News RSS Feed


Follow the Daily Echo on Facebook to get headlines straight to your news feed. Readers Letters Tweet with the Daily Echo Don't Be A Fuel Fool

Southampton civic bosses call for fluoride referendum

4:21pm Wednesday 17th March 2010 in


SOUTHAMPTON civic chiefs have called for people to be given their say on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water.

Councillors this afternoon backed a motion demanding South Central Strategic Health Authority holds a referendum on fluoridation before the scheme is introduced.

The move is seen as a major boost for the campaign, backed by the Daily Echo, to put the final decision in the hands of affected residents.

Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

Before the council meeting, anti-fluoridation campaigners gathered outside Southampton Civic Centre to show the strength of opposition to the plans.

Health chiefs unanimously backed the scheme last year, despite public opposition.

More than 10,000 people had their say in the SHA's public consultation, with 72 per cent of respondents who live in the affected area - covering two thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - expressing their opposition.

Southampton City Council previously backed fluoridation during the consultation - the only local authority to do so - but now wants to see the decision placed in the hands of those who will have the chemical added to their water.

The Tory motion passed today, despite Labour and Lib Dem abstentions, calls on the SHA to hold a referendum before fluoride is introduced to the water supply, and for the authority to honour the result of that vote.

Fluoridation is currently on hold while the courts consider a legal challenge lodged by a Southampton resident who argues the SHA should have paid more attention to public opinion.

The SHA insists it met or exceeded all the requirements in law and Government guidelines.

Related links


Comments(18)

geoff51 says...
4:38pm Wed 17 Mar 10

Thankfully at long last sanity MAY prevail, if I wanted poison in my water I would put it in myself
Mass medication is the first step to Totalitarian control and despite this corrupt Governments wish for us all to be under their control, there is still life in the great British Public as the Labour party will find out at the election

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Lone Ranger says...
4:48pm Wed 17 Mar 10

How predictable from SCC.
.
So who is going to pay for the referendum...the SHA....oh thats me then !.....SCC....oh thats me then !. Well it looks like my taxes are going to pay for it.
.
By the way interested to know who the 10,000 were that had their say. And were they given the full facts or just the "convenient" ones like "poison"

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Family Man says...
5:07pm Wed 17 Mar 10

Forgive me but there are some decisions so charged with emotion, ignorance and vested interest that even in a democracy, the electorate is not capable of making them. How many people would vote to increase their own taxes... but no doubt would vote to increase the benefits they derive from society... There are simply too many examples, each with opposing views from the interested parties...

Such views are irreconcilable, and we pay others to make those decisions.. the alternative is to wallow in indecision, constant argument, and what ever the exact opposite to progress is...sometimes a strong government that makes unpopular decisions is better than a fragmented weak government that is not capable of making decisions is better...

And can someone please tell me precisely what the disbenefits/dangers are of fluoridation and give an unbiased objective science-based opinion...? Or is it simply a matter of principle?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

geoff51 says...
5:13pm Wed 17 Mar 10

Family Man wrote:
Forgive me but there are some decisions so charged with emotion, ignorance and vested interest that even in a democracy, the electorate is not capable of making them. How many people would vote to increase their own taxes... but no doubt would vote to increase the benefits they derive from society... There are simply too many examples, each with opposing views from the interested parties... Such views are irreconcilable, and we pay others to make those decisions.. the alternative is to wallow in indecision, constant argument, and what ever the exact opposite to progress is...sometimes a strong government that makes unpopular decisions is better than a fragmented weak government that is not capable of making decisions is better... And can someone please tell me precisely what the disbenefits/dangers are of fluoridation and give an unbiased objective science-based opinion...? Or is it simply a matter of principle?
Sorry Don't you read the wonderful Echo who owns this website.
They have been giving a balance view of this debate ever since it arose

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

damien thorn says...
5:25pm Wed 17 Mar 10

stop the CHEMTRAILS over the city.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Ozmosis says...
5:37pm Wed 17 Mar 10

We were given the option to respond with our views at the consultation phase, and many did. The majority that responded say "no". That was still ignored so will a referendum really make any difference?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

