Calls to bin fluoride plans after northern plans are scrapped (From This is Hampshire)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Calls to bin fluoride plans for Hampshire after northern plans are scrapped
5:53pm Tuesday 13th September 2011 in News
By Jon Reeve, Education Reporter
Calls to bin fluoride plans after northern plans are scrapped
ANTI-fluoride campaigners have demanded that health chiefs scrap plans to add the chemical to Hampshire tap water, after a similar scheme elsewhere in the country was abandoned.
Health bosses in the north west have admitted the costs of introducing fluoridation there have mushroomed.
Opponents of South Central Strategic Health Authority’s moves to put fluoride in water delivered to nearly 200,000 people in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams have welcomed NHS North West’s decision.
And with Southern Water admitting it still doesn’t know exactly how the scheme will be implemented, campaigners argue the problems elsewhere show the Hampshire plans should also be axed.
Doug Cross, from UK Councils Against Fluoridation, said the latest estimates show the Hampshire scheme will prove to be far higher than the £471,000 quoted by the SHA when it said it believed the plans were viable.
He said: “If fluoridation is too expensive in the north west, it is unlikely to be affordable in the south.”
The SHA has admitted it is having to recalculate the costs of its scheme, after a two-year delay while it successfully fought a legal challenge over the plans.
NHS North West chief executive Mark Ogden said in a report to board members it is now estimated it would cost more than £200m to fluoridate the whole region’s water – twice as much as previously suggested.
He said the “considerable”
costs, along with the Government’s moves to scrap SHAs in 2013, mean the authority should abandon its efforts to introduce fluoridation.
Since defeating the judicial review, South Central SHA has insisted it remains convinced fluoridation will benefit public health, and says work is underway to introduce it as soon as possible.
But Mr Cross said the increased costs of the north west scheme, which have been estimated after £500,000 was spent on a feasibility study by water firm United Utilities, reveal major flaws in the Hampshire plans.
Last week, health minister Anne Milton told New Forest East MP Julian Lewis the Government has no idea what the Southampton scheme will cost beyond the original £471,000 estimate.
He said: “South Central SHA believes that it can convert a water treatment works for less than one tenth of the cost quoted by United Utilities, a company that is already fluoridating its own works and has the experience to get their calculations right.
“Even if the (Health and Social Care) 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’.”
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said last night he also believes the North West decision is “significant”.
He said: “They say the costs are going to be higher than expected, and the uncertainty that reorganisations makes around trying to introduce such schemes.
“These are two things that seem to be completely ignored by the SHA here in this area.
“These schemes are not simple things where you just put fluoride in the water, they are complicated and expensive.
“The NHS is short of cash and to spend it on something that’s of no benefit, and will actually cause harm, is nonsensical.”
The SHA's deputy director of public health, Dr James Mapstone, said last night the costs of the Hampshire scheme have not yet been finalised.
He said: “The estimate of costs remains as per the information contained in the independent feasibility report from 2008. We are currently working with Southern Water to provide more up to date costs.”
Council set to vote on fluoridation
COUNCILLORS in Southampton will tomorrow vote on a motion calling for them to state their opposition to fluoridation for the city.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation has forced the subject onto the agenda for the full council meeting by collecting more than 6,000 names on a petition.
Ahead of the vote, more than 100 people packed into a meeting to hear leading international fluoridation opponent Professor Paul Connett talk about the latest developments in the fight against the practice on Saturday.
The founder of Fluoride Action Network updated campaigners on changes around the world, including his native North America, where several cities have begun removing the chemical, following moves by the US Government to lower the recommended dose.
Professor Connett, yesterday met Romsey and Southampton North MP Caroline Nokes to talk about fluoride.
Comments(9)
jwillie6
says...
9:20pm Tue 13 Sep 11
rg).
However, even if fluoride was helpful to teeth, trying to distribute any drug in drinking water is the most expensive and wasteful way to do it.
People drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining 99 ½ % of the toxic fluoride chemical is dumped directly into our environment through the sewer system. I am a Civil Engineer, so I am very familiar with community water systems.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this misguided practice. Your local water department can confirm all of this.
That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.
Can you think of a more wasteful government program? Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.
The wickedsaint
says...
10:41pm Tue 13 Sep 11
Ozmosis
says...
10:59pm Tue 13 Sep 11
debbieshear wrote:If only you could write in plain English... people might take your comments more seriously
no wunder no one has comented on this .. it was another exarmple of utter rubish.,. i started to reed it but i only red a few words coz it was boring,. why dont the echo actulaly rite something in good old plane english? insted of spending all there time baning the same person over and over and over again
jazzi
says...
11:39pm Tue 13 Sep 11
jwillie6 wrote:jwillie you have the most honest sensible approach to this i have ever seen ty xx
There are many large scientific studies to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips, lowered IQ and other health problems. The best source for scientific information on fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.o
rg).
However, even if fluoride was helpful to teeth, trying to distribute any drug in drinking water is the most expensive and wasteful way to do it.
People drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining 99 ½ % of the toxic fluoride chemical is dumped directly into our environment through the sewer system. I am a Civil Engineer, so I am very familiar with community water systems.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this misguided practice. Your local water department can confirm all of this.
That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.
Can you think of a more wasteful government program? Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.
Nice to see a clear and concise response for a change on here TY again xx
SpittingMoreFire
says...
9:05am Wed 14 Sep 11
debbieshear wrote:Buy buy troll Deb. I wunder wot you'll come back as next... starting two get two you, isn't it.
no wunder no one has comented on this .. it was another exarmple of utter rubish.,. i started to reed it but i only red a few words coz it was boring,. why dont the echo actulaly rite something in good old plane english? insted of spending all there time baning the same person over and over and over again
You kan entertain!
fine-next
Raxx
says...
10:16am Wed 14 Sep 11
jwillie6 wrote:Whilst you're correct that there is no evidence that flouridation has any benefits, it's a shame that you then ruin it with the claims of carcinogenisis et al. Meta-study after meta-study has shown that (just as there's no benefit), there's no harm either. You can't just look at one source such as flouridealert, or only that and similar campaigning groups. Cherry-picking studies fudges the figures. The only credible approach is to use things like the Cochrane institute.
There are many large scientific studies to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips, lowered IQ and other health problems. The best source for scientific information on fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.o
rg).
However, even if fluoride was helpful to teeth, trying to distribute any drug in drinking water is the most expensive and wasteful way to do it.
People drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining 99 ½ % of the toxic fluoride chemical is dumped directly into our environment through the sewer system. I am a Civil Engineer, so I am very familiar with community water systems.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this misguided practice. Your local water department can confirm all of this.
That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.
Can you think of a more wasteful government program? Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.
Claims of cancer and the like are unnecessary for opposing the plans. It would have no benefit, and would cost a bundle. That's all the argument needed to throw the whole scheme out.
Polaris
says...
1:15am Fri 16 Sep 11
Raxx wrote:Raxx
jwillie6 wrote:Whilst you're correct that there is no evidence that flouridation has any benefits, it's a shame that you then ruin it with the claims of carcinogenisis et al. Meta-study after meta-study has shown that (just as there's no benefit), there's no harm either. You can't just look at one source such as flouridealert, or only that and similar campaigning groups. Cherry-picking studies fudges the figures. The only credible approach is to use things like the Cochrane institute.
There are many large scientific studies to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips, lowered IQ and other health problems. The best source for scientific information on fluoridation can be found here: (www.fluoridealert.o
rg).
However, even if fluoride was helpful to teeth, trying to distribute any drug in drinking water is the most expensive and wasteful way to do it.
People drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining 99 ½ % of the toxic fluoride chemical is dumped directly into our environment through the sewer system. I am a Civil Engineer, so I am very familiar with community water systems.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this misguided practice. Your local water department can confirm all of this.
That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.
Can you think of a more wasteful government program? Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.
Claims of cancer and the like are unnecessary for opposing the plans. It would have no benefit, and would cost a bundle. That's all the argument needed to throw the whole scheme out.
Have you looked at this study - www.springerlink.com
/content/w51278475h3
5l456/ ?
You cannot say "...there's no harm either." Dental fluorosis?
The primary argument against fluoridation is that we shouldn't be medicated via our water supplies without our individual, informed consent.
98% of Europe understands that.
Polaris
says...
1:52am Fri 16 Sep 11
Have you looked at this study - www.springerlink.com
/content/w51278475h3
5l456/ ?
You cannot say "...there's no harm either." Dental fluorosis?
The primary argument against fluoridation is that we shouldn't be medicated via our water supplies without our individual, informed consent.
98% of Europe understands that.
debbieshear says...
8:28pm Tue 13 Sep 11