronomical costs must now force the government to abandon its hated plans to forcibly medicate the public in this discredited, unethical and illegal travesty of 'public health medicine'. Fluoridation is effectively dead in England, even if it is a bit slow to lie down - now let's see it abandoned in the rest of the World!"

See more at: http://www.ukcaf.org/

Letter to Evening Post

2011-09-03T18:37:00.000+01:00

Here is a letter from one of our members to the Evening Post:

Sir,

Since the Director of Public Prosecutions appears to have put a spoke in the Prime Minister's wheel by insisting that all criminal acts are treated on the proverbial 'level playing field', he won't be able to avoid using his big stick on the British Dental Association. Described as a trade union for dentists, the BDA, using assumed power very much out of scale with its political status, is about to engage in ramming through a measure of compulsory medication in the forthcoming debate on the Health and Social Care Bill.

H & S C has been on the Government's books for some time and now, having achieved a documentary blockbuster of 450 pages, it is being given all of two days of debate. How things have changed since the Foxhunting Bill.

The B D A wants to dominate the debate with its 'nanny state' insistence, that fluoridation - the practice of poisoning everyone's drinking water - is a safe, proven and effective way of treating juvenile dental decay.

Global evidence accumulated over the last half century utterly refutes this proposition. Fluoridation has been widely discredited on ethical, physical and mental platforms. It is a scam devised by people in high places in health administration interested only in cashing in on its financial incentives.

However, more recently it has come under scrutiny by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ has been instrumental in the rigorous interpetation of the new definitions of water. Tap water; Medicinal water and Functional water; the latter being related with our range of soft drinks. Medicinal water can be any water product for which a medicinal benefit has been claimed, whether true or false. Medicinal value takes precedence over functional and on that basis alone, state-fluoridated water must be subject to the same pharmacological testing as applies to all medicines whether retailed or prescribed.

Since the fluoridating agent in current use is an unrefined, untested waste product of the fertiliser industry, it could not, short of outright fraud, pass such a test and in those parts of the country, notably the West Midlands, which have been fluoridated for the last forty years, a legitimacy test of that intervention is long overdue. Notwithstanding the current legislative position, the British Dental Association expects to plough on unobstructed with manipulating the H&SC Bill to its own self-centred advantage. That particular advantage lies in the vast sums to be made from treating - but never curing - the socially repulsive condition known as dental fluorosis which will affect a substantial proportion of the fluoridated population, especially the young. At £300 plus per tooth, repeatable every five years, the treatment can only be privately funded since the NHS, having promoted fluoridation, has defined fluorosis as 'merely cosmetic' and declines to include it within its agenda of low cost or free-of-charge treatments.

The slogan in the US which introduced fluoridation as a legalised chemical fly-tipping cop-out for the defence industry was 'Fluoride gives poor kids rich kids teeth.' Nothing could be further from the truth. The poorest children in the most fluoridated cities of America have the worst teeth of all. Fluorosis cosmetic dentistry is utterly beyond their means.

Worse still, the responsibility for settling our claims of compensation for this 'NHS crime against the person', is to be foisted on to district and city councils and thence to the taxpayers who already pay substantially to the maintenance of such health services as are critical or life-threatening. Tooth decay enjoys no such status.

Copy this letter to your local councillor, or write your own; and ask for a reply, but don't accept 'fudge'. Fluoridation is illegal and cannot underpin any insurance claim or sustain a municipal or parliamentary brush-off.

Bernard J Seward

Member : National Pure Water Association, Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign, Bristolians Against Fluoridaton, Socialist Environment & Resources Association

National Fluoride Information Centre dumped

2011-05-29T11:18:00.000+01:00

The British Government's 'Fluoride Flagship' has finally had its funding pulled, supposedly as part of the National Health Service's desperate attempt to save money. Well, here's a bit of background - click on the link and read on and make up your own mind! See:
http://www.ukcaf.org/national_fluoride_information_centre_dumped_by_uk_.html

Letter to Anne Milton

2011-05-24T10:28:00.000+01:00

OK this blog has been rather neglected but we have still been meeting. Last week nine of us discussed next steps. We also reviewed the on-going correspondence with Neil Carmichael re water fluoridation - in the past he has said more research needs to be done - see here. However now in his letter he seems to imply he might support water fluoridation - we will be seeking to clarify this. In the meantime here is the follow up letter from the Safe Water Campaign via Carmichael to Anne Milton. She wrote an extraordinary and disturbing letter supporting water fluoridation - disturbing because it contained misinformation. I can't believe she has even read the York Review she quoted. Anyway here is the letter with questions to her:

Anne Milton MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary for State for Public Health
House of Commons
Westminster
London SW1A0AA

Dear Anne Milton,
Thank you very much for your response to Neil Carmichael to my letters of 1/6/10 and 6/3/11.

It would seem from your reply, if the quotations from your department’s “website” are true, that the Strategic Health Authorities (unelected bodies) have the power to ignore government policy!!
You restate that 72% of people consulted in the Southampton area were against fluoridation (after obvious careful consideration) and in the Ipsos MORI telephone consultation of 2000 people only 32% of people were in favour (with clearly no time to consider their response) which means 68% were opposed or undecided.
I find it difficult to believe that a government’s stated policies can still be overruled by an unelected S.H.A. even if the S.H.A. is following the “letter of the law” as regards consultation proceedures!!

A) Please would you let me know if when the PCT’s and the SHA’s are dissolved next year and the comissioning process will be in the hands of consortia of doctors, whether government policies on such areas as fluoridation will become an overruling factor one way or another?

B) My original letter of 1/6/10 asked what the coalition governments policy on fluoridation was going to be? I still haven’t received a definite response to this question.

In respect of the consultation process, your suggestion that “particular attention may need to be given to representative bodies such as business associations, trade unions,voluntary and consumer groups and other organisations representing groups especially affected”, would seem to me to be a type of “lobbying” which would completely negate the morality of a “public consultation” about peoples’ personal health and right to choose. There could also be possible financial implications or specific business interests?

C) I would be interested to know which groups were given “particular attention” in the Southampton consultation? Please could you tell me, or let me know where I can get this information?

You quote that over 200 million people in the UK and the USA drink fluoridated water and you state that “no ill effects have been identified” and you refer to the York Review of September 2000 which in fact does not state that they found “no evidence of any risk to overall health from fluoridation”. I would suggest that you read what the York Review actually says!!
I enclose a photocopy from “Public Health: Ethical issues” November 2007-Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which gives a reasonably unbiased picture of the pros and cons of fluoridation.
You admit in your letter that there is the danger of “dental fluorosis” and suggest that it is of “aesthetic concern” to “very few people”. The York Review puts it at 12.5% with a Medical Research Council figure as low as 3-4%.

This, even at the minimum figure of 3% ,would give a figure of 6,000,000 people with severe dental fluorosis in the UK and the USA and a mimimum additional figure of 6,000 people in the Southampton area!! I don’t think that I would dare to call that “very few people” ?

The pages I have sent show on the graph the steady decline in the incidence of d.m.f. (decayed, missing or filled teeth) in European coutries (1965-2003) in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. This would seem to suggest that fluoridation is not a major factor in dental improvement?

In an earlier paragraph in your letter you suggest that “the ideal combination for good dental health is likely to involve both drinking fluoridated water and observing good dental hygiene”. I would suggest that the ideal essential for good dental health is a sensible diet and good oral hygiene. (How about a tax on sugar?)

The first sentence of the same paragraph states that “Evidence suggests that fluoridating water is the single most effective step we can take to reduce tooth decay generally both among children and adults irrespective of personal behaviour”. There is however evidence that fluoridation merely delays tooth decay for about a year and therefore other methods of prevention are still necessary. The original supposition for benefit to teeth was also taken by observing naturally fluoridated areas.

D) In relation to childrens’ teeth, I notice that in many areas of the USA and now also in Ireland (where incidentally they are reducing the concentration of fluoride from the “optimum” level of 1ppm to 0.8ppm) they are recommending that bottle fed babies do not have their feed made up from fluoridated tap water because of the health risks. Is this policy also going to be introduced in England in areas where tap water is already fluoridated?

The “Hampshire against fluoridation” group has also questioned the Southampton PCT’s claim that “fluoridation would make A MAJOR DIFFERENCE to the teeth of adults” and have complained to the “Advertising Standards Authority”. The ASA’s scientific experts ruled that there was “no good quality evidence” to support this.

E) The York Review also suggested that there was no “good quality evidence” to support or reject “fluoridation”. I also asked in my letter of 6/3/11 whether the Southampton area “ fluoridation project” was going to be used as a long term (50 years?) experimental test bed on the effects of fluoridation? Can you please respond to this question?

Finally I would like your answers to the following additional questions-
1) If someone is given a drug to control their blood pressure, are they being given medication?
2) If someone is given asperin to reduce the risk of a stroke, are they being given medication?
3) If someone is given “fluoride” to reduce the risk of tooth decay, are they being given medication?
If in 3) above, it is not considered to be medication, then a very deadly poison, hexaflurosilisic acid is being added to peoples’ water supplies. Is this legal?

I would welcome an early response to these questions.

Yours sincerely,

Rob Mehta, Chairman,Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire

Copy of letter to MP

2011-03-07T18:36:00.001Z

At our meeting last week of the Safe Water Campaign we agreed to write to our MP again. Rob, our Chair has kindly penned the letter below. There were about 8 of us at the meeting and we also agreed a number of other letters to write and discussed the Judicial Review (see earlier blog).

06.03.11

Neil Carmichael, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Dear Neil Carmichael,

I enclose a copy of my letter of 1st June 2010 for your reference.

Since then, as you will know there has been a “judicial review “ of the South Central SHA’s decision to fluoridate much of the drinking water in the Southampton area. The decision as you will also know went in favour of the SHA.

My original letter to you asked about any revised policies as regards the fluoridation of our drinking water. I also sent the same letter to Simon Burns, the secretary of state for health. The reply from his “customer service centre” suggested that I look at the department’s website to review the government’s health strategies.

I have looked at this website but have found no mention of water fluoridation.

However I have found the following quotes on the website which would seem to indicate beyond any doubt that the current government would certainly not go against 72% of the local population in the Southampton area who were against the fluoridation of their water supplies?

The quotes are as follows-

1) Under the heading “Quick Guide to Health Care reform”

………….about half of all deaths in this country are preventable, so more needs to be done to encourage people to look after their own health by eating well and exercising more……….

2)Under the heading “What does it mean for the patient”

………….”No decision about me without me” will be the principle behind the way in which patients are treated.

3)Under the heading “What does it mean for the public”

…………..The public will be able to have more influence over what kind of health services should be available locally.

I would appreciate your comments on this in relation to fluoridation in the Southampton area, especially as it would seem to be an infringement of human rights to medicate even one person against their will? (Let alone 72% of objectors)

I have also read that the government is considering using the fluoridation project in Southampton as an experiment to test the efficacy of such a treatment? Please would you tell me if this is true? This would make the government look rather unintelligent if the powers that be are still uncertain about results after 50 years of fluoridation in the Birmingham area?

Please would you pass a copy of this letter on to Simon Burns and request that he gives a prompt reply and indicates what the government policy on fluoridation now is?

Yours sincerely,
Rob Mehta,
Chairperson,
Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire

Southampton's guinea pigs

2011-02-18T07:45:00.001Z

This article is reprinted from the great website UK Councils Against Fluoridation - it exposes the latest twist in the story of the government's plans to fluoridate Southampton:

City’s children will be used as guinea pigs in new fluoridation ‘research’ by Doug Cross

If the plan to fluoridate Southampton’s water supply goes ahead, the Department of Health (DoH) intends to use children born in the City as unwitting subjects of medical ‘research’, aimed at monitoring the effects of the project on tooth decay and dental fluorosis.

In response to a Freedom of Information request on government expenditure on fluoridation research, the DoH has just revealed its ambitions for the Southampton project;

"We are also supporting a major current research project into the extent and severity of dental fluorosis for which costs are estimated at some £700,000. . . a new fluoridation scheme would provide an excellent opportunity to undertake prospective research and we are keeping closely in touch with developments on the proposed scheme for Southampton. " (my emphasis added)

The great Southampton 'clinical experiment'.

The recent High Court hearing confirmed that an unelected quango, the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA), has the power to ignore public opinion, and impose mass medication, regardless of public opinion or consent. Now we learn that the DoH will use the next fluoridation project as a gigantic clinical experiment, and will stand by and watch what happens to the children of the City.

The Department’s cynical contempt for the concept of human rights and medical ethics is breathtaking. By refusing to accept that fluoridation is actually an illegal clinical intervention, its regulatory quango, the MHRA, condones an outrageous violation of both medicinal law and the Clinical Code of Practice that govern all experimentation on human beings.

Using the children as guinea pigs for medical research.

Even before they were aware that the the DoH intended to use their children as guinea pigs for medical research into the effects of water fluoridation, the people of Southampton had withheld their consent.

This new revelation that the DoH now plans to monitor what happens to their children as a result of this disgraceful breach of medical ethics is unlikely to result in any reversal of public opinion - quite the opposite, in fact. The SCSHA appears Hell-bent on deliberately ignoring the prohibition on unethical and improper clinical interventions and experimentation, even when carried out under the ambiguous cover of public health policy.

How long will this 'experiment' last?

If the SHA does attempt to go ahead with the project, the Health Police will then need to carry out their surveillance for at least ten years. It can take that long before some of the known adverse effects appear. But even if the trial is halted as soon as these are recognised, many children will continue to develop the delayed effects of their exposure over another decade or more.

Whilst this is the case for dental fluorosis, what would happens if it a more serious condition were to be discovered? It is here that the appalling recklessness of this 'experiment' is revealed. Take the case of osteosarcoma as an example.

Ten years ago a crucial American study found that thee is an up to eight-fold increase in the occurrence of a frequently fatal form of bone cancer, osteosarcoma in young men in their late teens. This only affects boys (but not girls) of around 5 to 8 years of age who had who lived as children in fluoridated water areas.

The study was rigorously suppressed for four years, hidden in the dusty Rare Books archive of a leading American University. But for the past ten years, frantic efforts by pro-fluoridation advocates to discredit this work have proved futile, and informed current scientific opinion is that the study was sound.

If there is indeed a risk of some boys developing fluoride-induced osteosarcoma, and the Southampton scheme goes ahead this year, no information on whether or not there will be a rise in this form of cancer will be detectable until, at the earliest, around the mid-2020s.
But even then, if the 'experiment' has to be terminated immediately, it will then take another dozen or so years - say until around 2040 - before all of the younger boys who were placed at risk by this callous experiment will be out of their teens, and can be reasonably assumed to have safely survived their exposure.

Would the City's people be warned of issues such as this if they were to be asked to vote again? Would they give their consent if they were 'fully informed', as the law on clinical research demands?

Refusing to determine the 'safety' of fluoridation.

Fluoridation has been imposed on 6 million people in England for up to half a century. Yet only now is the research on its adverse effects to be carried out. Why was it not carried out forty years ago, before the cumulative effects of other, newer sources of fluoride in our environment made it increasingly difficult to assess the health risks to the public from water fluoridation itself?

Even now, the research will be carried out on an entirely new population, putting yet more people at risk. Why is the DoH so reluctant to assess the existing damage to those who have already grown up in such areas, and in whom the results have long been all too apparent?

With its uncritical endorsement of fluoridation as 'safe and effective', the answer to this is perhaps only too obvious!

Dental fluorosis is only an indicator of other hidden damage.

Fluoridation unquestionably causes widespread medical damage; up to half of all children from such areas develop dental fluorosis. But it is only a biomarker for fluoride poisoning; it is NOT the end of the process, as proponents seek to persuade the public.

Like the canary in the mine, the presence of dental fluorosis in a community shows that both children and adults are already likely to be affected by a chronic level of fluoride poisoning. The invisible development of other, less obvious chronic disorders caused by excessive fluoride intake is gradually becoming clear.

The futility of this experiment on the children

Whatever research methodology the DoH plans to adopt for its study of the effects of this proposed clinical trial on the children of Southampton, the rigorous demands of clinical research guarantee that it will be of low quality and at best, in scientific terms, ambiguous.

It is in fact impossible to carry out a valid clinical trial of this magnitude in such a complex and confused situation, even with consent.

Without consent, it is irresponsible madness.

Is Big Brother running Mr. Cameron's 'Big Society'?

Such totalitarian behaviour is imposed by only a very few pariah States. But in Britain today, the medical establishment within Mr Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ is apparently already under the firm control of an Orwellian 'Big Brother'. Subjecting our children to medical research, especially of the most ill-conceived and incompetent kind, and entirely without consent, is a direct challenge to our autonomy as human beings.

It is a fundamental requirement in all clinical research that the patient must be able to withdraw at any time after a trial has started. But, for the children of Southampton, it seems that the rules have now been rewritten.

Once they have been exposed to fluoridated water, there will be no going back for them. They must run the gauntlet, perhaps for decades, of uncertainty and fear without the option of withdrawing their participation in this unethical experiment. That is not the way that clinical research can be permitted to operate.

Our dental public health sector and the medicines regulator are out of control. All other legitimate recourses are repeatedly blocked by the State. Now, only a judicial review of the legitimacy of the fluoridation legislation itself will abolish this obscene practice, once and for all.

SHA wins legal case but the fight goes on

2011-02-16T17:32:00.002Z

See this is an excellent and disturbing summary of the recent legal actions from Hampshire Against Fluoridation:

After nearly two years of uncertainty, the controversial decision by South Central Strategic Health Authority to fluoridate our water was examined in court. The Judicial Review sought by local Southampton resident Gerri Milner was heard at the High Court over two days last month. It wasn‘t just the SCSHA‘s decision that was in the spotlight—also questioned was the wording of the government guidance which enables health authorities to fluoridate water supplies.
Outside the High Court, London.

On Friday 11th February Justice Holman announced his judgement. Although expressing his sympathy with those opposed to having their water mass medicated, he could not uphold the claim that the SHA had acted illegally. This was because the legislation approved by Parliament gives power to Strategic Health Authorities to implement fluoridation schemes without public support. He added that all the SHA had to demonstrate was 'due regard' to public opinion. The SHA maintain it has done this despite 72% of consultation respondents who were opposed to the plans. The other ground of the claim was whether the SHA had considered the 'cogency' of the arguments against fluoridation. Again, they said they had and this was enough to satisfy the legal requirements.

The legislation enabling SHAs to override public opinion means that even if 100% of consultation respondents were against the scheme, the SHA could still go ahead! Clearly the assurances given by ministers in Parliament that local support was vital are meaningless. The ruling makes clear that the SHA is legally able to impose fluoridation on the people of Hampshire, come what may. Basically the NHS spent nearly a million pounds on a sham consultation and a legal case when it had already decided that water fluoridation would go ahead regardless. No wonder the judge was sympathetic to opponents!

For the full ruling see the following website:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/milner-south-central-strategic-health+authority

What next?

Although disappointing, the Judicial Review has meant a two-year delay in implementing the scheme for which we should be grateful to Gerri Milner for pursuing this case. The Judicial Review has highlighted the absurdity of consultation guidelines that give absolute power to SHAs to do what they like when it comes to mass-medicating local drinking water. All they have to say is 'we heard your arguments but we know better'. This gives the unelected board more power than local MPs, Councils and the many thousands of local people who objected. Not only is this unfair it is clearly undemocratic too. There are 2 obvious reasons why MPs handed total power to the SHAs:
1) they realised fluoridation was controversial and wanted someone else to take the flak
2) they hadn't read the small print and didn't know exactly what they were voting for.

There is no other situation in legislation where total control is entrusted to a non-elected body - to the point where even the MPs who passed the law are powerless to influence their decisions. It is hard to believe that most MPs who voted in favour of the Water Bill (2003) did so in the knowledge that they were denying themselves a say on the subject in future. If you are concerned by this, please write to your local MP and councillor and COMPLAIN. It is also worth writing to the SHA—the more letters they get the better.

In a statement after the ruling, the SHA said that they 'remain satisfied that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve dental health' adding that it 'will now be considering its next steps.' This is somewhat less forceful than previous statements in which they have insisted that water fluoridation would go ahead as soon as possible. Perhaps the fact that the SHA will be abolished next year now means that implementation is uncertain. With the transfer of fluoridation responsibilities to local Councils—all of whom object to the scheme— it would be absurd for the SHA to proceed. The leaders of Southampton and Hampshire Councils have vowed to fight any move by the SHA to implement the scheme.

The Judicial Review ruling does not just affect the Southampton area. Other SHAs in England may now consider it the right time to undertake their own consultations knowing that legally they too can safely ignore local opinion. As a result of the publicity surrounding the Judicial Review, HAF has received support both locally and from around the country. THE FIGHT CONTINUES.

HAF is currently considering what we can do next and already have various ideas.

SHA and PCT knew about children’s dental health improvement before Board took decision

Email correspondence between the Department of Health, SHA and PCT, referred to during the court case revealed that key SHA and Southampton PCT staff knew that the provisional results of the national survey of five year-olds dental health suggested that the decay rate had substantially improved (to 1.2dmft with 70% of children decay free) and were BETTER than the national average. The emails (obtained by Ms Milner‘s legal team) also reveal that details of the new figures were withheld from the SHA Board. This meant that their decision was based on inaccurate figures. The argument was that the survey data had to be 'cleaned' and might change.

In fact the final figures - which were also adjusted to account for non- response - were 1.13dmt with 69% of five year olds decay free. These final figures were available the following month. Given that a major argument for introducing water fluoridation was that dental health in Southampton was worse than the national average, SHA Board members and the public should have been made aware of these figures—even if they were only provisional. Right from the start of the consultation Hampshire Against Fluoridation argued that dental health was improving in Southampton - but our arguments were ignored.

Also there were concerns within the SHA about using the figure of 25% benefit as a basis for the economic analysis. Despite these concerns (and those of the analysts, HAF and HCC) the SHA consistently chose to represent the benefit as being substantial and supported by the economic analysis. But the analysts only used this figure as they were told to by the SHA. HAF was very critical of the economic analysis but our concerns were dismissed.

HAF are being given access to all the court documents obtained by the legal team and we understand that there is more interesting information yet to be revealed............

International news

CANADA: On 8th Feb Calgary City Council voted 10-3 to end 20 years of fluoridation. The combined efforts of informed council members and citizens coupled with good reporting from the Calgary Herald produced this stunning victory in a city of over one million. This follows the removal of fluoride from two other Canadian cities – Windsor and Gatineau – last year.

USA: In a surprising move last month, the US Department of Health and Human Services recommended lowering "optimal" water fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm from 1ppm (the level that is pro- posed for Southampton) to decrease the epidemic of dental fluorosis afflicting over 41% of adolescents aged 12-15. However, even at 0.7 ppm, an infant using fluoridated water will still consume up to 175 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby.

Earl Howe, UK Minister of Health responding recently to a question by Earl Baldwin in the House of Lords made the following statement: "we will be carefully considering the Department of Health and Human Services' proposals for the USA and the outcome of its consultation, to decide whether any changes should be made to the target concentration used in England."

This is what they said.....

'I think in Southampton and South Hampshire the consultation was not real' (Andrew Lansley January 2010)

'I don‘t believe that fluoridation should go ahead unless there is public support for doing so.' (John Denham MP)

'Mass fluoridation of water would leave people with no choice, and we believe that it should not be imposed by Whitehall diktat.' (Nick Clegg, March 2009)

'It is vital that local people make the choice themselves.' (Gordon Brown, January 2009)

'I have always taken the view that this is something that should be decided locally and I don‘t believe in compulsory fluoridation of water'. (David Cameron, January 2010).

'It is the Government‘s policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it can be shown that the local population is in favour.'(Department of Health, February 2009).

BUT.......... Parliament passed the legislation that enables health authorities to bypass the opinions of MPs, councillors and residents on the issue of fluoridation. The current regulations, recently upheld in the Judicial Review, MUST be scrapped and that is why pressure on MPs is so important.

Grim news: health authority was not acting unlawfully

2011-02-13T18:11:00.002Z

The High Court has ruled that South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) was not acting unlawfully in seeking to add fluoride to Southampton's tap water. Basically the court has said that the health authority was not required to defer to public opposition.

A judge rejected claims by resident Geraldine Milner that the decision-making process was "defective". Ms Milner brought the application for a judicial review, backed by local anti-fluoride campaign groups.

Other local authorities had put their fluoridation schemes on hold, pending the outcome of the case. The judge expressed sympathy for people who disagreed with fluoridation but said there was no illegality in the decision-making process. He said: "I appreciate that that will deeply disappoint Ms Milner and the many objectors in the affected area, to whose position I am sympathetic. However it is important to stress that our democratic Parliament decided long ago that water can, in certain circumstances, be fluoridated. As I have endeavoured to show, and contrary perhaps to the belief of Ms Milner and others, it is not the law that fluoridation can only occur when a majority of the local population agree. Parliament has firmly entrusted area-specific decision making to the relevant strategic health authority (SHA). This SHA have not acted unlawfully and no court can interfere with their decision."

During the hearing, Ms Milner's counsel David Wolfe had argued that residents would have "no choice" but to drink fluoridated water.

Campaign groups including the Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire, have backed the mother-of-three's case, arguing that the potential side effects range from bone cancer to thyroid problems and brown spots on the teeth.

The decision to add fluoride to water came after 72% of those who responded to public consultation opposed it, with 28% in favour. Mr Wolfe said the authority's move was contrary to government policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it could be shown that the local population was in favour.

Responding to the judgment, Geraldine Milner stated afterwards: “I am obviously disappointed. This is a grim day for justice for the people of Southampton. I am speaking with my legal team with regard to an appeal and sincerely hope to continue the fight.”

There now needs to be a decision as to whether to appeal.

Doug Cross writing in UK Councils Against Fluoridation still challenges the legality of the view saying: "Adding fluoride to the public water supply is therefore a clinical intervention. As such it would be in gross violation of medical law and clinical Codes of Practice. So in summary, therefore, water companies can be ordered to make the product - but they cannot then supply it to the public! And it is this argument that will undoubtedly now replace the entirely valid, but sadly peripheral scientific objections to this discredited practice. Already there is public despair at a ruling that appears to allow the State to dose the people with whatever substance may be in medical fashion, in arrogant disregard of the wishes of the people."

But this judgment does NOT endorse the continuation of the practice of water fluoridation. It merely establishes that the government has given a legitimate power to SHAs to order water suppliers to make a medicinal product. In does NOT permit the product to be used in the mass medication of the public."

The balance of public opinion around the world has already started to swing against water fluoridation, as witnessed by events in the USA, Canada and elsewhere in the past month. This form of State-sponsored clinical malpractice is rapidly coming to an end - this judgment merely ensures that far more pressure will now be exerted to force its long-overdue demise."

Topical application of fluoride report

2011-01-30T16:12:00.002Z

The benefits of topical application of fluoride is highly questionable. A new study has found that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. This raises questions about how this renowned cavity-fighter really works. See report here along with Paul Connett talking about fluoride in tap water.

Still no decision

2011-01-23T22:39:00.003Z

We are still waiting a decision on the Judicial Review - see here comments made by Southampton campaigners.

Photo: map taken from BBC Hampshire and Isle of Wight here

As regular readers of this blog will know the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) believes water fluoridation will improve dental health - they gave the go-ahead despite a public consultation showing 72% opposed the idea and the evidence that water fluoridation has many possible health risks.

The judicial review will decide if SCSHA properly considered the views but it seems no decision yet.

Judicial Review days away

2011-01-14T22:48:00.000Z

The Judicial Review re water fluoridation is coming up. It would be good for as many people to attend as possible.

19th and 20th January at 10.30am Royal Courts of Justice (High Court) on the Strand, London. Public are able to attend. There will be a group demonstration at 9.45 outside the court on Wednesday 19th January

South Glos say no?

2010-12-10T18:42:00.001Z

Comment from one of our Safe Water Campaign members:

Although I have not yet seen the printed document to confirm, I am reliably assured that the Director of Public Health for South Gloucestershire and his PCT (or equivalent) has decided against applying for a 'technical feasibility study', the normal opening round to engage with the water supplier in a prospective fluoridation scheme.

This means that as one of the four unitary authorities comprising CUBA (Counties that used to be Avon), he has effectively put the monty python foot on the whole scheme for 'Avon'.

Bristol Bath and North East Somerset North Somerset and South Gloucestershire will therefore be free from ideological, political and chemical interference by all pro-fluoridation propagandists. Somebody should propose a deafening round of applause; but for those members of the dental profession who have been heard to lament the dental health prospects for underprivileged children, they should now read all the background evidence that the NHS has suppressed and ask themselves whether the more appropriate Plan B of the Scottish pattern (or a better one), would safeguard young teeth, irrespective of the earnings potential of the pseudo-treatment of fluorosis and hypothyroidism. These are but two of the menu of serious side-effects of fluoride exposure, formerly dismissed, by many of those whom we have elected to govern us, as 'silly scare stories'

Another letter in Western Daily

2010-12-04T22:07:00.000Z

This letter was published last week in the Western Daily Press.
_______________________________________________________________

It was interesting to read of a possible solution to Alzheimer's Disease, discovered in the USA, with the assistance of laboratory rats. This could be the breakthrough for which we've all been waiting in the quest to defeat this distressing condition.

But, quick off the mark, we have experts predicting a prolonged delay in transferring the research to humans. While being aware that tests for human medical treatment need to be conducted rigorously, isn't it just possible that the experts (some of them, at least), are self-interested specialists whose careers depend upon the continuity of AD?

If this sounds cynical, let's look again at the work of Dr Phyllis Mullenix PhD of Boston, Massachusetts. Working in the 60s at the Forsyth Dental Institute, she established beyond doubt that artificially fluoridated water seriously compromises brain development, even in unborn children.

Actually, her research brief was to have confirmed that fluoride was as safe as was generally thought, so the results she obtained were unexpected and quite astonishing. Her discovery should, in the ethics of good science and good medicine, have rung alarm bells all over the USA.

Was she acclaimed and honoured for her important discovery? No; she was fired. Not only that,
her records, notes, tapes, etc were 'mysteriously' damaged but having had the foresight to publish her work before the dead hand of self-interest intervened, we have, on international record, an 'inconvenient truth'; one of many such scientific embarrassments which our Department of Health has made it its business to ignore in its unethical, illogical and illegal pursuit of 'fluoridation for all'

Let us hope our Alzheimers patients get a better deal.

Bernard J Seward

Video of Southampton 2009 meeting

2010-10-20T00:05:00.003+01:00

Film taken back in February 2009 shows the hearing where the evidence for and against fluoridation was discussed - and the South Central Strategic Health Authority came to their unanimous decision including the chairman to fluoridate Southampton. It ended in uproar from the audience who were mainly opposed. During the three month consultation 72% of those who responded voted no.

As noted on this blog in January 2011 a Judicial Review will decide if the consultation result is upheld so no further work to implement fluoridation has proceeded. In 2012 the Strategic Health Authority itself will be abolished and future fluoridation schemes will be decided by democratic Councils.

SCSHA when they ignored the wishes of the people and voted in fluoridation - see them at: http://hafvideos.blogspot.com/

As the blog site notes it is quite interesting for instance one member who supposedly had studied the evidence over the 3 months asked such a naive question as to whether fluorosis is permanent!

Waiting for Judicial Review

2010-10-14T14:31:00.003+01:00

Many of us are waiting for the Judicial Review re Southampton which is now to be heard in full on 19th & 20th January in London. This decision will have huge implications. If water fluoridation goes ahead there it opens the door to more attempts to fluoridate more of our water.

The Telegraph and Argus report that the 'Fluoride study first phase should be done by end of year'. The results of this study will look to see if fluoridation is technically possible and how much it would cost. This could also influence decisions.

Meanwhile the UK Councils Against Fluoridation website has been updated: www.ukcaf.org. A new entry is the letter to the EU Commissioner to enforce medicinal law on water fluoridation chemicals.

There are also very real concerns that the abolition of SHA's and PCT's and who will then take the decisions on fluoridation. Would local authorities have a role? If so there are issues like:
1. Local authorities do not employ doctors, toxicologists and other experts in the medical field.
2. It is not legal for an unqualified person such as a councillor to prescribe medication.
3. To take such a responsibility would mean that councillors would each have to have extensive personal liability insurance.

Safety of fluoridation questionned by EU

2010-10-01T15:19:00.000+01:00

Safety of Water Fluoridation Questioned by EU Scientific Committee on Health Risks. The latest issue of Hampshire Against Fluoridation's newsletter reports that:

Water fluoridation has been described as 'a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage‘.

This is the opinion of the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) contained in a recent report on the scientific evidence on water fluoridation. Their report also concludes that: 'There is no obvious advantage in favour of water fluoridation compared to topical application which is the most effective method for prevention of tooth decay’.

These and other aspects of water fluoridation‘s safety were discussed at a special hearing in Brussels on 17th September. Hampshire Against Fluoridation‘s chairman, Stephen Peckham (husband of Anna who came recently to Stroud to share their campaigning experiences), was one of a number of international scientists, health and environmental campaigners who presented detailed evidence of the adverse effects of adding fluoride to drinking water.

The Committee‘s findings directly challenge the SHA‘s claim that fluoridation is ―safe and effective. While the SHA continues to promote 1ppm as an ̳optimum level‘ of fluoride in water, the Scientific Committee concluded that in areas where water contains fluoride at concentrations over 0.8ppm, chil- dren under 12 years will exceed the upper limits for fluoride ingestion. Stephen Peckham said: 'As Hampshire Against Fluoridation has always argued, the SHA have not properly considered the evidence. This timely scientific review demonstrates that water fluoridation will expose children to excess levels of fluoride. It is shocking that the SHA are ignoring this evidence.'

Over-exposure to fluoride in the UK and Eire was a key concern. Despite the SHA and PCT brushing-off such concerns, the EU Scientific Committee took very seri- ously the problem of excess ingestion, argu- ing that there is an urgent need for further research. They were particularly worried about bone cancer in young boys – a concern dismissed by the SHA in their consultation document. At the hearing, Professor, Stephen Peckham and John Graham.

Vyvyan Howard, a leading international researcher in molecular bioscience at the University of Ulster, argued that if regulatory approval for fluoridation chemicals was being sought today based on the data presented to the hearing by SCHER, the chances of obtaining it were extremely remote.

US based Ellen and Paul Connett from the Fluoride Action Network and Dr Ziegelbecker from Austria joined representatives from the National Pure Water Association, HAF, VOICE of Concern for the Irish Environment, Dr Jennifer Luke and Professor Vyvyan Howard. Also in attendance were a leading supplier of fluoride toothpastes in Europe and the Spanish company producing and supplying fluorosili- cates to Ireland. The only UK pro-fluoridation attendees were the chairman of the British Fluoridation Society and a representative of UK dental associations. No Department of Health or NHS representative attended despite their strong support for water fluoridation!

You can download a copy of the Scientific Committee‘s Preliminary Opinion on water fluoridation here.

The Case Against Fluoride

2010-09-30T15:12:00.002+01:00

A new book by Paul Connett is out - that is the same Paul Connett who is helping us fight the plans for an incinerator in Gloucestershire - See FoE email campaign here against incineration and my report re the Paul Connett evening here. A member of our Glos Safe Water Campaign also recently went down to hear Paul talk in Southampton (see left). You can see a video of that talk here. Anyway to the new book....

For the past 60 years, millions of people have unwittingly participated in a public health experiment using water fluoridation to reduce dental disease. But in a recently published book, this experiment is declared a failure. The Case Against Fluoride: how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there , Professors Connett, Beck and Micklem summarise the historical, political, ethical, toxicological, and epidemiological scientific data behind water fluoridation. The book concludes that, if proposed today, fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay would stand virtually no chance of being adopted, given the current status of scientific knowledge.

The Case Against Fluoride is an incisive, research-driven indictment of the government-sponsored practice of adding toxic chemicals to public drinking supplies. The authors examine mounting evidence that fluoridated water is unsafe to drink, wreaking havoc on the human body – affecting the brain, endocrine system, bones and kidneys.

The book reexamines the justifications for fluoride and finds a shocking lack of evidence that fluori- dated water has any proven dental or health benefits. After concluding that the risks far outweigh the benefits, the authors turn their attention to why this practice continues. Their investigation leads them – not surprisingly – to powerful corporate interests benefiting from these programs and professional organisations unwilling to change past endorsements. The book is very readable and packed with detailed information about the evidence on water fluoridation and the politics of fluoridation policy. While mainly focused on the USA, there are references to Southampton and the current fight locally to keep fluoride out of our water.

The authors:

Dr Paul Connett is the Director of the Fluoride Action Network. He holds a BS (Honours) degree from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in chemistry from Dartmouth College and is an Emeritus Profes- sor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University, Canton, NY, where his areas of expertise were environmental chemistry and toxicology.

Dr James S Beck is a Professor Emeritus of Medi- cal Biophysics at the University of Calgary and holds doctorates in medicine from Washington University School of Medicine and biophysics from the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley.

Dr H Spedding Micklem is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. He holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford.

Order your copy from OCTOBER BOOKS 243 Portswood Road, Southampton, SO17 2NG
Telephone: 023 8058 1030 Web www.octoberbooks.org Email info@octoberbooks.org

Keep complaining ......

2010-09-30T15:10:00.001+01:00

We have continued to meet monthly...It is important that we keep up the pressure on the SHA — by April 2012 they will be abolished and re- sponsibility for fluoridation will pass to local councils (all of whom have objected to the decision). Despite this, the SHA is continuing to contest the Judicial Review, which will be held on 19th and 20th January 2011 — at a cost of £400,000.

If you are unhappy about the decision made to fluoridate Hampshire's drinking water, there are a number of effective ways you can complain. Governments have reassured us that fluoridation will only be implemented where there is strong local support. This did not happened in the Southampton area. 72% of the 2008 consultation respondents opposed water fluoridation. Write to Dr Harris the Chairman or Andrea Young the Chief Executive.

It is also really worth complaining to the Health Ombusdman but this has to be done in two stages: Write a letter of complaint to the South Central Strategic Health Authority outlining why you are unhappy with the decision and what you feel they did wrong. You may do this by email if more convenient.

Wait until you receive a reply, then if you are not satisfied, you can complain to the Parliamentary & Health Ombudsman by writing to your MP and asking them to pass on your complaint. Again, specify why you are unhappy, what you feel was wrong with the consultation and decision and what you feel should be done now.

Southern Central Strategic Health Authority
Rivergate House Newbury Business Park London Road Newbury RG14 2PZ http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/

Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman For further information see their website: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Join Your Freedom debate

2010-07-03T23:18:00.002+01:00

Below is the contribution submitted by Doug Cross to the new 'Your freedom' consultation by the new coalition government on the removal of unwanted legislation. You can join the debate and add your comments.

The topic is 'Remove fluoride from the national water supply' - http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/@@search?text=fluoridation, and this comment is published at http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/remove-flouride-from-the-national-water-supply

Please go to this location and support the proposal - you will need to register (very simple) - once you have done so you can comment and vote for proposals. At the moment there are very few comments and votes against fluoridation, so we need as many votes as possible.

Doug's comment:

Repeal all legislation permitting or regulating water fluoridation

Water fluoridation is a medicinal intervention aimed at the prevention of dental caries. It therefore employs a medicinal product - fluoridated water - that is subject to regulation under the Medicines Act 1968 as amended. In fact the Regulator (MHRA) persistently and perversely refuses to comply with its statutory duty to subject fluoridated water to the mandatorystrict regulation applied to all other pharmacological products, despite the clear decision of Lord Jauncey in 1983 that it is subject to s130 of the Medicines Act.

Scale of the defective legislation on fluoridation.

The Water Fluoridation Act 1985 was reinforced by the fluoridation provisions of Chapter IV of the Water Act 1991. Subsequently this was again strengthened by Section 58 of the Water Act 2003, which for the first time gave Strategic Health Authorities the power to order water undertakers to fluoridate their product. There have been numerous additional Statutory Instruments dealing with aspects of fluoridation since then, covering the prospective future imposition of fluoridation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Particularly controversially, shemes that were in operation before 1985 have been given retrospective protection against legal challenges and are regulated identically to new projects.

Supremacy of medicinal law.

As a medicinal intervention, fluoridation must be regulated solely under medicinal legislation. Since this pre-dates the fluoridation legislation, the latter is in breach of pre-existing and superior legislation. In addition, medicinal law takes precedence over food law . The 2005 ruling of the European Court of Justice re Warenvertriebs and Orthica dealt with the regulation of the class of products that include ‘near-water drinks with added minerals’. The Court stated that all such products must be regulated solely under medicinal legislation, and the rulings of the Court must be implemented in English law.

As a ‘medicinal water’ therefore, the provisions of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 do not apply to fluoridated water. In addition, the use of medicinal waters in the processing of foods is prohibited under the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995, reinforced by the ECJ ruling on functional drinks.

The supply of fluoridated water to the public, except in bottled form and with a relevant medicinal product licence, and its use in any commercial production of processed foods, is therefore unlawful. All existing fluoridation legislation must be declared incompatible with both European and English law regarding medicinal interventions and medicinal products, and with food safety legislation, and repealed as quickly as possible.

Liability of suppliers of fluoridated water.

The indemnity offered by the government to water undertakers against liability for civil claims applies both to new and pre-existing schemes. In the case of the latter, water undertakers have been aware for years that the fluoridation legislation under which they continue to operate is in violation of medicinal legislation, since I released and distributed my analysis of the relevant legislation in 2000. They should have instructed their legal advisers to challenge the government’s fluoridation legislation, with the objective of reducing their liability for the medical damage caused to the public by their product. Since they did not do so, their legal position must be subject to scrutiny, and the government’s improper offer of indemnity abolished.

Fortunately, public opposition to fluoridation has prevented any new schemes from being implemented since the 2003 Act was passed, so water undertakers who have not yet complied with orders to fluoridate their product are not yet liable for any consequential damages that would have occured should thay have done so. However, water undertakers operating existing schemes may supply fluoridated water to presently unfluoridated areas in the event of an emergency (such as the current drought in Cumbria), and may do so without public consultation or consent. This facility must be abolished immediately - if such emergencies occur, water undertakers must be ordered to stop fluoridating their product for the duration, pending repeal of the existing fluoridation legislation under which they currently operate.

For a full explanation of the issues involved, see

A review of the status of water fluoridation within the European Community. http://www.ukcaf.org/files/legal_analysis_of_fluoridation_in_eu_-_updated_14t.pdf

The implications of the European Court of Justice decision on the regulation of 'functional drinks' with regard to the practice of water fluoridation. http://www.ukcaf.org/files/ecj_ruling_on_functional_foods.pdf

The application of human rights legislation to the practice of water fluoridation. http://www.ukcaf.org/files/human_rights_and_fluoridation.pdf

Letter to Daily Telegraph

2010-06-15T17:08:00.000+01:00

This is a follow up to today's letter from a chap in Essex commenting on the inability of farmers to remove and bury dead lambs from scavenge by eagles.

To: Daily Telegraph
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:05 AM
Subject: EU Regulations

If EU regulations oblige us to dispose of dead farm animals only in licensed facilities,
whatever happened to the earlier EEC regulations requiring fertiliser, glass and aluminium
manufacturing wastes to be treated likewise?

It does contrast rather grotesquely with our NHS enthusiastically endorsing their addition
to our drinking water supplies in the name of public (dental) health.

We, the public, must say no to fluoridation without equivocation.

Bernard J Seward
Member : Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Letter to new Government

2010-06-13T18:22:00.001+01:00

Letter sent to new Coalition Government health ministers and our local MP: Andrew Lansley, Earl Howe, Paul Burston, Simon Burns, Anne Milton and Neil Carmichael.

Rob Mehta (Chair)
“Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire”
Stroud

Dear

The previous government’s water bill of 2003 allowed for the fluoridation of public water supplies to be implemented on the request of a Primary Care Trust (P.C.T.) to the appropriate Strategic Health Authority (S.H.A.) , if after a ” Public Consultation” the S.H.A ruled in favour. Strict guidelines are laid down for public consultation which include a fair presentation of both sides of the arguments.

As you will know the South Central Strategic Health Authority voted unanimously to fluoridate the drinking water of parts of Southampton and South Hampshire, even after 72% of consultation responses from 10,000 people were against fluoridation.

The glossy brochure issued by NHS South Central , even after some modification following protests of strong bias in favour of fluoridation from the “Hampshire against Fluoridation” (H.A.F.) group, still contained bias and major errors in critical areas such as the decayed ,missing, or filled teeth (d.m.f.), quoted as 1.76 for the average 5 year old in Southampton, compared to the national average of 1.47 teeth. The NHS Dental Epidemiology Programme for England Oral Health Survey for 5 year old children 2007/2008 showed the d.m.f. in Southampton to be on a par with the “national average”. The suggested costing was also found to have been underestimated. The ultimate devaluation of the brochure was on page 3 paragraph 1.7 which stated “This document……sets out all the facts about fluoridation”.

The chief dental officer of the previous government issued documents strongly recommending P.C.T.’s to push for the fluoridation of water supplies and the then government was prepared to spend millions of pounds on implementing this.

This policy of enforced medication of the population we consider to be morally indefensible and in no way in keeping with a modern democratic country.

We warmly welcome the move of the new coalition government towards greater individual freedom and responsibility and given the increasing volume of evidence of the harmful effects of fluoridation, we would be very interested to hear what revised policies or changes in the law you are proposing in this important area of public health?

Yours sincerely,

Rob Mehta

Icelandic Volcanic Ash Poses Fluoride Contamination Risk

2010-05-21T19:47:00.002+01:00

Healthier Life website has an article on the volcanic ash:

We’ve all heard the news and some of us may even have been affected by the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland. Yet, most people probably remain unaware that fluoride, from the volcanic ash, has been identified as posing a big risk to human and animal health...

This threat comes from the fluoride, in volcanic ash, contaminating our drinking water and as a result of animals, such as cattle and sheep, consuming ash deposited on grass and soil. With the volcano erupting a second time in a month there are fears that this risk may be bigger than first thought.

See rest of article here.

Write to Clegg re water fluoridation

2010-05-21T13:38:00.002+01:00

West Midlands Against Fluoridation have the following statement on their website: Following Nick Clegg's speech in the House of Commons (19th May), there is light on the horizon! The first thing that has to be done is for all anti-fluoridationists to write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking his team to consider the repealing of Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 along with two other dependent pieces of legislation. The reason for this request will be apparent to all anti-fluoridationists but in order to make it easy for those less clued up on the legislative aspects, a suggested letter is attached as a link.

Comment on new government

2010-05-21T13:35:00.002+01:00

Bernard Seward writes:

Gerri Peev, writing in the Daily Mail Wednesday 19th : Our reforms will roll back the Big Brother state, pledges Clegg: "It is time for a wholesale 'big bang' approach to political reform. This Government is going to transform our politics over the state." The Government ..." will be proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state. We will do something no government ever has: We will ask you which laws you think should go."

In view of an earlier statement by Mr Clegg concerning his intolerance of 'mass medication' dare we hope at last for a glorious sunset of the practice of mass fluoridation of our water supplies? Sold to us originally with dollar-funding by the US to justify a procedural convenience in the fly-tipping of a dangerous military waste chemical, its accompanying pseudo science has become the gospel of dental health in an untested, unproven and formerly illegal travesty of medical ethics.

Knowing this, tens of thousands of Southampton citizens, and its councillors, voted recently against having fluoride added to its tap water supplies, but a dozen members of its Strategic Health Authority overturned the vote by deciding unanimously in favour of it; and this was the outcome of a so-called public consultation, also funded by the NHS.

Would it be that they were frightened of their own status being threatened since Professor Michael Lennon of the state-funded British Fluoridation Society had said, "When all is said and done, I shall expect members to stand tall to their social responsibilities and to vote this through against the opposition..." Spoken like a war-time POW camp commandant with just about as much regard for individual human rights. The Nanny State has spoken - again!

It will be interesting to see where Labour leadership candidate Andy (pro-fluoride) Burnham MP stands on this, if or when the screws go on.

Bernard J Seward,

Lifetime fluoridation researcher
Member : National Pure Water Association.
Bristolians Against Fluoridation
Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Council Leader assures debate on water fluoridation

2010-04-19T16:18:00.002+01:00

Frances Roden, leader of Stroud District Council, in her reply to Rob Mehta, chair of the "Safe Water campaign for Gloucestershire", on questions about the dangerous effects of fluoridation, stated that if ever fluoridation of our water supplies in this area was proposed, the SDC would "consider their response very carefully".

Legally, the public have to be consulted before a Strategic Health Authority can require a water company to fluoridate water supplies and Frances Roden agreed that this would appear to strengthen the power of the SHA. In the Southampton area fluoridation has been proposed and now approved despite the fact that 72% of the population expressed opinions against fluoridation in the consultation process.

Rob Mehta, chair of "Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire", said:"We welcome the commitment by Frances Roden for a future debate if Stroud is threatened by water fluoridation and are confident that the local population will reject it when they understand what it means".

Frances also confirmed that at present there is no intention by the local PCT to request fluoridation of our water supplies.

Rob Mehta. chair of "Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire", said "Fluoridation is a government measure intended to try to reduce decay in children's teeth. Its main basis was the "York Review" of 2000 which suggested an improvement after fluoridation of about 15% {shown by some studies to be merely a delay of decay by about a year} but also admitting to 12% dental fluorosis {a psychologically disturbing discolouration of the teeth} serious enough to require expensive cosmetic treatment. There is also much evidence to suggest that fluoridation can have dangerous effects, especially to babies via bottle feeding. We should also have the human right to decide what medication we take into our bodies".

Rob Mehta added "Water fluoridation amounts to mass medication without consent".

All fifty one members of the SDC were circulated by the "Safe Water Campaign" with a number of disturbing questions about fluoridation.

Of the twelve replies received , 6 were from the Green Party, 4 from the Conservative Party, 2 from the Liberal Democrats, 0 from the Labour Party and 0 from independent councillors.
Nine of the twelve responses were against fluoridation including all Green Party members, whilst the other three councillors would like further investigation and discussion.

Rob Mehta, Chair, Safe Water Campaign, 47 Bisley Old Road, Stroud, GL5 1LY

BDA election nonsense

2010-04-04T14:30:00.002+01:00

The British Dental Association has come out with their manifesto - see below the section that repeats much nonsense about fluoride eg:

- about Manchester and Birmingham - in fact the best areas for tooth health in the UK are not fluoridated at all. The quote by BDA is also misleading as it does not take into account for instance the greater expenditure on dental care in the Birmingham area, not does it quote the age range of the sample of children chosen. The longer term effects of fluoridation may not be visible immediately. Even the Government's own review says the evidence is not conclusive.

- the so-called consultation they mentioned ignored the vast majority of people - thousands of people and Councils clearly stated they didn't want fluoride added - indeed 72% of the people who responded to the public consultation on the Southampton scheme opposed it - how can they say it gained much local support? I'm afraid that is a bare faced lie.

- lastly they talk about recognising the benefits - again the Government's own review says more research is needed. Chair, Professor Sheldon, stated that "the review did not show water fluoridation to be safe".

I wont repeat all the arguments here suffice to say the BDA are one again spinning their nonsense.

5. Stop the rot: harness the potential of fluoride to prevent tooth decay Fluoridated water has the potential to reduce significantly the number of children in the UK who needlessly suffer tooth decay. Two areas of Britain, the West Midlands and some of the East Coast, already enjoy the benefit of fluoride in their water supplies. In non-fluoridated Manchester, five-year-old children suffer approximately three times as much tooth decay as their peers in Birmingham. The Water Act in 2003 recognised the positive contribution fluoride makes to improving dental health, placing the onus on water companies to fluoridate their water supplies where local consultation supported the implementation of the measure. In 2008 South Central Strategic Health Authority carried out consultations on proposals to introduce fluoride to water supplies in Southampton and South West Hampshire. Despite gaining much local support, progress on the proposal stalled, pending a judicial review of the decision. The government that is elected in 2010 must recognise the contribution fluoride makes to preventing tooth decay, pledge to support strategic health authorities who wish to consult their residents on proposals to introduce fluoridation, and back evidence-based, targeted schemes such as fluoride varnishing.

Launch of Fluoride Analysis and Database Service

2010-03-23T19:05:00.001Z

Have you ever wondered if there's fluoride in your favourite bottled water, wine, tea, beer, cider, etc? A new Fluoride Testing Service for the UK and Ireland which is hosted by West Midlands Against Fluoridation begins now. See here:
www.wmaf.org.uk/index.php?content=content&parent=41&read=41&keyword=

Green Leader challenges others on water fluoridation

2010-03-10T23:38:00.003Z

This news release went out today.

OPPOSITION PARTIES CHALLENGED BY SOUTHAMPTON’S GREEN EURO-MP ON WATER FLUORIDATION PLAN

Caroline Lucas MEP has written to the health spokespeople of the two Opposition parties demanding to know whether or not they would scrap the plan to fluoridate Southampton’s drinking water when most of the people affected oppose it.

In her letter to Tory Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, the Green Euro-MP for Hampshire and the South East said: “During a recent visit to Hampshire, your leader, David Cameron, was reported as saying that ‘I have always taken the view that [fluoridation] is something that should be decided locally and I don't believe in compulsory fluoridation of water…In the last vote we had, I think I voted against that idea. But if there is a local process in place and a local decision can be made, I think that seems a fair way of doing it’.

“Given that 72% of the people who responded to the public consultation on the Southampton scheme opposed it, I would like to know whether or not your Party would allow this scheme to go ahead regardless of the controversy.”

Sandra Gidley, Shadow Health Minister for the Liberal Democrats, is also put on the spot about the issue.

Caroline Lucas and the Green Party have led opposition to drinking water fluoridation, warning that it amounts to mass medication without consent. Lucas says:

“The science is simply not good enough yet to feel confident about putting this chemical into drinking water supplies, leaving a whole population exposed to it – including babies and the unborn. The Strategic Health Authority (SHA) itself acknowledges that the scheme could lead to an increase in dental fluorosis in children. Further health effects are also a major concern.”

Notes to Editors

1. The water fluoridation scheme will supply approximately 195,000 residents with fluoridated water. The areas that will receive fluoridated water are: Central Southampton, Lordshill, Freemantle, Polygon, Totton, parts of Eastleigh, Weston, Shirley, Portswood, St Denys, Netley, Aldermoor, Millbrook, Bassett and Woolston. See http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/fluoridation/

2. Hampshire MPs’ opinions on the issue: The two Labour MPs in Southampton, Alan Whitehead and John Denham, are in favour of fluoridation, when the public consent issue is resolved. Julian Lewis, Conservative MP (New Forest), is strongly against, and the two Liberal Democrat MPs, Sandra Gidley (Romsey) and Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) are also against fluoridation.

Greens dental policy rejects water fluoridation

2010-03-01T07:01:00.002Z

Greens later today will launch their dental health policy for the general election - this is some of their press release stuff below - as yet no other political party has specifically rejected water fluoridation.

Fair, free and effective: Green Party proposals for the dental health service

On Monday 1 March the Green Party will launch a dental health policy which the Greens believe will enjoy widespread public support and boost the party’s hopes of a general election breakthrough.

The Greens are committed to the founding principles of the NHS – including free dental healthcare, which they say could be provided for an extra £1.8 billion a year.

A party spokesperson said today, “£1.8 billion a year is a trifling sum for a huge improvement in Britain’s dental health service. Everyone who wants one should have access to an NHS dentist, and we must end the scandal of British children in the twenty-first century suffering the pain and misery that come with poor teeth.”

The Greens dismiss water fluoridation as a “cheap, tacky, sticking plaster solution with side-effects.” They say that “mass medication of doubtful efficacy and potential side-effects is no substitute for a proper dental healthcare strategy. We need to be teaching new parents how to look after their toddlers’ teeth, and teaching young children from nursery onwards all about how to look after their own teeth properly.

“And in addition, we need everyone to have access to the right professional support, which means guaranteeing free access to an NHS dentist for everyone who wants it.”

A summary of the new briefing to be launched on Monday is below. Full copies of the briefing, and advance copies of the Green Party’s full 2010 general election briefing on health, are available from the press office: press (at) greenparty.org.uk

Summary of: Fair, free and effective: Green Party proposals for the dental health service

1. Currently, only half the UK population is provided with free dental healthcare. NHS dentistry charges are a regressive tax: they hit the poor hardest and prevent many from accessing dental care.

2. Access to dentists should not depend on where you live. But getting access to an NHS dentist is difficult and there is wide variation across the country:

• Between 55% and 60% of NHS practices are not taking new NHS patients.
• Some Primary Care Trusts have no NHS dentists taking on new patients.
· Most areas have around 55 dentists per 100,000 people. But some have as few as 25, while others have over 100.

3. Less than half of the UK adult population and only around two thirds of children are visiting NHS dentists. The percentage of children who have visited NHS dentists within the previous 24 months has fallen in recent years – a worrying sign.

4. Some areas have opted for the addition of fluoridation chemicals to tap water in a bid improve dental health. The Green Party says:

· The use of fluoridated water to improve dental health is not a viable solution – it’s more like “sticking plaster with side effects”.
· Any (slight) benefit from fluoride in drinking water has to be weighed against the increased risk of osteosarcoma and dental fluorosis.
· Mass medication may breach the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – it’s unethical to medicate people without their consent.
· The use of fluoridation demonstrates a failure to tackle the underlying problems of dental health provision.

5. The Green Party wants:

· Free basic dental care available to all.
· Everyone to have access to an NHS dentist if they want one.
· An end to fluoridation of our tap water.
· A comprehensive dental health strategy including proper education for children and their parents.

6. Assuming that some people will wish to remain private, to provide free dental care to 75% of the population would only cost the NHS an extra £1.8 billion a year.

Letter to Western Daily Press

2010-02-26T23:17:00.001Z

Cristal Sumner, CEO of the British Homeopathic Society, says there is plenty of evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic treatment..."with 100 randomised controlled trials; and many more on outcome responses which reflect on how patients feel."

By contrast, there has never been any randomised controlled trials underpinning the claimed benefits of adding poisonous waste fluorosilicate compounds (fluorides) indiscriminately to our drinking water.

Nevertheless, our Secretary of State for Health, and many others before him holding that office, have enthusiastically endorsed the practice.

Bernard J Seward

Restore real democratic accountability

2010-02-23T16:01:00.000Z

Letter to the Daily Telegraph:

Mr Clarence Barrett, writing in support of the restoration of real democratic accountability, says "...it is vital that those who are making decisions which affect communities are those elected by the people and not publicly-funded employees with no such mandate."

Well said, Mr Barrett; and I can think of no example, better fitted to illustrate your point, than that of the Strategic Health Authority members in Hampshire, all twelve of them, who voted unanimously that the people of Southampton should have the toxic compound 'fluoride' added to their tap water when a petition and a poll had accumulated a community resistance vote in excess of 20 thousand.

Bernard J Seward

Blackburn hairdresser prompts letter to press

2010-02-09T23:18:00.001Z

Letter to the Daily Telegraph:

Here's an interesting dichotomy!

For forty years, a Blackburn mens' hairdresser has been recycling his salon's floor sweepings as compostable material for his own garden.

I would certainly endorse the benefits, though with dog hair extracted from our vacuum cleaner.

The Blackburn barber has now been told he is in breach of the law which classifies discarded hair locks as trade waste, to be carted off by the local council to landfill.

By what law is the trade waste from phosphate fertiliser manufacture H2SiF6, a compound containing traces of heavy metals, corrosives and radionuclides, classified as being suitable
for addition to our public water supplies, with the approval of health authorities succumbing to UK NHS pressure to establish fluoridation schemes?

Bernard J Seward
Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Formal request to Health Service Ombudsman

2010-02-01T18:31:00.002Z

Here is a letter we recently sent to David Drew MP based on a letter by other campaigners:

Dear Mr Drew,

Water Fluoridation In England

I am asking is that you forward this letter on to the Health Service Ombudsman with a formal request, as an MP, to investigate this matter.

“The Medicines Directive was enacted in the EU in 1965, and transcribed into English law in 1968. The 1968 Medicines Act has been in full force for the last 41 years, and makes it a criminal offence to place on the market any product that either has specific pharmacological effects or that is 'presented' as having such effects unless it has a licence. Subsequent European Court of Justice rulings have made it utterly unambiguous that 'presented' includes describing the product in such a way that 'the averagely intelligent person gains the impression that the product has medicinal properties’. Therefore, claiming that fluoride - in any form - prevents tooth decay, renders all such products marketed with the intent of giving the public that impression as being medicinal products are subject to licensing. All brands of fluoridated toothpaste are required to have (and do have) medicinal licences.

The 2005 European Court of Justice ruling on functional drinks dealt with all drinks, including 'near-water drinks with added minerals', that appear to be both nutritious (foods) and medicinal. As explained above, 'medicinal' includes medicinal by function and/or by presentation. The ECJ has already ruled that a product may be medicinal by presentation even if it is generally regarded as a food, and even if it has no known medicinal properties. So it is entirely irrelevant whether fluoridation is actually effective or not - the very act of claiming that it is medicinally effective makes it sufficient to require the MHRA to carry out the relevant licensing procedure, and if the product does not meet the required standards of safety and efficacy, ban its supply to the public.

The MHRA attempts to divert scrutiny of the 2005 ECJ ruling by claiming that it only applies to products that are completely medicinal by function. It thereby implies that the functional drink ruling applies only to drinks that have a specific physiological, or 'functional' effect (which of course is the reason for adding fluoride in the first place. This appears to be an ‘own goal’.

This is quite wrong: the MHRA is trying to confuse the unfortunate use of the description 'functional'. A drink may be 'functional' not merely because it has a specific physiological 'function', but also because it is medicinal by presentation. So the 2005 ECJ ruling must apply to fluoridated water, since it covers all drinks that appear to fall under two sets of law, one of which is medicinal.

The MHRA persists in claiming that this product is not a medicine. Even if this were true, it is still way out of its depth and legally incompetent. There are only two classes of consumable products – foods and medicines – with poisons being legally classified as non-consumable products. Whilst it is possible to drink a product such as bleach, it is emphatically neither a drink nor 'consumable'. So the MHRA's position is that if fluoridated water is not a medicine then it must come under the food regulations, and should be controlled under the Drinking Water Quality Regulations.

No. It is a criminal offence to make any medicinal claim for a food (including additives and minerals) and if any medicinal claim is made for a food (and this also includes food supplements), then the seller must be prosecuted under the Food Safety Regulations.

In a prosecution on Wednesday, 5 February, 2003, a healer was fined over medicinal claims http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2729123.stm

A businessman who sold products claiming to cure diseases such as arthritis and cancer has been fined £2,000.. Spiritual healer Ian Perkins, 56, from Hammersmith, west London, admitted 14 charges under the Food Safety Act and one charge of breaching the 1939 Cancer Act. He was charged under food labelling regulations for not complying with the proper checks on any food claiming to have medicinal properties. Swindon Magistrate's Court heard how the town's trading standards officers had come across Mr Perkins's web site for his company, 'Nature's Gold', last May. The firm, run by Mr Perkins and his wife, sold a variety of food supplements which it was claimed could treat, prevent or cure a range of diseases and conditions, including cancer. There was no evidence presented in Court relating to the veracity of these claims. Prosecuting, Phillip Worth told the court: "The prosecution views these offences very seriously because people who are suffering from such illnesses are a particularly vulnerable group. "And you have a high obligation indeed to them." Mr Perkins was also ordered to pay £1,552 costs.

So, if the MHRA refuses to prosecute the DH over its illegal promotion of the 'food' fluoridated water as having medicinal properties, why is the DH (or, indeed, the Water Companies) not then prosecuted under UK foods legislation?

As far as the position of fluoridated water as a functional drink under the ECJ ruling and the European Medicines’ Directive is concerned, the ruling refers to the class of products that appear to fall under both nutrition and medicines legislation. As far as I am aware, no specific ruling exists at that level on this precise product, but it is my interpretation that this ruling must include fluoridated water. It is a near-water drink because it contains an added mineral – fluoride – which is intended to medicate.

The issue is, of course, mostly about what should food and drinks manufacturers using fluoridated water do about the contamination of their raw material with the mineral fluoride. The fluoride 'mineral' is in fact derived from a prohibited source (fluorosilicates are not permissible sources, under the food additives and minerals legislation). Therefore the addition of fluorosilicates to any food, including water, under the pretext that it is a 'mineral', is itself illegal.

This is not about whether one supports water fluoridation or not: it is about whether the government agencies are obeying the law and it is about public safety. This is serious enough to close down the MHRA which is a public disgrace for failing to abide by the law and putting the public at serious risk of health damage and sometimes death, for which there is already abundant information from health research studies.

Thank you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely

Rob Mehta,
on behalf of the Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire

Letter to Evening Post: listening to China

2010-01-27T22:28:00.002Z

Letter to Evening Post by one of our supporters - also next Safe Water meeting in Stroud is 1st Feb - contact us for details.

R King of Fishponds says, “Brown (Gordon Brown) should listen to China and get some ideas on how to run this country….” Could be good advice!

One idea he needs to confront is the dichotomy between millions more of us having poisonous silicofluorides in our water supplies on the pretext of better dental health for our children; and their on-going record of school achievement.

The Chinese have found a correlation between high levels of fluoride, even naturally occurring Calcium fluoride, and depression of IQ scores. It can be a pre-natal condition and is irreversible for life.

19 points on the scale can separate the accomplished academics from the ‘easy riders’ and in China that is simply not acceptable. In the Peoples’ Republic, all must excel; and the annual graduate output can tolerate no compromise.

In India, similarly affected, measures are in hand to remove all fluorides before they reach the consumers.

As recently as last year, Gordon Brown said “I want British education to be the best in the world.”

So lets make a start on it Gordon, by cancelling all fluoridation schemes and shelving plans for more; including the Avon counties and Hampshire which have surfaced within recent misguided NHS strategies.

Then he should reinvest the £42 million, set aside for pointless public consultations, in real health measures while clawing back the tens of thousands of pounds that he, as chancellor, handed over to the bigoted arch-promoter, The British Fluoridation Society.

Bernard J Seward

Member :
Bristolians Against Fluoridation
Hampshire Against Fluoridation
Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire

Paraquat, fluoride, Southampton decision and more

2010-01-22T08:32:00.002Z

Who, among the gardening fraternity, remembers Paraquat weedkiller?

We can only remember it as it is now banned from sale and use; and quite right too because it is a very poisonous chemical with no known antidote.

Occasionally, however, a case of accidental exposure makes the news where it has been foolishly decanted into an un-labelled bottle or flask and left for years on a shelf from which it may be mistakenly identified as a health or leisure drink.

Even putting the bottle to one's lips, then hastily discarding it, has led to fatal consequences.

So how would you feel about that poison, or another quite like it, listed as Class 2 under the Poisons Act 1972, being added, with the blessing of our National Health Service, to your tap water?

Don't answer that question for the moment. Consider another which has already been put thousands of people in, or around cities or regions where the public health administration, urged by the UK Department of Health, plans to introduce a water fluoridation scheme.

Q. Would you agree to have fluoride added to your drinking water so that children can have better teeth?

That, on its own, seems like a reasonable proposition but anyone ticking the YES box puts their own life and health; and that of their nearest and dearest, severely on the line. It also compromises their long-standing right to refuse medication; that or anything else the state may decide upon in the future.

The 'fluoride' (fluorine compound) to be used for that purpose H2SiF6, a fluorosilicate, stands alongside Paraquat in the poisons register. Knowing that, would you still tick the YES box? 72,000 people in Southampton recently said they wouldn't by voting NO to the fluoridation scheme proposed for their city, via a public petition prefaced by a printed declaration reliably attributed to Gordon Brown, "The people must be allowed to decide..."

Those well-informed Hampshire residents and water consumers were not allowed to decide because their health policy decision-makers, the South Central Strategic Health Authority members - all 12 of them - rode roughshod over their vote and decided for themselves that a NO answer was unacceptable; and that fluoridation just had to be good news for everyone, including, of course, the children, even highly vulnerable infants.

In the county of Cumbria, a leaked document revealed that its Director of Public Health had actually instructed his health officials to vote in favour, regardless of public opinion; a crooked 'mailed fist' strategy, hurried along by our Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham, who has told authorities to 'get on with it' without awaiting the outcome of public opinion surveys. Not exactly a vote winner in the democratic election stakes but Burnham's crude outburst and the irony of it has seemingly passed unnoticed.

One of the features of the fluoride legislation was that each Primary Care Trust should request a feasibility study with the water supply company. This can turn out to be a meaningless gesture because once that request has been filed, the commitment becomes obligatory; a 'done deal'. Second thoughts, like those which occurred to the PCT members at Portsmouth who decided against being tied to Southampton's scheme, fearing long term pollution of The Solent, but wished to be re-consulted, were given a frosty response by the SHA; their chairman being de-selected from office. That was his reward for exercising democratic choice; the same treatment dispensed to Southampton folk who had exercised their own brand of democratic choice.

Since then, a surprise has surfaced. Using the Freedom of Information Act, a Southampton citizen has discovered the figures given for decayed, missing and filled teeth in that city were different from those published in the consultation document. Southampton's dental health statistics fall well inside the NHS limits and that city has no need of a fluoridation scheme. Poisonous chemicals do not need to be added to its otherwise clean, uncontaminated water supply. One wonders to what kind of song sheet the SHA sings that it should insist on forcing its hand on the matter?

Concurrently, as reported in the Dursley Gazette 29.10.2009, children in South Gloucestershire have some of the healthiest teeth in the country. Let us hope that its public health director Dr Chris Payne feels disinclined to be carried along on the wave of betrayal of public opinion by applying for a feasibility study simply to stay friends with neighbouring authorities who have swallowed the Government rhetoric inherited from the USA. That is where fluoridation was launched in 1946 as a military atomic waste disposal route; a classic case of secretive fly-tipping to avoid hugely expensive neutralisation charges. Massive cancer deaths followed.

Three award-winning scientists have described fluoridation as "probably the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century" a contention endorsed by 13 Nobel Prizewinners in chemistry, biology and toxicology. The Government - our Government, uniquely in the whole of the European Union, pretends it knows nothing of these facts and critiques and continues to violate medical ethics with its anti-democratic and crazy mission to poison us all; children being the emotive fall-guys to justify the crime.

The case for fluoridating Bristol, even if it is shown to be feasible, may be up for the most intense public scrutiny and protest, given the record of good dental health in South Gloucestershire and attempted fraud on the South Coast...

Bernard J Seward

Vote in poll re Fluoridation in Southampton

2010-01-20T21:49:00.001Z

There is a new poll in Southampton regarding fluoridation - it is vital we stop it there - if not it will make it more likely that the whole country will face fluoridation of water supplies - See article and vote here.

Fluoride in our beer

2010-01-19T12:17:00.000Z

Another personal view from Bernard Seward to the Telegraph:

Photo: Safe Water Campaign's beer mat

Cllr Andrew Wickham says we should lower the cost of draught beer to encourage pub patrons to drink socially. I agree, but let's also see a relaxation of the smoking ban.

After all, there's no point in the Department of Health (or Stealth) preaching concern about the health risks of tobacco consumption all the while it is planning to poison millions more of us with water supply fluoridation schemes.

It should be remembered too that fluoride in the water usually means fluoride in our beer, especially concentrated in the brewing process.

Bernard J Seward
Member : Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign

Another letter to Telegraph

2010-01-18T10:18:00.002Z

Another letter to the Telegraph from one of our supporters:

Can we be assured that Professor David Nutt and his fellow members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs will have something honest and unambiguous to say about disodium fluorosilicate and hexafluorosilicic acid, the toxic, corrosive and radioactive waste chemical agents being used as unwanted additions to some of our water supplies?

It's no good for the armchair experts at the NHS to say that fluorine compounds do not constitute medication when the declared intention for their use, inhibiting children's tooth decay, so obviously confirm that they do. This is a legal precept which has recently been aired in the European Court of Justice and for which a judgement is anticipated.

Irrespective of whether or not the scientifically un-substantiated claims made for the fluoridating agents proved positive or negative, their use as a prophylactic (preventive) medicinal intervention, en masse, without individual consultation, diagnosis, presciption and signed consent; and the long-held patient's right of refusal, it is beyond reasonable limits of legal interpretation that they should be authorised for that purpose by unelected health officials, briefed by a misinformed Government and in defiance of public opinion.

Do you agree?

Yours sincerely

Bernard J Seward

China stopped water fluoridation - so should we

2010-01-15T18:01:00.000Z

Dr Emma Derbyshire champions the consumption of water by school children as an aid to their cognition performance, memory and visual attention.

She should, though, be aware that scientific studies in China have recorded a negation of all those personal assets, plus a depression in IQ scores of up to 19 points among children exposed to state-fluoridated water.

As a result, China has stopped all its fluoridation schemes.

The condition if its children's teeth - the alleged motive for the schemes - comes second to their intellectual development.

Who would argue against that? Ask our Health Secretary, Andy Burnham.

Bernard J Seward

Letter to Daily Telegraph

2010-01-13T22:23:00.001Z

Another of Bernard's letters to papers:

I am surprised that concern is being voiced about alien chemicals found in 9 out of 10 peoples' bodies.

BPA, mimicking the effect of oestrogen to cause early puberty and trigger obesity is congruent with the effects of the fluorosilicate chemicals being used to poison the drinking water of nine million British and Irish citizens; and over sixty million Americans.

Our otherwise well-respected Nuffield Health Council and the less respected British Fluoridation Society say simply, "No evidence of harm."

So what's all the fuss about? Has somebody dared to look under the carpet?

Bernard J Seward

Letter to local press: pedalling drugs is slow murder

2010-01-03T18:26:00.002Z

Letter sent to Evening Post, Stroud News and Bath Chronicle from one of our supporters - meanwhile our next monthly meeting is 11th Jan at 12.30 - call us for details:

Sir, - In the correspondence columns of the Daily Telegraph recently, a reader quite rightly says, "Pedalling drugs is tantamount to committing slow murder and should be punished as such"

Would he apply that same yardstick to the deliberate contamination of our water supplies, by an autocratic Health Secretary, with a life-threatening industrial waste chemical, once claimed, but now disproved, as a dental health benefit for children?

The catalogue of serious health conditions associated with tap water fluoridation includes IBS, hyperactivity, dementia, depressed IQ, depressed immunity and thyroid function, arthritis, bone fractures and cancers (osteosarcomas), genetic damage including DNA distortion, environmental Lead absorption and kidney failure.

Evidential negative studies run to thousands, internationally confirmed, validated and peer-reviewed; but our Government is now a lone voice in Europe proclaiming "No evidence of harm."

So what penalty do the blinkered ministers, MPs and NHS officials deserve for leading us all into a painfully reduced life expectancy by continuing to promote fluoride as a health benefit?

Bernard J Seward

What about water poisoning?

2009-12-06T16:45:00.000Z

Another of Bernard's letters - this time to the Telegraph:

Andrew Gimson's article exalts David Cameron as the people's champion of the 1974 Health & Safety at Work Act. Not only the workplace but the environment at large has benefited from the best interpretations of this Act.

"Few politicians, says Gimson, "are prepared to advocate an increase in food poisoning". . . Hold it right there Mr Gimson! What about water poisoning?

152 of them voted in support of the fluoride-enabling amendment to the Water Bill 2003. Did they all know that the additive fluoride (as distinct from the natural kind), is an untested, unrefined and uncertificated industrial waste product of fertiliser manufacture? Containing as it does significant traces of heavy metals, corrosives and radionuclides, it cannot in all honesty be linked to anything to do with public health.

The HSE, when challenged to uphold and defend the consumers best interests, refers the enquirer to the Drinking Water Inspectorate which is equally evasive with "We supply a product that conforms to the regulations..."

At a stroke then, it would appear that something very nasty which might have found its way by accident into our water, attracting a massive penalty upon the offender, has become legalised for mass distribution nationwide through our key commodity; the fresh, clean, potable drinking water we expect to draw through our taps.

If Mr Cameron can focus his attention on this single outrageous anomaly in public health policy, he will scoop many Labour votes while helping to improve, significantly, our general health. If he's still in doubt, he should ask the Green Party.

Bernard J Seward,
The Labour Party
National Pure Water Association
Bristolians Against Fluoridation
Safe Water Campaign

Mercury, fluoride and more

2009-11-01T08:57:00.003Z

Letter sent to Western Daily by Safe Water member expressing his own views:

I see the Director of Bristol's Public Health, Dr Hugh Annett, has been dismissive of alarms raised by those readers concerned about the neurotoxic element Mercury being part of the mix of the swine flu vaccine. "Just a preservative..." he says, as though it is of small consequence. One of my technology college technicians was poisoned to death by an exploding thermometer vaporising its contents. Mercury is not something to be trifled with and readers are justified in their concern.

By the same token, its presence in the industrial waste compound misleadingly called 'fluoride' the potential threat to our general health, also under the hippocritical promotion of Dr Annett, should be condemned.

Besides mercury, its residues include, cadmium, chromium, silicon and two radioactive elements, one of which decays to lead. It really should have no place in anything even remotely connected with public health, at whatever concentration, but the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency MHRA appears to be prepared, inexplicably, to give it complete clearance.

The graph of a 25 year Swedish survey conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, plotting the general decline in tooth decay throughout European countries, shows upward/reverse trends only in those countries where fluoridation has been promoted and adopted, suggesting that fluoride actually causes dental decay instead of preventing it as is claimed.

Arthritis is one of the serious conditions implicated. The cause and effect of fluoride on that condition was established in 1993 by Dr Robert Carton, a risk assessment manager for the US Environmental Protection Agency. Carton had conducted research based on the medical records of several hundred thousand women, post-65 years of age, some of whom had been exposed to fluoridated water supplies. Those who had been so exposed suffered from arthritis - all of them; but those living in unfluoridated communities and states, were relatively free of the disease.

Our Government's attitude to that research; and more like it from other countries including Australia, New Zealand, China, India and Japan, has been to ignore it. The MHRA is obviously content to follow that policy along with the Health & Safety Executive, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the British Dental Association, the BMA and successive health ministers of both main political parties,

The history of fluoridation has been characterised internationally by droves of distinguished 'experts' and learned bodies side-stepping their public responsibility to tell the truth. Today, nothing seems to have changed.

Bernard J Seward

Safe Water Campaign AGM

2009-10-10T22:32:00.000+01:00

Here is Philip Booth's blog entry re the AGM:

Today was the Safe Water Campaign of Gloucestershire's AGM and over 20 people came to hear Stephen Peckham from 'Hampshire Against Fluoridation' talk at The School of Art and Science, Lansdown.

Photos: Stephen talking then below some of the audience and Rob and Jehanne playing Brown Spotted Teeth

Like previous AGMs we had our introductory song from Rob and Jehanne Mehta - Brown Spotted Teeth - we also elected officers - I've now stepped down from Secretary after quite a number of years - I will stay involved but we now have a new committee established.

Anyway Stephen talked about what maybe imposed on us here in Glos and how they fought the campaign against water fluoridation in Hampshire. Amazingly despite massive opposition for fluoridation there, including from Hampshire County Council and other Councils, the Health Authority still unanimously voted for fluoridating their water supply.

The latest news is that Hampshire campaigners have won the right for Southampton City Council to discuss fluoridation again at Court Leet - see here - that Council was the only body that supported fluoridation and the Health Authority have repeatedly quoted them despite all others opposing.....we are hoping that councillors who voted for fluoridation there might reconsider now that they know the polls came out so against fluoridation. The results of that will be known within 2 months and will hopefully be useful for the judicial review.....

Yes the other news is that the go-ahead has been given for a judicial review - see here - it should happen Jan or Feb next year. This is to look at the process - when MPs voted they clearly wanted public views to be taken into account yet the advice from theDepartment of Health ignored this and so the Health Authority there can ignore their own consultations showing the public don't want water fluoridated. We'll see - we are all hoping commonsense will prevail. It is utterly outrageous that the health authority can dismiss the views of the population and elected bodies in such a fashion.

Stephen's talk was wonderfully informative and knowledgeable - and without any sensation or nonsense that some campaigners occasionally get carried away with - he covered stuff like the York Review and their clear statements that it could not say whether fluoride was safe or effective - yet this is what health folk claim the York review said - amazingly it is the only review that the authors have had on occasions to issue statements saying the reviews findings were being misused.

Anyway it is late now but we learnt much from Hampshire's experiences and hope to ensure that there is no way that the people of Gloucestershire get compulsorily medicated with fluoridated tap water in the future. At our next meeting we will be looking at the next steps we need to take - join us - we need the help to build an effective campaign - call on 01453 763943 for more info.

West Midlands Against Fluoridation launch website

2009-10-06T21:23:00.001+01:00

After a few months in the formation, West Midlands Against Fluoridation finally went live this week. They know there are a few glitches and would welcome suggestions for improving the site.
The url is: http://www.wmaf.org.uk

Closure of St Peter's Hospice

2009-10-03T13:13:00.002+01:00

Letter, (slightly edited) appeared in Evening Post last week:

Dr Fox of the St John's Lane Health Centre speaks probably for hundreds, if not thousands, of Bristolians when he says the closure of St Peter's Hospice at Knowle will be a major loss to the South Bristol Community.

How far could that grossly overpriced consultancy job on a new name for the Museum of Bristol have financed the salvation of that institution?

Then add the £10 million or so, earmarked from NHS funding to promote fluoridation in our area - an unethical and arguably illegal interference with our right not to be compulsorily treated; and a plan which nobody needs, or wants, or is prepared to pay for.

And if anyone in politics and the health services wishes to argue about kiddies' tooth decay, how does preserving, on average, half a tooth per child per year - teeth soon to be lost anyway as children grow up - stack up against the reputation of human love, care and compassion offered to the terminally ill? In this respect, St Peter's represents the gold standard; an immeasurable asset to our sick and their loved ones. Yet another failed test of our convoluted priorities!

BERNARD J SEWARD

Missed opportunity on 'Any Questions'

2009-10-03T07:49:00.000+01:00

Another letter to the Daily Telegraph:

One of the questions, on BBC Radio 4’s “Any Questions?” on Friday evening, concerned Living Wills and their legal effect with regard to the delicate issue of self-determined suicides.

The members of the panel included journalist Matthew Parris and the Health Secretary, Andy Burnham.

Parris who took first stab at answering the question stated quite emphatically, “You can’t treat somebody against their will.”

It would have been a golden opportunity for another of the panel members, Eric Pickles for example, to have jumped at Andy Burnham, reminding him that he, of all people, was doing just that in pressing ahead with water fluoridation – mass medication par excellence.

Treating countless numbers of ‘somebodys’ against their individual right not to be treated en masse; and doing it regardless of validated evidence of its downside effects; of majority public opinion and the outcome of any public consultations, has besmirched any notion of Burnham being seen as an ethical or honest health broker.

Being as he has no medical or other scientific qualifications,it begs the question as to why he was appointed to that cabinet position at all, unless it was specifically to steam-roller this act of public betrayal in the interests of what used to be called Labour Party Democracy.

Bernard J Seward

Sunflowers growth?

2009-10-02T17:32:00.000+01:00

Letter to the Daily Telegraph:

On my Bristol allotment I have grown sunflowers with 15 and 18 inch (381 and 457mm) heads which needed staking to support their weight.

Stephen Dorey of Gloucestershire asks whether his water supply might influence his impressive multiple headed plants.

Not yet, Mr Dorey; but if Health Secretary Andy Burnham persists with his manic obsession to get more of of our supplies fluoridated, you will definitely see a difference.

It was the Dutch Bulb Growers Association which successfully petitioned to have fluoridation stopped in Holland because of its serious effect on its prime exports; daffs, tulips gladioli and lilies.

Extrapolated across English gardens, the agricultural landscape, environment and eco-system, we should all see a difference;
for the worse.

Bernard J Seward

AGM talk on 10th October

2009-09-28T10:53:00.001+01:00

"THE THREAT OF THE FLUORIDATION OF OUR TAP WATER IN THE SOUTH WEST"

Come and hear a talk by Stephen Peckham from 'Hampshire Against Fluoridation' about what maybe imposed on us in the South and West.

Details: 11.30am Saturday 10th October 2009 at The School of Art and Science, Lansdown, Stroud (opposite the library). The talk will be followed by the AGM of the Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire.

Philip Booth, Secretary of the Safe Water Campaign said: "Stephen Peckham is an active campaigner with the 'Hampshire Against Fluoridation' group and seen how despite massive opposition for fluoridation there, including from Hampshire County Council, the Health Authority still unanimously voted for fluoridating their water supply. Stephen is a health service researcher and has published widely on health services, public health, ethics and health policy. We hope to learn from Hampshire's experience to ensure that there is no way that the people of Gloucestershire get compulsorily medicated with fluoridated tap water."

Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire - Further information Tel. 01453 872915

WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING THIS YEAR 2008/2009

2009-09-28T10:39:00.001+01:00

Rob Mehta, Chairperson reports ahead of our AGM:

During the last year since May 2008 , our main concern has been what is happening in Southampton as regards the proposed fluoridation of mush of the drinking water supplies.
The legal consultation process ran from September to December 2008 during which time there were a series of "drop in" events in different parts of Southampton and three public meetings chaired by Peter White from the BBC radio 4 programme "you and yours" with representatives from both sides of the fluoride debate. Rob Mehta attended two of these meetings on Oct.20th and Dec.3rd at the Southampton football stadium.

The mood of both these meetings was predominantly against fluoridation and the pro-fluoridation team led by no less than the chief dental officer Barry Cockcroft ,was very unconvincing; merely quoting questionable statistics and having no real answers to much of the medical evidence fluoridation; presented by Dr Paul Connett from the U.S.A..
The "Hampshire against fluoridation" group was well represented at the meetings and helped by their efforts 72% of people responding to the public consultation were against fluoridating the water supplies. Hampshire County Council were also unanimously against yet still the South Central Strategic Health Authority unanimously voted for fluoridating the water supply!!!!!!!

We have supported the Hampshire group financially and met up with two of their members to discuss the situation. They are trying to question the legality of the consultation process and have had a meeting with the parliamentary group UKCAF (see article by Lynne Edmunds).

Report from Southampton Campaign

2009-09-28T10:36:00.003+01:00

Lynne Edmunds reports here on the meeting organised by "Southampton and district Anti-Fluoridation Campaign" Tuesday 09\06\2009.

Meeting chaired by the latter group's organiser\chair....John Spottiswood. Present at top table, Caroline Place and Anna Peckham of the Southampton group\ local M.P.'s Sarah Gidley-Lib Dem ; Alan Whitehead-Lab ; Julian Lewis- Con..

The hundred strong audience came from far afield in the U.K. and from Ireland. The National Pure Water Association was represented by several very active members. Others represented local campaigning groups, including Lynne Edmunds of the committee of the Avon , Glos. and Wilts. anti-fluoride group who has compiled the account of the meeting below.

The meeting lasted close on two hours, with a great deal of information and opinion offered from the floor. At the start Caroline Place announced that the petition handed in at 10 Downing Street earlier in the day (protesting at the health authority's decision....despite a 70% plus rejection rate by the local population to go ahead and fluoridate the water supply) currently totalling 15000 and numbers of signatures are still rising.

POSITIVE ACTION REPORTED TO/ AND ARISING FROM/ THE MEETING
John Spottiswood confirmed that an application had been made for a judicial review of the government's stance on fluoridation ( linked to the European court of justice's decision in 2005 that fluoride could not have the legal status of a food* but was a medicine and hence would have to have all the detailed conditions and related legislation applied before a decision could be taken on whether it is legal to employ it as mass medication.

If legal aid is not forthcoming then a fighting fund of a minimum £200,000 would be needed to ensure this legal decision was applied.

The European Court ruled that any food that also has a medicinal function must be regulated as a medicine. They said that this included fluoridated water. It also ruled that fluoridated water may not be used for processing food and any exporting of food treated in this way to EEC states is illegal unless it has a medicinal licence. (This could affect large areas originating exports in the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and New Zealand.)

*This decision -The opposite of what the government has asserted for several years after the European court pronounced!!!!!-was uncovered by the United Kingdom Councils against Fluoridation. An application has been made by UKCAF to the government's medicines and health products regulatory agency which is constantly informed of European legal pronouncements.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEETING
It was reported that an early day motion on the status of fluoride as a medicine and its implications for any attempt at mass medication with it is circulating in parliament and everyone was asked to pressurise their M.P. to sign it.

Lib. Dem. M.P. Sandra Gidley pledged to try to put down a question on the above for Prime Minister's question time. A conservative councillor in the Southampton area is making a complaint to the local authority ombudsman about the phoney consultation exercise despite its legal status in the fluoridation section of the water act.

Conservative M.P. for the Southampton area reported that he would raise a question about the government campaign too fluoridate- at the regular question time held by the health service.

A regional delegate warned against assuming stringent safety over the amount of fluoride added to public water supplies, citing a situation in Australia where an overdose of 39 to 40 times the legal amount was added despite a process of three failsafe procedures- not for the first time (Australia is the only country other than Britain continuing to push for a major extension of fluoridation).

Delegates were told that the new health minister Andy Burnham was vice-president of the pro fluoride fluoridation society. The times " outed" him this month (June 09) and he then announced he was standing down!

Horrendous statistics about the increase in levels of fluorosis in children in the Republic of Ireland were reported by an Irish delegate. He reported that in 1984 the level of fluorosis was 5% and by 2002 this reached 37%. A major increase was being found among young teenagers.

Another delegate told us that in the south and west `midlands dentists had been instructed- if they found fluorosis on childrens' teeth to mark them in their reports as "sound" and not to record the fluorosis.(The York review put the levels of fluorosis of "aesthetic concern" where water had been fluoridated as between 7% and 17% of the population.)

(The British government has categorised fluorosis as a "cosmetic" condition and instructed dentists to refuse to treat it on the NHS).

So the victims have to pay the heavy cost of treating it and alleviating the visual effect (as well as the toxicity of the victim's system which its presence indicates) not just once but repeatedly since they continue to imbibe the "poison" which is causing the fluorosis.
(In 1999 government papers recorded that fluorosis was the result of "system toxicity").

Other people pointed out at the meeting that under current legal circumstances forcing fluoride on people was a civil wrong under common law and that each water company should be warned of this and threatened with legal action if it co-operated in bringing it in under current European law. (As a legally defined medicine , it has to go through the extensive conditions and checks which all medicines have to before being labelled as legal to dispense).

Health Minister's double-speak

2009-09-18T19:32:00.000+01:00

Letter to Western Daily Press:

Isn't it more than slightly incongruous to credit Health Secretary Andy Burnham with having 'graciously' extended our choice of GP, while he has ungraciously told local health authorities to ride roughshod over protest and public consultation in his demonic haste to see us all poisoned through our tap water with hexafluorosilicic acid?

Bernard J Seward

Letter to The Citizen re 2007 Nuffield Conference

2009-08-31T13:26:00.002+01:00

Letter sent to The Citizen last week:

When the report Public Health – Ethical Issues was launched at a meeting of the Nuffield Health Council in London in November 2007, every person, body or stakeholder who had made a submission was invited to be present.

Obesity, Drug Abuse and Smoking were study areas which spawned much discussion, each augmented study group of the Council commenting upon its findings and recommendations. Fluoridation, left until the end, followed more or less that pattern, but when the group leader, Professor Jonathan Montgomery of Southampton University rose to speak, he said, “We know it (fluoridation) conflicts with the right of the individual not to be compulsorily treated, but in the absence of evidence of harm, that right can be set aside.”

I was stunned because I had hoped that Nuffield – a name synonymous (in my book) with the highest standards of public and private health - would have taken all the evidence on board to put the proverbial bomb under the false claims and spin which have characterised fluoridation since it began in post war USA. Instead, it was being used as yet another coat of whitewash, possibly to underpin a new round of fluoridation scheme proposals. With Southampton in the (low energy?) spotlight and now Bristol, it seems I guessed right!

When the chairman asked for questions, there was an eerie silence among the 300 or so attendees. I hadn’t intended to speak because I knew there were executive members of the National Pure Water Association present, but since they failed to say anything and the topic session looked like terminating without critical comment, I raised my hand and was offered the roving microphone.

I asked how fluoridated water could be defended as being safe when, by raising its temperature as when cooking or making beverages in aluminium vessels, the ppm levels of aluminium fluoride would rise by factors of 100s, even up to possibly 800 for as long as it took to heat a pan of potatoes.

I wasn’t allowed to continue because the chair, Lord Krebs, deliberately created an uproar - a rumpus among the panellists, terminating the meeting, despite being buttonholed by what seemed to be a substantial number of attendees, evidently unimpressed by his style of summarily closing the proceedings.

It was not a good day for health service democracy!

Bernard J Seward
Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Glos and Wilts
Bristol

Letter to Bristol press

2009-08-05T18:51:00.001+01:00

Safe Water Campaign member writes to Bristol press:

As a former lecturer, having contributed to the practice of "handing on the inherited culture" or, as one of my cynical colleagues once put it, "casting artificial pearls before real swine", may I offer congratulations to the pupils and their teachers in the Bristol and Avon area who are turning former despair into triumph with respect to the Sats tests.

Let us hope this encouraging trend will continue upwards but on a long term perspective there could be a cloud on the horizon.

Should Bristol, South Gloucestershire; and Bath and North East Somerset fall victims to water fluoridation schemes, on evidence from the Peoples Republic of China there will be a depression of I Q scores among the young. Not only is the fluoridating agent a neurotoxin, but its one acknowledged visual outcome is dental fluorosis, an ugly, socially repulsive condition of the teeth, regardless of whether they are more decay resistant.

It was the degree of fluorosis that was found to tally with the I Q scores which alerted the Chinese health and education authorities, and caused all fluoridation schemes to be shut down permanently. No compromises there in the race to dominate the global knowledge economy.

The 2000 UK Government study, 'The York Review' found fluorosis to affect 42 per cent of consumers, 12 per cent really seriously. This would translate in Bristol alone to something approaching five and a half thousand children of school age disadvantaged both by appearance and inhibited intellectual skills.

Can we afford to allow this to happen when the claimed 'benefit' projected for our neighbours in Hampshire, also threatened at this time in spite (real bureaucratic spite) of a massive public NO vote, amounts to no more than 0.6 of a tooth per child per year?

Bernard J Seward

Fluoride overdose incident

2009-07-31T18:56:00.002+01:00

There has been another fluoride incident just come to light this week - too much fluoride was put into the water supply after a new dosing system at Severn Trent Water failed. The Drinking Water Inspectorate said a fault happened at the pumping station which supplies 29,000 homes between Bridgnorth and Wolverhampton last June - read report at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8175856.stm
and
http://www.dwi.gov.uk/pubs/annrep08/CIR%2008%20Central%20Region.pdf

Bristol Anti-Fluoridation Campaign launching soon

2009-07-30T22:42:00.003+01:00

By several accounts the first meeting of the Bristol Anti-Fluoridation Campaign on Tuesday was a success with some 18 people attending. This new group set about considering it's aims and already plans publicity material and stalls - and talking of stalls the Safe Water Campaign was again on the streets in Stroud on aturday collecting signatures and providing info re water fluoridation.

Anyhow the first few meetings in Bristol will be fortnightly to get the group up and running so the next will be held upstairs at the Stag and Hounds, Old Market Street, on Tuesday 11th August at 7.30pm.

Nothing Like a Guiness Beer with a Fluoride Chaser

2009-07-27T08:16:00.002+01:00

Here's an old story that was doing the rounds again this year - infact the Park Royal Brewery closed in 2005 - however fluoride is still being added to water in Dublin - and here we are still trying to stop it being added - two years ago we had campaign beer mats warning of the threat to beer.

Nothing Like a Guiness Beer with a Fluoride Chaser
by Treacy Hogan
Environmental Correspondent at fluoridealert.org

GUINNESS gives you a good pint and fluoride, much to the annoyance of a Dublin nun spearheading an anti-fluoride campaign. Guinness Ireland has disclosed that Dublin stout can have as much as six times the fluoride level of stout brewed in London.

The reason: the Park Royal Brewery in London uses unfluoridated water in a treatment process that further reduces the natural background level of fluoride to 0.1 parts per million.

Following a number of queries from the public, Guinness Ireland wrote to one consumer on March 27 explaining that Dublin uses town water which is fluoridated at a typical level of 0.75 parts per million.

“Thus it is possible that Dublin stout has six times the fluoride level of London stout,” said the company. The company said the high quality water was fluoridated, along with every other public supply in the country, following a Supreme Court decision obliging the authorities to add fluoride.

However, a statement issued by the Fluoride Free Water Group campaign care of Sr Rachel Hoey, who is attached to St Raphaela’s Convent, Stillorgan, Dublin, yesterday stated there are increasing health concerns about total fluoride intake.

It said the agent used to fluoridate water was called hydrofluosilicic acid, which it claimed was a toxic waste product of the fertiliser industry.

The group said most of Europe had rejected artificially fluoridate water, with bans in Denmark, Sweden and Holland. “Therefore, these countries will be surprised to learn that they are drinking artificial fluoride in imported Irish stout.”

The group quoted the union representing scientists, lawyers and other professionals at the US Environment Protection Agency.

It said their review of evidence over the last 11 years indicated a causal link between fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Recent epidemiology studies had linked fluoride exposures to lower IQ levels in children.

However, Tom Leahy, deputy city engineer with Dublin Corporation, said he was satisfied there was no risk to public health.

Bristol meeting

2009-07-19T11:13:00.001+01:00

Robin Whitlock of Keep Bristol water fluoride free writes from the Facebook site:

Hello guys, its time now that we got a 'real time' version of this group together, so I'm basically calling a meeting for Tuesday 28th July. Please do try and make it if you can, and if at all possible, please also post a message on the group wall to say whether you can make it or not, just so I can get a rough idea of numbers. The venue will be in the upstairs room at the Stag and Hounds Pub, Old Market - thats just around the corner from the Evening Post building. Please also spread the word among concerned friends. Cheers everyone.

Letter to Bristol Evening Post

2009-07-01T17:20:00.002+01:00

A personal view from one of our Safe Water Campaign members:

Vic of Bristol's on-line comment on Dawn Primarolo's declared anger with respect to all MP's (without exception) being targeted in the expenses revelations, makes a good number of points. In addition to his list of one-size-fits-all comparisons, I would have added: Indiscriminate medication for all - via fluoride - without consent or prescription because some (only some) children have dodgy teeth.

Well, we can forget that one now because the European Court of Justice has said STOP. Fluoride and food products (like 'functional health drinks') made with artificially fluoridated water are to be classified as 'medicinals' and thus subject to the rigorous testing common to all other prescription and retail drug products. Since that re-classification also includes the mains water 'topped-up' with industrial fluorides, it means that all fluoridation schemes, including those going back beyond 1964, in the UK and Southern Ireland must be shut down.

There are serious trade implications involved. Fluoride-water-processed food and drink products normally imported from fluoridating countries like South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and even Canada and the USA will be banned from the EU unless they can pass the 'medicinals' licensing requirements.

The ECJ ruling was dated 2005, so our largely pro-European Government has been illegally witholding key information likely to upset existing trading agreements. Our food and drink exports would be up for censure; possibly banned completely in all other EU member states. Water suppliers would then become targeted by business interests for agreeing to fluoridate at the behest of health authorities regardless of public opinion and the law which says they must not.

Who's head will roll over this dilemma? Perhaps Dawn should get together with all her Bristol pro-fluoride Labour colleagues to decide which of them will be the 'whipping boy'. The water supply companies meanwhile, need to reconsider their potential liability and public relations positions very carefully.

Bernard J Seward
Bristol

Lucas challenges Government on water fluoridation

2009-06-24T21:28:00.001+01:00

SOUTH EAST EURO-MP CHALLENGES HEALTH SECRETARY’S ‘VESTED INTERESTS’ IN SOUTHAMPTON’S WATER FLUORIDATION SCHEME

Green MEP for the South East Caroline Lucas has challenged the Secretary of State for Health Andy Burnham over his position as vice president of the British Fluoridation Society – at a time when health authorities in Southampton were giving the green light to a “mass medication” water fluoridation scheme.

The Health Secretary was instrumental in proposing the inclusion of compulsory water fluoridation in the Government’s 2003 Water Act. He resigned from this position in recent weeks, but Dr Lucas MEP today joined with UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF) to question why Mr Burnham’s links with the Society were not included in his register of interests, despite strict Parliament regulations stating such interests must be declared.

Dr Lucas MEP said: “It is of great concern that the Health Secretary was able to closely align himself with a body whose sole business it is to promote water fluoridation, at the same time that he was due to make key decisions about the future of the UK’s water supply. Parliament’s regulations on MPs’ interests are supposed to prevent alliances which can fundamentally inform policy – but clearly they are not fit for purpose.”

Earlier this year, the Green MEP warned that the region’s health authorities were setting a “reckless precedent" for future fluoridation schemes in the South East with their decision to press ahead with fluoridation plans in Southampton.

Although 72% of people in Southampton voted against fluoridation in a poll conducted by the Strategic Health Authority, the SHA is pressing ahead with the scheme. A legal case regarding the highly criticised consultation process has been announced and legal aid has been obtained by the person bringing the case against South Central SHA.

Dr Lucas MEP commented: "The ill-advised decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton demonstrates contempt for the views of many local people - and for the evidence against fluoridation itself.

"Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, and some studies have indicated links between fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems.

"The scheme in Southampton amounts to a mass medication of the population. I have made a formal complaint to the European Commission regarding the failure of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to properly classify hexafluorosilic acid, used in fluoridation of drinking water under the UK Water Act 2003, as a medicinal product. The correct classification would likely mean the UK’s water fluoridation schemes would contravene EU law.

“In place of mass fluoridation, the UK Government could be improving the health of our teeth through targeted schemes such as providing free toothpaste for poor families. This decision in Southampton sets a reckless precedent for future fluoridation plans in the South East, and we must be vigilant of further attempts to affect our water in this way."

For more information on UK Councils Against Fluoridation, visit www.ukcaf.org

Cancer study suggests fluoride is a contributing factor

2009-06-23T13:24:00.000+01:00

A new cancer study from India suggests that fluoride is a contributing factor to osteosarcoma, or bone cancer - but just how much fluoride intake causes the uncommon disease is not clear. See more here.

Letter in Evening Post

2009-05-27T23:03:00.001+01:00

This letter just got star billing in the Bristol Evening Post:

In a recent reply to my letter concerning the hazardous nature of the chemical additive used to ‘top-up’ the relatively harmless calcium fluoride found in most water sources, Jeremy Williams, Corporate Affairs Director for Bristol Water, sought to clarify the legal position. “In the past,” he said, “health authorities could ask water companies to fluoridate, but the companies could refuse. Under new legislation, the health authorities have the power to compel companies to fluoridate, after local public consultation.”

It is important for us to understand that the public consultation is not an option; it is built in to the legislation. During a 2008 on-line Labour Party health phone-in, Health Minister Alan Johnson, attempting to pacify a woman asking awkward questions, declared, “Nobody will be forced to have fluoride…we are going to consult.” He could just as easily have said “We are obliged to consult” because that is now the law in this country.

We have seen how that law has been interpreted in round one of the new wave of fluoridation strategies. The people of Southampton, in terms of protest letters, angry exchanges with health officials in focus groups; and 12 thousand signatures on a petition headed ‘Say No to Undemocratic Fluoridation’, firmly said NO to it. The total weight of opposition came out at 72 per cent and that, in all commonsense justice under the law, should have been the end of it, especially as the petition form carried the rider:

‘Gordon Brown said it is vital that local people make the choice themselves.’

However, 12 unelected members of the Strategic Health Authority voted YES to compulsory fluoridation and its Chairman, announcing the outcome on BBC Radio said “We are absolutely convinced”… referring to the alleged benefits of fluoride on dental health. The fact that a large proportion of well-informed local people were not convinced, absolutely or by any comparable measure, meant nothing to him and his members.

Since the public consultation is part of the law, I submit that the spirit of that particular law, giving the people the right to choose, underscored by a statement from our Prime Minister, has been severely compromised, and on that basis the water company cannot be legally obliged to proceed with feasibility studies pending a fluoridation scheme. To continue co-operation with the SHA in what is effectively an illegal activity against the wishes of its customers, incurs, for the officials concerned, the risk of individual prosecution. That liability could well devolve upon the scientists and technicians charged with the task of adding and regulating the fluoridating agent. A fluoridation scheme for the island of Guernsey, I was informed last week, was abandoned because the technical personnel refused to handle the chemical.

B J Seward
Safe Water Campaign

Hampshire anti-fluoridation campaigners come to Stroud

2009-04-26T16:23:00.003+01:00

Here is some of our press release from our meeting which was a very useful and inspiring evening:

HAMPSHIRE ANTI-FLOURIDATION CAMPAIGNERS COME TO STROUD

Health bosses voted in February to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton despite the County Council and 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the plan. The move concerns Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire members who see it as a step closer to fluoridation locally. Caroline Place and Anna Peckham from Hampshire Against Fluoridation (i) travelled up on Wednesday 22nd April to share their campaign with Gloucestershire activists.

Cllr Philip Booth, Secretary of the Safe Water Campaign, which has over 1,500 Gloucestershire supporters and meets each month in Stroud, said: "The Hampshire campaign was hugely successful in getting the message across, but the health authority has refused to listen to the scientific evidence. They have also ignored the will of the people: 72% didn't want it and yet they still are going ahead. It is deeply unethical and sadly will lead to attempts to introduce fluoridation in other parts of the country. We learnt lots from these two Hampshire campaigners about how we can build a campaign to ensure water fluoridation does not happen here."

The Hampshire decision is the first time a health trust in England has been allowed to introduce fluoridation under the new law that this Government has brought in. NHS Bristol have announced last month that they are now considering the fluoridation of Bristol’s drinking water.

Philip Booth added: "When Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas raised concerns about the fluoridation scheme with the European Commission last year, it admitted that the potential risks from water fluoridation are not yet fully understood. Is it really wise to expose people to a mass-medicating process that has never been risk-assessed? Fluoride, or fluorosilicic acid, is an untested hazardous waste, and to add it to drinking water to supposedly prevent tooth decay is disproportionate and cannot be justified. Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, and some studies have even indicated links between fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems.

A recent Freedom of Information request (ii) by the Green party revealed that 76% of Southampton's NHS dentists are not taking new patients. And the controversial Southampton decision came on the very day that new dentistry data was released, which showed that less than half of adults are using NHS dentists and the proportion of children accessing NHS dentistry in Southampton has fallen by 2.4% over the past two years (iii).

Philip Booth added: "Trying to fix NHS dentistry problems by unethical and potentially illegal mass medication is simply wrong. Southampton needs to fix its access to dentistry. Having less than a quarter of its dental practices taking on new patients means that many poorer people are forced to go without dental care. The new statistics have also shown the proportion of children accessing NHS dental care is falling. We need a proper dental health strategy founded on education, good diet and access to free dental health care. In place of mass fluoridation, the UK Government could be using targeted schemes such as providing free toothpaste for poor families - resorting to a technofix that won't solve the problem but will breach everyone's universally-acknowledged human right not to be medicated without their consent is just plain wrong."

Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and an advisory board member of the York review said: "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."

Notes:

(i) See: http://hampshireagainstfluoridation.blogspot.com/
(ii) FOI response to the Green Party dated 3rd Feb 2009 showed that of Southampton PCT's 25 NHS dental practices only 6 were accepting new patients in December 2008.
(iii) See: here.

Photos: from Wednesday Rob Mehta (Safe Water Campaign chair) with our visitors Caroline Place and Anna Peckham plus in the group photo:
Back row left to right - Anna Appelmelk, Tony Burton, Philip Booth, Bernard Seward
Front row left to right - Anna Peckham, Lynne Edmunds, Caroline Place, Louise McLellan

Avebury and dog meat

2009-04-21T16:42:00.000+01:00

Letter from Bristol member to Southampton Echo:

In the fantasy world of creative prose which fraudulently conceived the NHS propaganda booklet underpinning the Hampshire fluoridation consultation, the almost unremembered figure of Lord Avebury (a failed Liberal politician), being described as "the well-known supporter of human rights" was cited as having "pointed out" that fluoridation was NOT mass medication. There was no reference to any source by which he would have reached that conclusion; and nothing further about it at all. It was a case of "a noble Lord had said it; it was a gold-plated assurance, therefore no further discussion was needed."

Avebury might have been better remembered for drawing to himself a measure of public ridicule for declaring his intention to leave his body, not to medical science, but to a dog-meat factory. Sir Clement Freud, at that time, was hosting dog meat advertisements on ITV and his reference, on a radio comedy show, to 'nourishing Avebury meaty chunks' brought the proverbial house down.

Couldn't the NHS have done better than to choose a titled crackpot to convince us of the fraud it was mandating upon us?

Bernard J Seward

Government fixing consultations?

2009-04-20T16:28:00.003+01:00

The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer. This illustrates perfectly why the 70% public vote against fluoridation in Southampton was brushed aside - and why the same could happen in Bristol, Gloucestershire and elsewhere. See Telegraph here and more re the ridiculous consultation in Southampton here. Join us this Wednesday at 5.30 to here more in Stroud - call 01453755451 for more info.

Hampshire campaigners to help us

2009-04-10T13:13:00.001+01:00

Here is our press release that went out today about our meeting on 22nd April:

TWO HAMPSHIRE ANTI-FLOURIDATION CAMPAIGNERS COME TO STROUD AS FEARS GROW OF THREAT TO GLOS WATER

Health bosses voted in February to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton despite the County Council and 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the plan. The move raises concerns for the Gloucestershire Safe Water Campaign who see it as a step closer to fluoridation locally.

Cllr Philip Booth, Secretary of the Safe Water Campaign, which has over 1,500 Gloucestershire supporters and meets each month in Stroud, said: "The Hampshire campaign was hugely successful in getting the message across, but the health authority has refused to listen to the evidence. They have also ignored the will of the people: 72% didn't want it and yet they still are going to do it. It is deeply unethical and sadly will lead to attempts to introduce fluoridation in other parts of the country. We hope to learn from these two Hampshire campaigners so that we can ensure water fluoridation does not happen here."

The Safe Water Campaign will meet at 5.30pm in Stroud on 22nd April. Please call Rob Mehta on 01453 763943 if you would like to attend.

The Hampshire decision is the first time a health trust in England has been allowed to introduce fluoridation under the new law that this Government has brought in. NHS Bristol have announced last month that they are now considering the fluoridation of Bristol’s drinking water.

Philip Booth added: "This is clearly a human rights issue: no one should be medicated without their consent. Furthermore the Government's own scientific review found very little evidence to show that fluoridation of our water supplies improves dental heath. Moreover, its chair, Professor Sheldon, stated that 'the review did not show water fluoridation to be safe'. Many people have real health concerns about adding fluoride to our water."

Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and an advisory board member of the York review said: "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."

Philip Booth concluded: "Poverty and the over-availability of addictive, sugar-rich foods are significant causes of tooth decay. But the Government is unlikely to challenge the profitable position of the major food manufacturers and retailers who benefit at the expense of our children's health - and teeth. Better dental care and education is also needed, but that too is hampered by higher dental charges for adults as the Government has overseen dentistry move into the private sector - and for many in Gloucestershire finding a dentist at all is a serious challenge."

Fluoride and DNA

2009-04-07T07:39:00.000+01:00

One view re fluoride and DNA from one of the Safe Water members in Bristol - sent as a letter to the Daily Telegraph:

Robert Colville is wrong to label DNA as an infallable way to sort the innocent from the guilty.

DNA tests can be irreproducible for many reasons, and comparisons are never foolproof. One well-documented way in which DNA sequences can become disrupted is via the ongoing consumption of artificially fluoridated drinking water (or via ongoing exposure to any other internalisable fluoride source, including fluoride-polluted air). This is linked with the ability of the fluoride ion, even at the very low levels involved, to inhibit the enzymes which are essential for the repair of damaged or broken DNA strands.

Somebody should have reminded Health Secretary Alan Johnson about this before he commissioned more worthless fluoridation consultations. Denying the people their individual right not to be 'treated' with fluoridation chemicals - on the highly contentious basis of demonstrable juvenile dental benefits, or for any other reason - is not the stuff of a free society and is almost certainly illegal under fundamental EU Human Rights legislation. This is a matter that cries out to be tested in Court at the earliest possible opportunity, even if it makes crime detection only marginally less reliable!

Bernard J Seward
Bristol BS9 4QP

___________________________________________________

I quote the references as I find them in Groves B
Fluoride - Drinking Ourselves to Death
Newleaf 2001

Klein W. et al
DNA repair and environmental substances
Angaw Bader - Klimaheclkunde 1977 24(3) 218-23

Mohammed A, Chandler ME
Cytological effects of sodium fluoride on mice
Fluoride 1982; 15(3) 110-18

US National Institute of Environmental Sciences
In cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberration
Zeiger E, Shelby MD, Witt KL
Genetic Toxicity of Fluoride
Environ Mol Mutagen 1993; 21:309-18

Response to Daily Mail re compulsory fluoridation

2009-04-06T19:52:00.000+01:00

DEBATE: IS COMPULSORY FLUORIDATION A GOOD IDEA?

In response to Mr Anthony Plant’s letter of 17/03/09

The dental profession itself acknowledges that in fluoridated areas the incidence of dental fluorosis (systemic fluoride poisoning) is 48%, of which 12.5% is of cosmetic concern. and hence likely to cause severe psychological damage. This of itself, when set against the claimed 15% reduction of decayed missing or filled teeth (which over 50 studies have shown to be merely the delay of decay for about a year) would certainly be more than enough in the case of most tested medicines to have fluorides banned from public use.

In the 40 years or so that the Birmingham area has been fluoridated, alongside the hugely increased spending on dental care, there has been no systematic research to prove the safety of fluoride in the water. The population of the West Midlands may thus be unsuspecting guinea pigs on which to test a chemical shown by international research to have a distinct dumbing down effect.

Fluoride is a cumulative poison which can even be absorbed through the skin. At a dilution of 1 part per million the effect (in most cases) may not be dramatic, however, serious scientific studies suggest many damaging effects- e.g. lowering of I.Q.(20 plus studies), increased incidence of cancer in teenage boys, thyroid damage, kidney damage, brittle bones et alia.

In 1977 fluoridation was terminated throughout the entire country of Chile due to a clear increase in infant mortality. A report stated that poorly fed children were especially at risk.

In 1972 in fluoridated Gateshead a total of 34 babies under the age of 12 months died, (8 being cot deaths). This was 50% above the national average!!

Is this what we want?

Rob Mehta – Safe Water Campaign for Avon Glos. and Wilts.
Stroud GL5 1LY

Sign petition

2009-03-11T22:42:00.000Z

To sign the Prime Minister's website petition against fluoridation go to:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AntiFluoridation/

Please forward this message to as many people as possible

The 'consultation' with only one answer

2009-03-03T16:52:00.002Z

One of our Safe Water Campaign members has phoned Mr Johnson on several occasions to provide info and encourage an article on the Hampshire decision - see also blog entry before this one.

Why ask people what they think if you then do the opposite, wonders Philip Johnston. See article in Telegraph here.

When a public body says it is to carry out a consultation exercise, what does that suggest to you? Naively, I once believed that it involved asking people what they thought about a particular policy, setting out all the facts in an objective fashion, and if those likely to be affected did not like what they saw to drop or modify the original plan. It turns out, however, to mean nothing of the sort.

Ask the people of Southampton and its environs in south-west Hampshire. They have just been the subject of a "consultation" on whether to add fluoride to their water supply. There were 10,000 responses, 78 per cent of which were opposed. The local health authority carried out a telephone poll, which also showed a majority against. But it is going ahead anyway. Not only is this an affront to any concept of local decision-making, it is a breathtaking piece of social authoritarianism. Whether or not fluoride helps reduce tooth decay is irrelevant. Medication should not be added to the water supply; and especially when the people who drink it say they do not want it.

The history of this episode is especially revealing about the way the public has become utterly disenfranchised in a world where bureaucrats arrogantly assume they know what is good for the rest us. Although many people believe they already have fluoride in their tap water, only around six million actually do. Most of them live in the West Midlands and the North East, where artificial fluoride was first added about 40 years ago and around half a million are in areas where fluoride occurs naturally in the water. Successive governments have always wanted to increase coverage, believing it would be good for dental health. But the water companies did not want to fluoridate the supply, fearing they would be sued. They also did not consider public health to be their responsibility.

Matters came to a head in the early Nineties when health authorities in the North East, claiming the support of 70 per cent of the local population, proposed a fluoridation scheme, only for it to be rejected by Northumbria Water. So the Government decided to change the law. The 2003 Water Act gave the 28 strategic health authorities in England and Wales the power to order fluoridation, with water companies indemnified against any legal liabilities. There was one proviso: there would have to be a thorough consultation before proceeding. If artificial fluoride is safe, what do the water companies need to be indemnified against? Furthermore, the law was changed to prevent the water companies thwarting the wishes of local people; yet it is now being used to do the precise opposite. This is democracy EU style: you can give any answer so long as it's yes.

What is a consultation for? This one was carried out purely and simply because the legislation said it had to be. The process was heavily skewed in favour of acceptance. The local health authority and the Government bombarded the people of Southampton with scientific information purporting to show that fluoridation was safe and efficacious. Yet still a substantial majority did not want it to happen.

The reason is pretty obvious. They did not like the idea of forced mass medication. The Government maintains that because fluoride is preventative this is not medication, but that is just casuistry. On that basis, why not put statins or anti-depressants in the water? Supporters say that chlorine is added without anyone making a fuss; but that is to make the water safe to drink, which is a different matter altogether. Fluoride can be obtained from toothpaste should people wish it.

With some justice, opponents say the consultation exercise was a sham and the health authority was intent on proceeding come what may. The arrogance of this decision is quite astonishing. The facts were put out for people to see and the issue was straightforward enough: do you want fluoride or not? More than three quarters said no, which is a pretty conclusive proportion opposed by any measure. But then again, what do the local people know? They are obviously too stupid to understand the concept of adding a substance to the water supply; and they only have to drink it.

Opponents say there are potential health risks from fluoridation, including bone cancer and hip fractures in older people. Supporters say this is rubbish and that it is safely used in other countries. But this debate is now something of a sideshow set against the refusal to acknowledge the strength of local feeling against the proposal. It is possible to argue against enforced medication whether or not it is good for us. And when people, presented with both sides of the case, make it clear that, on balance, they would rather not have an artificial substance added to their water, it is outrageous simply to ignore them and carry on regardless.

It is apparent that Southampton is the vanguard of an attempt to fluoridate the whole of England (Scotland decided not to pursue fluoridation more than four years ago). It is reported that health authorities in the North West, Derbyshire, Bristol, and Kirklees in West Yorkshire are among those preparing to press ahead with similar proposals. But if you live there, don't worry. You will all be consulted first.

Fluoride to be forced on us

2009-02-26T17:54:00.000Z

Fluoride will be added to tap water in Southampton after health bosses voted it through earlier today despite massive protests. Some 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposed the plan. This is undemocratic and unjust and it will also means that Gloucestershire's water supply is another step closer to being fluoridated - already Bristol are looking at it - see Glenn Vowles blog here.

It is extraordinary that despite the opposition the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) unanimously backed the move. It is the first time a health trust in England, rather than water companies, has been allowed to introduce fluoridation under the new law that this Government has brought in.

Southampton City Council was in favour but the larger Hampshire County Council was against the plan, which is designed to cut tooth decay and which will affect 200,000 people.

John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation and a Green party spokesperson, said: "I think it is absolutely disgraceful, they have refused to listen to all the evidence we have given them. They have ignored the will of the people, 72% didn't want it and yet they still are going to do it. It is deeply unethical. We think it's illegal and are thinking what we do next, maybe taking it to the courts in Europe."

See questions and answers re fluoridation here. I have already spoken today with other local Safe Water Campaign members about stepping up the campaign locally and looking at further ways we can support those in Hampshire to reject this undemocratic, unjust move - let us hope there is a mass refusal to pay water bills by the 72% of the people who rejected fluoridation.

UK Councils Against Fluoridation website updated

2009-02-23T10:18:00.002Z

The updated site includes Doug Cross's letter to the Chairman of South Central SHA. They have also the link to hear the ITV programme 'Whats in your mouth' where Chief Dental Officer Barry Cockcroft and Peter Ward Chief Exec BDA discuss mercury amalgam fillings. Peter Ward tries to stop the filming, you will enjoy it www.ukcaf.org

There is also confirmation from Australia that the declaration from Anna Bligh Governor of Queensland is true! You have to read the story and even then it is hard to believe!

Decision draws closer for Hampshire

2009-02-23T10:04:00.004Z

South Central SHA have published papers for their Board meeting to be held at St Mary's Stadium, 2pm, 26 February:
http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/page.php?id=364

See more including press coverage here - 72% said no to fluoridation in their surveys - how can they support a decision to go ahead with fluoridation. Let's hope they announce good news on Thursday.

Letter to Allotment holders in Bristol

2009-02-14T21:56:00.001Z

May I, on behalf of my fellow allotmenteers throughout Bristol and 'Avon' bring this important piece of research to your attention. It highlights just one of many unsuspected side-effects of introducing toxic chemicals into our water supplies, ostensibly to correct dental health inequalities among children, but liable to precipitate a whole raft of serious health conditions regarded as hospital bed-blockers. If you want a full perspective on this, I suggest you log on to the web-site of the National Pure Water Association at www.npwa.org.uk

I would hope that you would not be influenced unduly by our Director of Public Health, Dr Hugh Annett. He and I both took part in a Radio Bristol phone-in on this subject and it became very clear that he has been briefed by the NHS to do the same 'hard sell' on fluoride for Bristol as has been done at Southampton with highly biased propaganda for which a final decision is currently awaited. (26th Feb is forecast). Following the public consultation launched by South Central Strategic Health Authority, Hampshire County councillors voted unanimously to reject fluoridation. There will be trouble there if the unelected SHA goes against the council's vote and pushes it through.

Just for the record Steve, fluoride (fluorosilicic acid) is more toxic than lead; and the concentration of the fluoride they want to put in our water will be fifty times the claimed 'safe' level for the added fluoride, 1.0ppm This figure is arrived at by dividing 1.0ppm by the World Health Organisation's published maxima for lead in the environment : 0.02ppm In the words of actor Michael Caine, "Not a lot of people know that." I've followed the fluoride debate for over 40 years and I guess I know a bit more about it than Dr. Annett; inconveniently for him, I'm afraid.

Bernard Seward, Southmead

Flouride can be added to food

2009-02-07T11:03:00.000Z

See Philip Booth's blog on this here.

Public consultation is a sop to democracy

2009-01-30T16:51:00.000Z

Letter sent to Daily Telegraph:

With reference to a possible public consultation for the Bristol and Avon area on the contentious question of fluoridation, our democratically-elected councillors and MPs should be aware of recent news from anti-fluoridation campaigners in Cumbria. Their public health director has instructed members of the Primary Care Trust to vote in favour of having fluoride.

If this policy is par for the course, dictated from the Department of Health, it looks as though Gordon Brown has dusted off his 'clunking fist' and passd it over to Health Secretary Alan Johnson.

Any public consultation on this issue will be nothing more than an expensive empty gesture; a sop to democracy, delivered by a bureaucratic fascist government predisposed to poison our water supplies, nationwide.

Does anybody recall hearing about this in an election manifesto?

Bernard J Seward

Dentist calls on health professionals to look at research

2009-01-26T20:36:00.002Z

Here is a comment left on Safe Water Campaign member Philip booth's blog Ruscombe Green from a dentist - video is worth a look:

As a Dentist for 31 years, I promoted fluoridation for the first 25 and was convinced fluoridation was effective. Looking once again at the evidence was like a knee in the gut.
Fluoridation/fluoride supplements do not show effectiveness in lower decay or lower dental expenses in fluoridated communities. We are ingesting too much fluoride and the medical risks are lethal for some (osteosarcoma, diabetes, cancer, mental retardation, etc.).

Consider mother's milk. Contains 0.004 ppm fluoride. 250 times less than fluoridated water used to make infant forumal. Is nature flawed? Is mother's milk flawed. CDC and ADA recommend infant formula not be made with fluoridated water. How do you medicate everyone in water and expect infants not to be over-medicated?

15 mg of fluoride is considered lethal for some children and 5 mg/Kg of fluoride is considered lethal. The most lax state laws I've seen define a poison as a substance as a poison if it causes death at 50 mg/Kg or less. By state laws, fluoride is a poison.

Poisons can be prescribed as legend drugs if they are FDA approved. Fluoride supplements for ingestion have never been approved by the FDA.

Read your toothpaste tube. Drug Facts: (variable wording) use a pea size, if more than used for brushing is swallowed, contact the poison control center.

The question begs, how much fluoride is in a pea size of toothpaste which the FDA is so concerned about? 1/4 mg. I was shocked. 1/4 mg is the same amount of fluoride as found in one glass of fluoridated water. And the fluoride in fluoridated water is an industrial waste product with toxins in it, not pharmaceutical grade.

Fluoridation is one of public health's 10 greatest blunders of the 20th Century.m

Doe v Rumsfield 2005 the court ruled even in time of war a person cannot be medicated against their will with a drug which has not been approved for the purpose it is being given.

Fluoride has never been approved by the FDA and fluoridation has not been approved to dispense the drug/poison/substance.

For more, look at my short video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk and also
www.fluoridealert.org and www.secondlook.org

Fluoridation has been rejected by most countries of the world based on lack of benefit, toxicology and ethics.

So what was I seeing for 25 years when I was so convinced the teeth looked hard with less decay in fluoridated areas? Actually I was seeing more the effect of socioeconomics than fluoride. Increase wealth and we increase health. Just so happened the weathy people were getting the fluoridation.

You might also like reading my editorial in "Fluoride". http://www.fluorideresearch.org/404/files/FJ2007_v40_n4_p214-221.pdf

Especially note the early concern on increased complete cusp fractures in fluoridated areas. Harder teeth=more fractures?

Much more could be said. Keep your eyes open. Bill Osmunson DDS,MPH

Where does fluoride come from?

2009-01-19T18:47:00.000Z

Another letter from a member to press:

The recent Irish contaminated animal-feed scandal found the dioxin – polychloride-biphenol - 200 times above the Food Standards Agency limit, in some Irish beef and pork products with these being whipped off the shelves in an instant. This may seem dramatic, but a teaspoon of neat hexafluorosilicic acid (added fluoride) would probably finish you off in under an hour. Try accumulating the same amount in your kidneys over several decades, along with the expected general health problems in the meantime.

Many folk in the Black Country and beyond have already been going through this process for twenty years or more because for every million particles of water there is at least one particle of this cumulative toxin issuing from the taps. That is the central fact behind water fluoridation. Young children and their dental welfare are smokescreens for an evil strategy which doesn’t address dental inequalities at all but can actually make teeth brittle, pitted, and off-colour, along with a raft of orthopaedic problems. Why no concern at the top for this?

The Scottish Executive has slammed the door firmly shut against tap water fluoridation - achieving better dental heath for Scottish children via their education system. Not so for England. We have a Health Secretary spending £42million on hard-selling communities what several internationally celebrated scientists, including Nobel Prizewinners, have called ‘the greatest scientific fraud of the (20th) century’. Even the Food & Drug Administration in the U.S.A. has stated that babies should not consume fluoridated tap-water or anything made with it.

What will it take to reveal fluoridation to be an extension of its true origin?

In post war U.S.A it was the outcome of a waste disposal experiment to get the Defense Department off the hook in its quest to find an economic method of disposing of a non-biodegradable, toxic, corrosive and radioactive waste.

Then it was Uranium enrichment waste, followed by Aluminium smelter waste; now it is Fertiliser manufacturing waste. The principal is the same; the risks to heath are the same; the publicly-funded fraud is the same.

Bernard J Seward (Bristol) and John Wilkes, (Staffordshire)

Stop misleading us on fluoride

2009-01-18T18:39:00.001Z

Publish Post

Here is another letter to local press:

To those dental experts who continue to insist that 'fluoride' is not hazardous to human health because it is already in the water; the extra addition being only a means of bringing the level up to what is called an 'optimal' for inhibiting youngsters' tooth decay. I would say 'Wake up and stop misleading us..!"

If you persist, then please show us where, in nature, we will find phosphate rock being continuously eroded and dissolved in concentrated Sulphuric acid. This is precisely the industrial process by which those raw materials act to produce phosphate fertiliser, the fumes given off by the reaction, if liberated by accident, constitute a Hazardous Health Hazard.

This is what Ms Rebecca Hanmer, a spokesperson for the US Environmental Protection Agency had to say about it: "Recoving fluorosilicic acid as scrubber liquor from fertiliser effluent provides a solution to two long-standing problems; Air pollution is avoided and utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to treat the communities."

Dr William J Hirzy, a US senior professor of dentistry had this to say about her statement: "In the air, its a hazard; In the lakes its a hazard; in the river its a hazard, but in our drinking water, its a dental health benefit. That's amazing."

What I find amazing is the way in which that and numerous other negative quotations from eminently qualified dentists, physicians, scientists, lawyers and high court judges have been virtually ignored by the British medical establishment in its stubbornly ridiculous claim that 'fluoridation is safe, proven and effective.'

We might add, "Not because it is, but because we say it is. Trust us; we're the experts."

Bernard J Seward

Letter in Evening Post

2009-01-17T18:34:00.002Z

Letter published in Evening Post from one of our members:

On the same day you published my letter on the anomaly of unregulated fluoride dosing through our water supply, being proposed by Dr Hugh Annett, our local Director of Public Health, I received a document inviting me to take part in a GP Patient Survey.

It requests me, via a box-ticking exercise, to give my views on a number of issues of common interest in personal health care. Starting with ease of access to surgeries and health centres, appointments procedures and choice of practitioner, it asks about my experience of confidentiality, standard of care received and even really pointed questions of confidence and trust.

Then there are questions about my satisfaction (or otherwise) of plans for the management of personal health problems, including a list of actual or potential serious health conditions. Also included are terms like ‘discussion’ and ‘agreement’; and more about home care and access to it.

It is a classic feedback exercise to which I am pleased to have been invited to contribute, but which stands quite apart from the one aspect of remedial health for which patient feedback is not being sought, encouraged, or even permitted. That is the claimed benefit of better dental health via us all, without exception, having an additional fluorine compound in the most basic of life’s necessities, our tap water.

Irrespective of whether or not there is any health advantage in us having it, the principle of mass medication via a no-alternative, no-choice route of treatment, especially where no individual need exists or is diagnosed, runs contrary to all the care and concern elements of health maintenance professed to be the target of this apparently honestly conceived patient survey.

In the regrettable absence of any facility for personal comment, I would nonetheless feel inclined to write:

No medication without individual consultation, thank you!

This hitherto universal right enjoyed by patients is under threat from the Government for reasons which it clearly has intended to keep under wraps.

Better dental care for children is a smokescreen for something else, revealed by international evidence which is being systematically ignored. No other country in Europe fluoridates its water supplies. Why are we still promoting it?

Bernard J Seward

Wallace, Gromit and fluoride

2009-01-16T18:31:00.000Z

Letter to Evening Post:

If Wallace and Gromit are being 'persuaded' to focus their communication skills towards home energy-saving techniques, why not enlist the pair's services to help combat childrens' tooth decay?

Instead of tipping poisonous fluorosilicate chemicals into our naturally fluoridated water on the pretext of improving the figures for decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft), the responsibility for dental health can be handed back to the families of the children said to be at risk.

After all, as I once told a meeting of the former Bristol Community Health Council:

The primary responsibility for my own health rests with me. My second line of defence is an opinion from my GP or other specialist. The manager of Bristol's waterworks comes a very poor third.

Fluoridation, at a stroke, deprives me (and all of us) of the freedom of choice we currently enjoy in health matters, while setting a dangerous precedent for further interference with our rights. This is something about which we all need to think seriously, when we are offered an opportunity to take part in a public consultation.

The Director of Public Health for Bristol, Dr Hugh Annetts; and his counterpart for South Gloucestershire, Dr Chris Payne would do well to get together in helping us to see a clearer path to the critically important decision upon which so much of our future health prospect depends. The outcomes of fluoride are by no means confined to teeth and all of them, I am sorry to say, are negative effects; and terminal in many cases.

We need to see a published risk assessment, but to the best of my knowledge, forged via forty or more years of personal research, no such assessment exists; not yet, despite a history of fluoride dosing of the people of the West Midlands and the North East since 1964.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but could this information deficit explain why the Medicines Control Agency, the Environment Agency , the Health & Safety Executive, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence all decline to comment? What is frightening them, apart, that is, from the diabolical chemical origins of the fluoridating agent which eats through glass, steel, copper, aluminium and concrete?

It frightens me, but I'm sure Wallace and Gromit, once they put their minds to it , and with aid of a plate of cheese sandwiches, will get it sorted.

Bernard J Seward
Member Avon Glos & Wilts Safe Water Campaign

Another letter to Daily Telegraph

2009-01-12T18:44:00.001Z

A personal view in a letter to The Telegraph:

The publicly-funded British Fluoridation Society which seems to be the force behind a renewed drive to get more communities fluoridated needs to be challenged on a few fundamentals. In the Southampton consultation, cited by Julian Lewis MP, the statement that the water already contains some fluoride is probably true, but we are seldom told what kind of fluoride it is.

Where it does occur, it is universally Calcium fluoride at an average UK concentration of plus or minus 0.2ppm The average reader would then see the claim that ..."we are going add a liitle more..." as 'more of the same'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The complex 'cocktail' is di-Sodium fluorosilicate H2SiF6, a waste product of the fertilizer industry. Thus, 'fluoride' is the accepted colloquial term to all but those who have researched the subject for themselves. It is more poisonous than lead but BFS members would dismiss this as nonsense because, as so may of them have claimed, the 'optimally adjusted' level of 1.0ppm is 'just a tiny amount'; not a very scientific expression.

In the wake of a pre-Christmas recall of thousands of lead-painted toys imported from China, the World Health Organisation has riterated its standard for the maxima for lead in the environment as 0.02ppm Dividing 1.0 by 0.02 suggests that the Department of Health is quite comfortable with the notion of us all having a toxin of fifty times the maxima specified by the WHO through our taps, insisting it is safe, but with unlimited indemnities being granted to the water suppliers against claims of harm by consumers.

All other considerations apart, this does rather look as though the millions spent removing lead from motor fuel was an irrelevant waste of time and resources.

Bernard J Seward

Hampshire campaign

2008-11-28T17:55:00.002Z

Hampshire campaigners are still working hard to stop water fluoridation there. Click on the pic to see their advert to counter ones being put in by the health authorities.

Appalled by Southampton City vote

2008-11-20T17:43:00.004Z

The Safe Water Campaign met today in Stroud and there was anger at the Southampton City Council decision - see last blog - also feedback about one of our members visit to Southampton to join their public meeting. Update - just in - great news here re Hampshire County Council vote.

Bernard's letter today to the Southampton Echo in response to yesterdays news:

I was appalled to see the council vote go so substantially in favour of fluoridation when, on the evidence I have followed these last few months, so much of the public opinion in your area was firmly against it. What are we to make of councillors who, instead of conscience in making decisions likely to bring negative health prospects upon so large a section of the community?

Your health chief Andrew Mortimer lied to you when he trivialised the fluoride addition, pretending it to be the same as was all ready in the water you are drinking. The fluoride in toothpaste is usually Sodium fluoride but that is not benign, having been formerly available as an over-the-counter rodent poison in the USA. The water additive chemicals are industrial wastes, diSodium fluorosilcates and Hexafluorosilicic acid, never tested for human consumption; never subjected to the rigorous testing as befits all other drugs whether proprietory or prescribed;and certainly not tested as being safe.

The complex of those chemicals derived from phosphate rock conversion in the manufacture of fertilizer, includes a range of heavy metals including the deadly neurotoxicants lead, mercury and cadmium. The cancer causing agents Silicon, Chromium and even Polonium are also present and in the light of the recent recall of vast numbers of lead-painted toys imported from China, the World Health Organisation has repeated its standard position, namely "There is no safe lead level for children" To establish a measurable standard the WHO maxima for lead is 0.02 parts per million. The NHS claim for safety with fluoride is 1.0 parts per million. Divide the first figure into the second and it will be plain to see that the NHS is comfortable with a compound fifty times the internationally agreed maximum concentration for lead. Are we, as members of the British public, prepared to stand by and watch our elected members conspire to commit an act of criminal attack on us and our children by insisting that fluoride is good for us?

When the fluoride-related amendment to the 2003 Water Act was pushed illegally to a vote in Parliament and passed, I wrote to my pro-fluoride MP Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour Bristol North West), pointing out that the fluoride resistance movement had not been eliminated. The battle for corruption-free public health, at all levels, would continue, and so it has. Your councillor who attempted to intimidate the others should be referred to the Ombudsman for Health under a maladministration charge. Democracy was not well served at Wednesday's council meeting.

Bernard J Seward
National Pure Water Association
Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Glos and Wilts

Southampton Councillors let down their voters

2008-11-19T22:20:00.002Z

From Hampshire Against Fluoridation today:

Southampton City Councillors at their Full Council meeting on Thursday 19th November chose to ignore the wishes of their electors and voted 26 to 18 to support the water fluoridation proposals for Southampton. This was despite admitting that most of the Southampton electorate are against fluoridation. In one case a Councillor stated that every letter and email he had received asked him to vote against fluoridation.

Every other Council in the area has considered fluoridation carefully and to date they have all without exception voted against water fluoridation. Southampton Councillors had a flawed Health panel review of the subject which was undermined by one Councillor who clearly had made up his mind before hearing any evidence and tried to undermine everything that those opposing fluoridation said. The Full Council then refused to hear a deputation to state the case against fluoride to every Councillor, meaning that many of the statements made just lacked an understanding of the serious and widespread scientific evidence of harmful side effects of fluoridation.

John Spottiswoode, Chairperson of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: “It makes one ashamed to live under a Council that is quite happy to force people across the city to drink water that is contaminated with a known toxin. The Councillors ignored the warnings from some of the most eminent and respected scientists of the dangers. They also ignored the most comprehensive review of fluoridation in the world, the National Research Council, that warned of the dangers of brain damage, brittle bones, thyroid toxicity and bone cancers. When most countries across Europe have tried water fluoridation and abandoned it as ineffective and dangerous, why should we in Southampton be forced to go down this scientifically discredited route? ”

Americans vote to reject Water Fluoridation

2008-11-10T11:58:00.004Z

The campaign in Hampshire continues - here is one of their latest news releases - a couple of Gloucestershire campaigners are set to join them in Hampshire in the coming week - see more re their campaign here:

Whilst Southampton debates whether to add fluoride to our drinking water supply, it is interesting to note votes in the USA on the subject, which were somewhat overshadowed by the Presidential election. 53 communities, with a combined population of 244,438, rejected adding fluoride to their public drinking water in the November 4, 2008, election referenda. This comes on top of the rejection of water fluoridation earlier this year by Quebec, a city that had been fluoridated for thirty years.

Meanwhile countries that have fluoridated at 1 part per million (the level proposed for Southampton) have been pulling back from that level, saying that it is too high. Canada and Ireland have both reduced the level where they fluoridate to 0.7 ppm, and Hong Kong now says 0.5 ppm is a safer level.

As Professor Paul Connett said: “Once again we have seen confirmed - from Maine to Nebraska - that when and where citizens are given free choice on this matter and they organize, the overwhelming majority of towns reject fluoridation. On November 4, in an historic presidential election year, 79% of communities with referenda voted to keep fluoride out of their water.

To put it another way, the only way governments can keep fluoridation going is to take away (e.g. Australia) or circumvent (e.g. UK) the right of citizens to choose what medicine they take. Such an approach sabotages both our human and democratic rights.”

John Spottiswoode, Chairperson of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: “When across the world people are saying that fluoridation of water should be reduced or scrapped completely, why on earth are people in Southampton trying to force everyone to drink this toxic chemical? Where there is such strong scientific evidence of harm from fluoride it is incredible that any responsible person should seriously consider adding it to our water. It is unsafe and unethical.”

Notes for Editors:

1. The detailed statistics on the votes can be found at: http://fluoridealert.org/11-4-08.html

Another letter to press

2008-10-29T22:18:00.001Z

Dr R. Watkin, replying to an earlier letter in the DT, says, "Thank goodness you have allowed someone to draw attention to the ridiculously self-important GMC (General Medical Council). How any self-respecting doctor can stay on it is amazing."

What is also amazing in this context is the equally ridiculous quasi-political status of The British Dental Association. This body, augmented with members of the BMA, collectively The British Fluoridation Society, maintains a relentless force upon Government to poison the nation's water supplies with 'fluoride', not the same as the naturally occuring compound but a toxic and corrosive industrial waste, untested and untreated for human consumption, and in the same league as the banned weedkiller Paraquat. And this so that a relatively few children might (just might) have better teeth. Health Minister Alan Johnson thinks this spurious exercise is worth £42 million of NHS funding.

Frankly, as a seasoned opponent of fluoridation as a hazard to health, I would reconcile this comment with the heading of today's editorial leader column, "Better to tackle the extremists in our midst."

Bernard J Seward
Member National Pure Water Association
Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Glos & Wilts

Safe Water Campaign support campaigners in Southampton

2008-10-20T07:57:00.003+01:00

This was the letter we agreed to send at our last meeting in Stroud to the health authorties in Hampshire regarding their current consultation:

Leaflet: one being used in Southampton at the moment

I am writing about the “public consultation document “ on the proposed fluoridation of the Southampton water supplies.

I am very concerned about the way the campaign is being presented.

1) I notice that the Southampton City PCT has put a full page advertisement in the Southampton Echo in favour of fluoridating the water supply to 1ppm.

2) I also notice that at the beginning of your public consultation document you state “In 2009 the South Central SHA will decide whether or not it is a good idea to put fluoride in the water supply. They will base their decisions on research evidence, surveys, expert guidance and feedback from local people. The consultation is not a “vote” so the option with the most support will not necessarily be chosen”.

I understand that a SHA has to be instructed by a PCT to consider and implement a new measure?

It would thus seem from 1) and 2) above that the PCT has already decided in favour of fluoridating the water supply and would therefore override a public vote against fluoridation. Is this the case?

The public consultation document is also very much biased towards fluoridation in the way it uses language and statistics, even though it gives some of the arguments against and therefore gives a very unbalanced picture. This is a dangerous precedent for public consultations.

The headline “Topping up the natural fluoride levels in our water will reduce tooth decay” in the Southampton Echo half suggests that the naturally occurring fluoride in the water would be “topped up” with natural fluoride. In fact it will probably be topped up with hexafluorosilisic acid, one of the most corrosive acids in existence, which in the form in which it would be transported to the water works, is strong enough to dissolve the tarmac on the roads, if spilled!

Decisions around the fluoridating of our water supplies have mostly been based on the “York Review” of 2000, which suggested an improvement to children’s teeth of 15%.It also noted a 48% incidence of dental fluorosis : 12.5% of cosmetic concern. Your consultation document doesn’t mention these figures and only shows pictures of mild and very mild cases of fluorosis. Psychologically this condition causes as much distress as does missing or bad teeth.

The advertisement in the Southampton Echo also quotes Dr. Jacky Chambers, Director of Public Health, Heart of Birmingham teaching PCT as saying “Our own monitoring of local health trends confirms the best available evidence that 1ppm of fluoride………does not cause health problems”.

The York Review was based on the ”best available evidence”. This evidence as regards the “effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing caries”, in a letter by leading members of the review panel to Hazel Blears the then minister, said “ we could discover no reliable good quality evidence in the fluoridation literature worldwide” and regarding “Effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing inequalities in dental health across social groups”, they said “This evidence is weak, contradictory and unreliable”.

The consultation document suggests that you have already spent considerable sums of money on educational programmes to try and help people in some of the poorer areas of Southampton with little success. The York Review suggests that these “inequalities” are not often solved by mass medicating whole areas.

In paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document you say “This document provides information about the proposal and sets out all the facts about fluoridation.” This statement is blatantly untrue as I could send you tens if not hundreds of references to harmful effects of fluoridation, none of which are mentioned in your consultation document.

The statements by the Southampton City PCT would therefore not only seem to be misleading but also partially untrue. Please would you let me know if you have studied the evidence of the York Review and on what other more recent scientific and “peer reviewed” evidence you may otherwise have based your judgements?

I eagerly await your personal response to my questions and will make the appropriate conclusions if I don’t receive a rapid response.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Mehta
Chairman of the “Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire”.

2008-10-17T17:00:00.004+01:00

"...the mineral, Fluoride." Thus spake Andy Burnham MP in a 2004 BBC Radio 4 programme 'You and Yours'. He had been invited to take part in a discussion on the merits of public drinking water fluoridation and was feverishly grinding his own axe on a subject of which he appeared to know little. Burnham and an equally young and, then, less-well-known New Labour member, Hazel Blears, had somehow acquired the T shirts proclaiming fluoridation as an unquestionable public health benefit.

In referring to fluoride as a mineral, Burnham was wide of the mark. There is no such separate entity called fluoride because fluoride is a compound of the highly reactive toxic gas Fluorine, bound within another element. In nature, water courses from springs will contain Calcium fluoride which is caused by fluorine, locked up in the rock strata with which it has reacted, being washed out to the surface. The labels of bottled spring water should list the water-borne elements present and 'fluoride', where it exists, will be shown in most UK sources as <0.2>

This means less than 0.2 parts fluoride per millon of fresh water or, again, two tenths of one milligram per litre of water.

At this point we can make a comparison between the national natural average and the safe level of 'fluoride' claimed as such by the Department of Health and subsidiary bodies representing the dental profession. That 'safe' level is given as 1.0 part per million, or one milligramme per litre, around ten times the natural level. Burnham, unfortunately, was parroting off the received wisdom on fluoride; he could not have known about the black hole in the history of the subject which is still waiting to be filled with a convincing proof of that claim.

Not long after that radio programme, Burnham and Blears were both shunted off into the Home Office where they no doubt gave yet another team of officials the benefit of their uninformed wisdom. The proponents of the practice of fluoridation insist that its scientific basis must be irrevocably supported by robust evidence; but the claim of safety at 1.0ppm is certainly not robust. It is more a convenient figure plucked from the air.

Another misunderstanding which the 'experts' have made little or no effort to correct is the difference between the natural fluoride and the fluorinated additive. In fact, if the question
What is the chemical being used to treat us through our water supply? is answered truthfully, disodium fluorosilicate should be the answer. Its formula? H2SiF6 To chemistry students,

this will make sense as 2 atoms hydrogen, 1 atom silicon and 6 atoms fluorine. Any substance with as many as 6 atoms of fluorine will be dangerously toxic. Being told, as in a typical public consultation, that the fluoride in nature is being merely topped up to an optimum level, implies that it is being done with more of the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The H2SiF6 compound, apart from its fluorine content, carries measurable traces of heavy metals including radionuclides as well as being highly corrosive and bioaccumulative within human and mammalian organisms. The natural fluoride will not dissolve glass, metals and concrete, but your 'nanny state special-offer' fluoride certainly will and, administered through your water taps at what the Andy Burnhams of this world deign to call 'a tiny amount', you'll chance getting health problems to match. The most visible - and impossible to deny - will be dental fluorosis, well described in our campaign song 'Brown Spotted Teeth' and illustrated in the web pages of the National Pure Water Association on http://www.npwa.org.uk/

Dental fluorosis was once acknowledged in a House of Lords debate as ' evidence of systemic toxicity' Skeletal fluorosis, invisible except to X-rays, underpins a major study conducted in the United States by Dr Robert Carton PhD. He surveyed the health records of 560 thousand white women over 65 years of age, some of whom had been exposed to fluoridated water for most of their lives. The majority of those who had been so exposed suffered from arthritis.

It is an unfortunate fact that insofar as British fluoride research is concerned, the USA may just as well not exist, along with New Zealand, Japan, China, Russia and mainland Europe, all of which have had good reasons to question the value of fluoridation, to reduce its concentration or to abandon it altogether.

Bernard J Seward

SHA’s Consultation Document referred to NHS Fraud Squad

2008-10-14T17:21:00.002+01:00

Southampton campaigners are fighting a very biased consultation process. Here is a recent news release from them:

Surprised councillors at Hampshire County Council meeting heard that South Central SHA’s Public Consultation document on water fluoridation had been referred to the NHS Fraud squad because of its inaccuracies and one sided approach.

A critique of the document prepared by Lord Baldwin Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group against Fluoridation and an advisor on the York Review would be sent as evidence. Lord Baldwin said: “It is very worrying, not only that a Health Authority should have a final say on fluoridation instead of democratically elected councils, but that South Central SHA should have shown such a partial grasp of how evidence should be presented, and guilty of so many errors.”

UK Councils Against Fluoridation have also submitted a complaint to Advertising Standards regarding the one sided full page advertisement in the daily press which flouted the law in at least 7 aspects. Doug Cross, who revealed the untenable legal basis of water fluoridation on behalf of UK Councils Against Fluoridation, commented later “As a professional scientist, I was appalled at the blatant disregard for truth, balance and ethical standards of behaviour by the pro-fluoridation speakers. When senior decision-makers act with such total disregard for public safety, Councils must take charge and ensure that this discredited practice is abolished from the medical sector.”

Hampshire Against Fluoridation members present were shocked at the misinformation being given to Councillors by the pro-fluoridation faction. John Spottiswoode, Chairperson of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: “We have been saying for ages that the SHA and Southampton PCT have been pushing biased and unscientific poppycock. Now it is clear not only that Lord Baldwin says that we were right but that the so-called Public Consultation is nothing but a very expensive persuasion exercise that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and Councillors. It is an abuse of trust when public health officials push an industrial grade chemical into our water supply. The unscrupulous individuals responsible for trying to push this toxin on us need to be brought to account.”

Mainland European and Chinese Universities united

2008-10-11T12:46:00.001+01:00

Letter to the Daily Telegraph in response to article:

In her masterly analysis of funding/performance comparisons affecting our universities, Wendy Piatt has overlooked a salient point - something which unites the universities of mainland Europe with those in China.

China stopped fluoridating its water supplies after identifying its depressive effects on national IQ scores. Europe, with only one exception, wants nothing to do with additional fluorides; also recognising their proven risks to health; both physical and neurological.

It is a matter of concern that the city of Southampton, the home of one of our top class new universities, is currently being treated to a fluoride hard-sell by the blinkered mandarins at the helm of the NHS which seemingly cannot entertain any downside argument to this exercise in medical fascism.

Bernard J Seward

Alice in fluoridated Wonderland

2008-09-14T10:14:00.000+01:00

This is taken from the Isle of Mann campaign video:

For the sake of a small group of children we have to take their medicine for the rest of our lives whether we have the condition or not.

100% of the water is treated and it is admitted that of the 100%, 40% is wasted through underground leaks. So that is 40% of the fluoride escaping into the environment where it is not supposed to go.

Of the 60%, 7/8th is used by industry which includes the farming industry. The 1/8th that comes into your home, 99% you flush down the toilet, wash your clothes with and water the lawn. The remaining 1% of the 1/8th of the 60% is for drinking and washing. There are 3% of the population with the bad teeth who drink the 3% of the 1% of the 1/8th of the 60%.

Does that sound like a good way to deliver medicine?

Besides, this group of children are drinking fizzy drinks what is the point of putting it in for them?

Act now for Southampton - URGENT

2008-09-12T09:10:00.007+01:00

Consultation on South Central SHA's proposal to fluoridate water supplies in Southampton and SW Hampshire begins Monday, 8 September 2008. Consultation will be open from Sept 8th until Dec 19th. This is what they say:
Have your say: what do you think about putting fluoride in the water?
In 2009 the Board of South Central Strategic Health Authority will decide whether it is a good idea to put fluoride in the water supply. They will base their decision on research evidence, surveys, expert guidance and feedback from local people. The consultation is not a 'vote' so the option with the most support will not necessarily be chosen. It is more important for the Board to understand the reasons for your views and the pros and cons of putting fluoride in the water. Please spend a few minutes to let us know what you think. Feel free to attach a letter or additional pages.
Any comments received after this will not be included in evaluation.
Anyone who is concerned about Water Fluoridation please go to South Central SHA's Fluoridation Consultation homepage:

http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/fluoridation/

Register your views as soon as possible. Now is the time to act not just for Southampton but to voice opposition for possible Water Fluoridation in YOUR area in future.

For a map of areas that will be affected by Southampton's fluoridation plan click the link below:

http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/fluoridation/map_of_proposed_scheme.php

Letter to Daily Mail on water fluoridation

2008-09-02T22:20:00.002+01:00

Letter sent to Daily Mail on 4th August 2008 by Safe Water Campaign member Bernard Seward:

Congratulations to the Daily Mail on daring to break ranks with the national media on fluoride. Time is long overdue for this secretively managed attack on the public to be exposed for what it is; a scientific fraud masquerading as a health benefit.

Fluoridation has been practised since the end of WW2 when it was a state-sponsored fly-tipping experiment, allowing the American Defense Dept to dispose of its atomic processing wastes. The outcome in terms of public health has been staggeringly negative, but nobody who has failed to research the subject fully, will be aware of it.

The UK Government, of all parties except the Green Party, has consistently maintained a steady position: We have not looked for any evidence likely to cast doubt on the health benefit of fluoridation; and since we haven't seen any, we may confidently conclude that there isn't any. Anybody who says different is a liar, a kook or a 'flat earther'.

Unfortunately, that group would include 14 Nobel Prizewinners in medicine, biology and toxicology; and internationally distinguished medics and scientists in the UK, the USA, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Russia and China. The Chinese, incidentally have halted all fluoridation schemes on account of the proven IQ deficits likely to compromise their globally dominated plans for its graduates.

An article published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1948:41:284-90
reads: "Fluoride causes a delay in tooth eruption of roughly a year. Children aged 5 living in fluoridated areas should be compared with children aged 4 living in non-fluoridated areas. When this is done, there is no benefit from water fluoridation."

Thus, by postponing the eruption of teeth by approximately 1.2 years, the statistics can show a 50% delay in the decay of those un-erupted teeth. It is a postponement, not a prevention. By teen age, the decay levels are comparable but the fluoridated children will be disadvantaged from becoming liable to dental and later to skeletal fluorosis for which there is no cure, not to mention ADHD, aspects of disturbed behaviour, reduced IQ and many other developmental risks the Government would rather we didn't know too much about.

Curiously, Europe has virtually turned its back on fluoridation because of the acknowledged risks to health.

Whatever happened to harmonisation?

Bernard J Seward B.Ed(Hons) LCGI, MIP3
Bristol

Fluoride book to be changed after criticism

2008-07-25T14:31:00.002+01:00

See the last blog reporting on Hampshire - the good news is that health chiefs have admitted that information due to be given to the public about fluoridating water supplies was unfairly balanced in favour of the scheme.

Anti-fluoridation campaigners have already accused the South Central Strategic Health Authority, which will ultimately decide whether to give the plan to fluoridate water to 20,000 homes in Southampton and Hampshire the green light, of peddling propaganda. Yesterday, the Echo reports that the SHA board agreed to change documents designed to inform residents about fluoride during the consultation, after hearing feedback suggesting they don't fairly represent both sides.

Director of communications and corporate affairs, Olga Senior said focus groups felt the literature gives a good case for fluoridation, but failed to provide reasons against it.
"The feedback told us if what you want to do is give balance, you haven't done that. The pro-fluoridation group bases its arguments on science. The group against also bases its argument on reports and science. What doesn't seem to have come out at this stage is that balance."

The board agreed at the meeting to put consultation back two weeks to change the literature.
Board chairman, Dr Geoffrey Harris said: "We do need to be assured that in the public consultation document we are not closing down one side of the argument."

As revealed in the Daily Echo, Hampshire Against Fluoridation has lodged a formal complaint with the authority, saying the decision to take the issue to a public consultation was based on flawed facts.

Chairman and Green party activist John Spottiswoode has demanded the process be abandoned, because he believes evidence showing negative effects of fluoridation has been ignored. Meanwhile John last night welcomed the move to revise the literature - although it is clear from emails from campaigners there that there are still serious concerns about bias in this consultation.

The consultation will run until December 19, and the SHA board will make a final decision at a special meeting in February.

Latest on Hampshire healthcares undemocratic approach

2008-07-23T19:48:00.002+01:00

Here is the latest reported in Southampton's Echo - it is quite astonishing that this is taking place. Good Luck to John and other campaigners there.

Great fluoride debate by Jon Reeve

IT is meant to be the independent body even-handedly navigating the tricky waters of a public consultation over controversial plans that have split opinion.

But the organisation that oversees Hampshire's healthcare has been formally accused of being biased over proposals to add fluoride to the tap water of nearly 200,000 residents.

On the eve of the consultation process being finalised, anti-fluoridation campaigners have lodged a complaint with South Central Strategic Health Authority, saying decisions have been based on flawed information.

Hampshire Against Fluoridation believes failings in the process mean at least £180,000 of public money has already essentially been wasted.

Tomorrow, the authority's board is due to decide on the details of how the three-month public consultation - being conducted at the request of Southampton Primary Care Trust which wants fluoridation - will be carried out.

But ahead of that meeting HAF's chairman, John Spottiswoode has called on the SHA to abandon the fluoridation process before that starts.

"The public consultation is clearly going to be a sham, being run as a propaganda exercise for water fluoridation, with the aim of achieving a pre-determined outcome," he said.

"The whole fluoridation episode is a disgrace to the health authorities and undermines any trust or confidence that we may have placed in their decisions in the past."

As previously reported by the Daily Echo, public views expressed during the consultation could be ignored if they are not based on accepted scientific reasoning and evidence.

That means a majority of respondents could potentially say they do not want fluoride added to the water supplies, but the scheme being given the green light anyway.

The SHA was last night unable to issue a formal comment on the complaints, but insisted the process would be fair, and no decision has yet been made on the plans to add fluoride to water.

The controversial proposals will see 160,000 residents - 67 per cent of the city's population - receiving added fluoride in their tap water in a bid to improve the city's chronic dental health problems. Around 36,000 more living in Eastleigh, Totton and Netley would also get extra fluoride as their homes are covered by the same water distribution centre.

A report going before SHA board members tomorrow says the proposals for the consultation have been checked by solicitors to ensure it is run according to legal guidelines set down by the Government especially for fluoridation.

Although the details have yet to be confirmed, the report says the consultation will include public drop-in events and Question Time style debates to allow residents to voice their concerns and have queries answered.

Leaflets and posters will be displayed in GP practices, dental surgeries, libraries and other community centres to increase awareness, and regular updates will be posted on a special website.