RJCogburn says...
6:06pm Wed 17 Mar 10

If only Southampton City Council had given their backing to the referendum the first time around rather than support fluoridation. The public might not then be cynical over their political motives so close the the pending local and general elections. Hopefully the electorate will remember this opportunism by the current administration when the 30% of us that unenthusiastically force ourselves to vote for one of them put our cross on the ballot paper in May.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Redback says...
6:16pm Wed 17 Mar 10

Family Man wrote:
Forgive me but there are some decisions so charged with emotion, ignorance and vested interest that even in a democracy, the electorate is not capable of making them. How many people would vote to increase their own taxes... but no doubt would vote to increase the benefits they derive from society... There are simply too many examples, each with opposing views from the interested parties...

Such views are irreconcilable, and we pay others to make those decisions.. the alternative is to wallow in indecision, constant argument, and what ever the exact opposite to progress is...sometimes a strong government that makes unpopular decisions is better than a fragmented weak government that is not capable of making decisions is better...

And can someone please tell me precisely what the disbenefits/dangers are of fluoridation and give an unbiased objective science-based opinion...? Or is it simply a matter of principle?
I agree 100% Family Man.

The York University review is considered a quality piece of work. It basically found that while it may confer a small benefit, and probably no real harm, it's still not worth the effort or money.

It's not 'poison' in our water, but it is a waste of our taxes.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Waysider says...
6:35pm Wed 17 Mar 10

I have to pay hundreds of pounds per year, for good clean drinking water. If they put contaminates in it. I shall buy bottled water and send THEM the bill.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

southy says...
7:17pm Wed 17 Mar 10

Redback wrote:
Family Man wrote:
Forgive me but there are some decisions so charged with emotion, ignorance and vested interest that even in a democracy, the electorate is not capable of making them. How many people would vote to increase their own taxes... but no doubt would vote to increase the benefits they derive from society... There are simply too many examples, each with opposing views from the interested parties...

Such views are irreconcilable, and we pay others to make those decisions.. the alternative is to wallow in indecision, constant argument, and what ever the exact opposite to progress is...sometimes a strong government that makes unpopular decisions is better than a fragmented weak government that is not capable of making decisions is better...

And can someone please tell me precisely what the disbenefits/dangers are of fluoridation and give an unbiased objective science-based opinion...? Or is it simply a matter of principle?
I agree 100% Family Man.

The York University review is considered a quality piece of work. It basically found that while it may confer a small benefit, and probably no real harm, it's still not worth the effort or money.

It's not 'poison' in our water, but it is a waste of our taxes.
all depends on what type of fluoride it is and where is it coming from. like is it from industrial waste and if it is what type of industry produce this by-produce, till they answer those questions then it should be a no any way.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Swalk says...
9:55pm Wed 17 Mar 10

Redback - actually, the York Report indicated that higher-quality research was need to draw any concrete conclusions. So it did not back fluoridation. More disinfomation on here, then.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Waysider says...
6:52am Thu 18 Mar 10

The Hampshire branch of the then 'Rural District Councils Association', rejected this idea back in 1962. Dr. A. T. Westlake. JP of Ringwood and Fordingbridge bitterly opposed the idea on medical and scientific grounds. In water, he stated, there existed calcium chloride, but fluoridation meant the introduction of sodium fluoride, which would have serious effects on adults. I adults are going to drink this stuff, they will get all types of diseases in later years.

I found this in an old copy of the Southern Evening Echo - Thursday October 4 1962 when in the loft.

Bye the way - my yearly water bill in those days - £5.00

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Redback says...
9:09am Thu 18 Mar 10

Swalk wrote:
Redback - actually, the York Report indicated that higher-quality research was need to draw any concrete conclusions. So it did not back fluoridation. More disinfomation on here, then.
I didn't say it did. Don't put words into my mouth, please.

It did indicate that more research was needed to draw concrete conclusions yes, but it was still able to draw conclusions nonetheless (which were the ones I've stated). Those conclusions were with that caveat though.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

soton-mike80 says...
1:41pm Thu 18 Mar 10

Wasn't this originally sold to the public as a 'miracle' cure for children's rotten teeth?

There is a much more effective treatment: STOP THEM EATING SO MUCH SUGARY CRAP AND INVEST IN A TOOTHBRUSH!

I grew up in an area that wasn't fluoridated and have no problems with my teeth - because I was taught how to brush them properly.

I object to this "authority" placing this substance into my water, something that could in effect cause dental fluorosis and damage the care, hard work (and money) i've put into maintaining my teeth over the years.

It's not rocket science... go and regularly see a dentist regularly and look after yourself properly. You may just find that this cures the problem!

Jeez! Not exactly difficult is it?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Calli says...
6:39pm Thu 18 Mar 10

Why is everyone arguing about whether it is good or bad for you? Firstly can we remember that putting this stuff in the water under the assumption that it will cure tooth decay is MASS MEDICATION. It is against British and E.U. law to MASS MEDICATE. The argument should end there. I thought we Brits believed in a democratic society? Even if this stuff was the nectar of the gods we should ALL be demonstrating against MASS MEDICATION. If it is believed to be good the public should be offered it in tablet form (fluoride tablets or drops are available in chemists) or in milk (as happens in Leeds) or in
table salt (as happens in France). If I was taking medication for a condition I would not expect others to have to have it without consent. So, good or bad at the very heart of this is the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE what we put in our bodies. After all the Government stopped smoking in public places to protect others from being affected by smokers second hand smoke - so shouldn't they protect the people who do not want fluoride in their bodies?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Calli says...
6:59pm Thu 18 Mar 10

There is a wealth of good solid scientific evidence out there - just look for it. The book 'The Fluoride Deception' by Christopher Bryson (available in our Southampton Central Library) will give you all the history and evidence needed to throw this absurd idea out. Christopher Bryson spent years researching the idea of fluoridating water from its inception in the good old USA. He is one of our homegrown journalists from the BBC. The reason many doctors and dentists think it is so great is because that is what they have been told and because they are not chemists and are at the mercy of the drug companies believe it to be so. However, many medics are now turning their back on fluoride and are banding together to try and get the information out to the public and authorities. But they are up against a wall of highly paid officials who have a vested interest in keeping the truth about the dangers of this chemical at bay. Make no mistake the fluoride used in water is the by-product of the PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY. It is against the law to expose it to the air or to bury it. Whenever there is a spillage of this stuff (and there have been many) the immediate area has to be secured from the public because it is so toxic. You can research most of this stuff on the net - and yes of course you have to be selective due to the many idiots who put out rubbish, but you can usually cross reference to get the evidence correct. Don't forget we were all told asbestos wasn't a problem, or lead or thalidomide......... Incidentally, if the consultation by the South Central Strategic Health Authority was so fair why didn't they distribute the A4 booklet to every household to be affected? 99% of the public never even saw it because they didn't realize they had to telephone to request a copy even though they were entitled to one. How fair was that?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

now in the north says...
9:44pm Thu 18 Mar 10

Ive just watched on the TV how radium was once the best thing to have, the germans had radium chocolate even as it was thought that the invisible energy was good for you!
My dentist does not support the use of fluoridation and says that it is just a fashion at the moment.
In the US they are currently considering adding Lithium in the water to stop depression.
And then you must consider, fluorosis is not treatable on the NHS as it is a cosmetic issue. Fluorosis is a sign the body has been poisoned by fluoride so what other effects has it had on the body ie bones.
The water Act has also been altered to remove liability from the water companies to the government and therefore the Tax payer...or you.
There has already been many fluoride accidents, and the uk has had many water incidents with sewage etc getting into tap water.
The water they will be adding is Hexafluorosilic acid which IS chemical waste and contains many contaminates. To get round this, the chemical has now been given a special grade number to give the impression everything will be fine.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

now in the north says...
9:47pm Thu 18 Mar 10

The very same professionals and institutions who told us that fluoride was safe said much the same about lead, asbestos or DDT, or persuaded us to smoke more cigarettes."

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

More News stories


Health chiefs welcome Southampton's fluoride decision Call for fluoride referendum

Most popular



Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses