News RSS Feed


Ford's Future in Southampton Paul Poolton Hannah Foster Murder Trial Echo Forums


Open debate into adding fluoride to city’s water

9:00am Tuesday 25th March 2008

comment Comments (30)   Have your say »


CITY councillors are backing a detailed, open and meaningful consultation on proposals to add fluoride to Southampton's water supplies.

Health chiefs are eager to press ahead with the move which they say will reduce tooth decay, particularly among children in poorer neighbourhoods.

Surveys show dental health among the city's under-fives is far worse than the national average.

Southampton City Primary Care Trust wants the South Central strategic health authority (SHA) to give the go-ahead for utility companies to add fluoride to the city's water supplies.

City councillor Ivan White, Tory opposition spokesman for health, won backing from fellow councillors across the political divide to call on the SHA to carry out "open, widespread, meaningful and detailed consultations" with the council and Southampton residents before considering any decision.

Councillor Jeremy Moulton, Tory parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test, pictured, has also written to SHA chief executive Jim Easton on the issue.

Cllr Moulton said: "This is a very important and controversial decision and a number of worried Southampton residents have contacted me recently.

"It is vital that local people are consulted and that all sides of the argument are heard."

Health problems South West Hampshire Green Party and pressure group Hampshire Against Fluoridation are opposing the move.

They claim fluoridated water can cause health problems, including bone cancer, mental and discoloration of teeth.

The SHA is carrying out a feasibility study and is due to report back by the summer. It will then decide whether to go head with a 12-week public consultation.

Click the links below for our previous reports into water fluoridation:

Fluoride to be added to Hampshire's water?
Fluoride to be added to our drinking water?
Fluoride fears over tap water plans

Click the links below for a range of reports into the risk and benefits of water fluoridation:



Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourThis is Hampshire

Mellow Wellow, Wellow says...
10:07am Tue 25 Mar 08

What is Caroline Nokes opinion

Report this post »

bemused onlooker, Southampton says...
11:30am Tue 25 Mar 08

This should be a matter of personal choice, and we can buy our OWN if we actually WANT fluoridation. However, we live in a NANNY state, who are just concerned about the workless or workshy, the couldn't cares, too stupid to understand, or unable to understand the language, elements of our society. So all get it whether we want it or not, and never mind any consequence.

Report this post »

Aquafresh, says...
1:28pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Why not use some toothpaste?

Report this post »

Hugh Carres, says...
1:37pm Tue 25 Mar 08

I would be more in favour of adding some form of liquid contraception to the pipelines serving Council Estates, perhaps we could then stop the breeding epidemic of those on benefits........

Report this post »

baz, southampton says...
1:38pm Tue 25 Mar 08

all sensible people in southampton(and there are some!)should fight this stupid proposal by "big brother" to, literally, poison our water.

Report this post »

Osama Bin Laden, A Cave far far away says...
1:43pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Hugh Carres wrote:
I would be more in favour of adding some form of liquid contraception to the pipelines serving Council Estates, perhaps we could then stop the breeding epidemic of those on benefits........
Maybe just send them anthrax........

Report this post »

Hugh Carres, says...
1:45pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Osama Bin Laden wrote:
Hugh Carres wrote:
I would be more in favour of adding some form of liquid contraception to the pipelines serving Council Estates, perhaps we could then stop the breeding epidemic of those on benefits........
Maybe just send them anthrax........
Then they'd be looking for compensation........
...

Report this post »

Chips Forbabby, says...
1:46pm Tue 25 Mar 08

...did someone mention compo ?

where do I sign ?

Report this post »

Patricia, Southampton says...
1:53pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Flouride was used in the 1930's to supress over active thyroids, if this goes ahead and flouride is put into drinking water it poses a genuine health risk to those who have underactive thyroids, I am one of them and the medication I take will not do any good if I am forced to consume water that contains flouride.

Report this post »

Ad Enough, Sholing says...
2:03pm Tue 25 Mar 08

This shouldn't even be a credible subject - putting chemicals into the water for chrissakes, anyone who votes for this must already have ingested a shed load of chemicals.

We have to make a stand before we gave the powers above license to put whatever they want in the water all in an effort to apparently 'benefit' us - yeah right. Something doesn't taste right about the whole thing, they probably know something we don't.

Report this post »

Evian, says...
2:14pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Lol at these people that are worried about little flouride, when they drink me they get

Magnesium. Potassium, sodium, biacorbonate and tap water.

Report this post »

Day Dreamer, says...
2:28pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Maybe Bromide in the water will stop the teenage pregnancies

Report this post »

Hugh Carres, says...
2:36pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Day Dreamer wrote:
Maybe Bromide in the water will stop the teenage pregnancies
Not as effective as stopping the benefits !

Report this post »

Robbie, Southampton says...
2:40pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Before the general public puts time and effort into this debate (or consultation) please can the powers that be assure us that our views will be fairly taken into account. Many people gave their opinions on other controversial matters, like post office closures and interference with Southampton's schools, only to be ridden roughshod over.

Report this post »

Big Clem, Oxford says...
4:00pm Tue 25 Mar 08

lilyleon, New york. you now confirm what we English speakers have suspected for a long time. The Yanks are ruining a beautiful language!.

Report this post »

Jack Tooth, Southampton says...
4:15pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Does a Brita water filter take out fluoride, if so then fine. The water in Calmore is so full of Chlorine that it is almost impossible to drink. What are these Nannies doing to us. I say use Colgate, otherwise you'll get bad teeth, simple as that. What about my right to bad teeth?!!! Go away looney lefty people, I'll choose what I consume thanks!!!

Report this post »

Stu-Pid, North Badasslee says...
4:54pm Tue 25 Mar 08

If it saves me a few minutes in the morning by not having to brush my teeth then I am all for it... that will free up time to have another go on the missus before work.

Report this post »

beryl, southampton says...
4:57pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Ethics
Finally it needs to be pointed out that fluoride is a poison that should not be given to
people against their will. For instance Disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) is defined
as a Part II poison under the Poisons Act, 1972, UK. In the UK and other countries,
fluoridation chemicals are controlled hazardous wastes and it is illegal to discharge
them into the environment.
Water fluoridation is effectively being used as a forced medication on people in certain
areas, with no control over who receives what dose, no medical supervision and against
the will of many. Any professional medical person promoting mass fluoridation is in
serious breach of the Medical Code of Ethics.
Conclusion
It is amazing that the whole fluoridation debate continues to be pushed by governments
and by Health Authorities. The case for water fluoridation is clearly dangerous
unscientific nonsense. Fluoridation of our drinking water borders on criminal lunacy. The
effects in fluoridated areas may dwarf the thalidomide tragedy.
Those with fluoride in their water should remove it as soon as possible, and on no
account should fluoride ever be swallowed if it can be avoided, especially for young
children using fluoridated toothpastes. Fluoride is a poison.
If you think that you may have high levels of fluoride in your body, follow a Detoxification
Diet and immediately take steps to avoid ingesting fluorides.
John Spottiswoode
This is from one of the attached articles. I think that this is enough evidence to stop the addition of flouride to water.

Report this post »

King Mush, Woolston says...
5:40pm Tue 25 Mar 08

Ive mentioned it before but what about the oestrogen contamination despite mass filtration of recycled water that has gone down the pan before coming back out of our taps?

Hormonal changes noted in some men etc?

Not forgetting that fish copulate in water too plus all other manner of sewage that finds its way back home!


No wonder some only drink bottled water. Mmmm......now where does it really come from????/

Report this post »

Danny Woody, Southhampton says...
12:54am Wed 26 Mar 08

It’s so good + beneficial to dump toxic diluted fluoride litter into drinking water & elsewhere, of course, the more people slowly get poisoned desto better, which is the very master plan of those evil entities, who seek to reduce the population & increase their power & profits! Anyone, who does not do their Homework or do independent research themselves, will be manipulated & eventually be dulled down!

It is a fact, that this poison dulls down the mind!

Obviously the powers that be, are keen on such a master plan!

With more of this toxin available through to drinking water supply, it will be easier, to finally get this lovely plan accomplished!!

Report this post »

John, Southampton says...
6:34am Wed 26 Mar 08

Egad! At least step into the 20th century. Fluoride is already found naturally in some reservoirs in Britain, dissolved from the surrounding rocks. Australia, Canada, US, Brazil, Chile have been doing it for years.
It's not a commie conspiracy to poison your Precious Bodily Fluids. Why are the British perceived as having bad teeth because they do!
It's not like the city is trying to ban trans-fat. Oh wait, is that next?!
OPE POE

Report this post »

Danny Woody, Southhampton says...
6:55am Wed 26 Mar 08

Don't be missled on the type of fluoride.

There's a BIG difference between calcium fluoride via the industrial waste derived toxin, which is the one which is gonna be dumped, umm... diluted into the drinking water.

Such a wonderful & extremely safe healthy practice!

Report this post »

ann, Middlesex says...
1:09pm Wed 26 Mar 08

I'm glad Hampshire will have an open debate before adding the fluoride chemical to water supplies
Tooth decay has fallen in Europe whether or not their water has this chemical added. The biggest falls in tooth decay are in Sweden, Netherlands, Finland & Denmark & they do NOT add fluoride!
Fluorosilicic acid - the chemical used in water fluoridation - is toxic waste from phosphate fertilizer factory chimneys. It is more poisonous than lead & only slightly less so than arsenic. It is listed as a Grade 2 poison. It is not of pharmaceutical grade unlike that added to dental products. Studies show that applying fluoride dental products directly to the teeth is much more effective than drinking it.
There is a new concern. The American Dental Association's website has advised that baby milk powder should NOT be made up using artificially fluoridated water & that fluoride should not be given to a child under a year old. They now recommend bottled unfluoridated water be used for babies' bottles to ensure they don't receive too much fluoride. Buying bottled water would be an added expense for parents.
The York Review of fluoridation in England reported that approximately 48% of children in fluoridated areas suffer dental fluorosis - permanent unsightly tooth mottling, caused by too much fluoride. Medication should be prescribed individually and not given to whole communities regardless of need. This goes against all medical ethics.

Report this post »

targets and madness, tax haven says...
1:35pm Wed 26 Mar 08

All about Money - stupid
1) Being paid to dumping what is toxic fluoride by-products instead of having to pay for waste disposal....££££££s for fertiliser and smelting industry thank you
2) Upgrading all the water treatment plants with specialised tanks and control systems, and upgrading the roads to take these very dangerous tankers past our homes on roads that lead to all the water treatment plants, ££££s for industry thank you
3) increasing council tax to pay for this new infrastructure....££
££s for the local authority thank you
4) meeting spurious health targets on child tooth decay using a non medicine with non scientific research from the time when radiation, smoking, asbestos and pesticides caused no harm......just plain stupid, but there is lota money to make, so it's a good idea!

Report this post »

John, Soton says...
5:59pm Wed 26 Mar 08

@Danny -- Who wants to add calcium fluoride? It's insoluble in water. Plus, the divalent Ca++ ion would make the fluoride less effective. Typically sodium hexafluorosilicate is used, obtained from the production of phosphates.
My friend in the States had a small cavity his dentist wanted to fill. When he went back, the dentist told him he didn't need to drill it out after all. The tooth had remineralised and a small crystal now filled the cavity. High five for fluoride! w00t!
Let's hope there's something left in our water! Can you imagine drinking deionized water. Now that's pure stuff but it'd suck the minerals right out of your bones.
Brush after every meal and visit the dentist every six months for good tooth health. :-)

Report this post »

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach Fl USA says...
7:47pm Fri 30 May 08

This policy was developed by industry to avoid huge lawsuits for fluoride damage. The Aluminum industry first and then the nuclear bomb government suppliers to the Atomic Energy Commission which was given the power to rewrite studies to create proof fluoride was safe and beneficial. It is neither. It is a cumulative toxin like lead building in your body more every day with every ingestion for your entire life. The US was off and fluoridating before the first study was completed with a statement that the case was closed on safety. The big Newburgh/Kingston study was actually designed and doctored by the Atomic Energy Commission to protect bomb industry(The Fluoride Deception--Bryson) The product used to fluoridate now in the US comes directly from the mines that produced the Uranium yellowcake for Secret Oak Ridge to process. Six of the 7 uranium recovery units were closed about 1995 to buy cheaper African uranium. So now all the uranium and many radioactive decay products are left in the products as the unmentioned gift. Mosaic is going to build a new 200 million dollar new recovery unit not to protect us or the environment but because the price is up and to make lots of money. This has nothing to do about teeth and safety but only industry making money and government covering up a huge screw up. The dentists are in line for their promotion of ingested fluoride which now damages about 51%(Pizzo 2007) of the kids enamel. This is very profitable and dental incomes in the US has soared past doctors with the real gold at the end of the fluoride rainbow is cosmetic restoration and rock star riches. Most of the kids damaged the worst are poor blacks with double the moderate and severe damage so the policy to help the poor injures them worst. The truth is often ugly but do not expect to hear an honest statement from the health department . They only state policy and lists of endorsers. Beyond that they are useless. Actually they are harmful to those that trust their knowledge. See waterloowatch.com or fluoridealert.org for the science and links and a long list of health risks. Jim Schultz

Report this post »

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach Fl USA says...
8:12pm Fri 30 May 08

Answers--A britta does take out fluoride as it very had to take out being about the same wight and size as a water molecule but reverse osmosis can as can distilled and an aluminum compound also. Sodium fluoride was used to treat hyper thyroid by lowering thyroid function at doses of 2.3- 4.5mg but receive more then that daily and it was used in Germany until 1978 as a prescription. The big 3 year safety review 2006 NRC showed many receive a dose that lowers thyroid function and the 12% with low thyroid almost all are affected at dose as low as .7mg for a adult male. It is almost impossible to get less then that because most foods and beverages are contaminated with fluoridated water or pesticides.---John you are confused as ingested fluorides have no reminerization effects at 1ppm but topical at much higher levels like toothpaste can but not without calcium, magnesium ,phosphorus(which all work without toxic fluoride anyway) Cavistat which arginine and bicarbonate calcium but reminerizes twice as well as fluoride with no toxic risk. Just like saliva in a healthy person. Its all about nutrition not toxic waste -please use your brain for its natural purpose. Chocolate chemicals and licorich also can do the trick but fluoride is always a risk especially for kids under 7 because they swallow too much too often and get forever damaged enamel. Brushing without fluoride and good nutrition beat toxic ingested fluoride which has no measurable value. Read the current science not policy. Not a single researcher in the last 20 years claims ingested benefit excedes topical and most can measure zero ingested benefit. Jim Schultz

Report this post »

peter sowerby, north baddesley says...
3:14pm Sat 31 May 08

Mellow Wellow wrote:
What is Caroline Nokes opinion
She is still in the pink as the tory representative of charity abuse

Report this post »

Sue Hucker, Totton says...
10:15am Sun 1 Jun 08

I say NO to fluoridation as it means thousands of people will forcibly have to drink fluoridated water if it is added. This breaches our human rights. Surely parents should see their children look after their teeth themselves and fluoride can be added by those people who feel they need it. What about people who are adversely affected by fluoride? What do they do about drinking water and water for washing and cooking?

Report this post »

Jennifer, Hampshire says...
5:19pm Mon 7 Jul 08

Official statements from South Central SHA, the PCT and doctors Mortimore and Cockroft that dental fluorosis is harmless and fluoridation is completely safe must be immediately and publicly withdrawn.

In 1999, Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:

"In view of the absence of any relevant scientific studies cited in the US Review of Fluoride, 1991, referred to in the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 8 February (WA 1-2), whether they can quote any other scientific sources in support of their belief that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic side-effect of fluoride and not an indication of early toxicity."

Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. . " - (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.).

It is estimated that, as in Ireland, 48% - 54% of children living in fluoridated areas develop dental fluorosis, which dentists refuse to treat on the NHS.

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

Jeremy Moulton Jeremy Moulton

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links



Video News Food & Restaurant Reviews

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »