100% Fluoridated Ireland

Survey reveals Irish dental habits
10th Jul 2009
Over two-thirds of Irish people do not visit the dentist on a regular basis, according to a new survey by Landsdowne Marketing on behalf of Wrigley's Orbit Complete.
The research reveals that only 32% of Irish people over 30 visit the dentist every six months, while 16% confess to going less than every two years. When it comes to which of the sexes is most likely to visit the dentist on a regular basis, women take the lead, with a conscientious 42% stating they visit the dentist every six months compared to 35% of men.
Aside from the lack of regular dental check-ups, the population's oral care routine at home leaves a lot to be desired, with 36% of people polled saying they have never used dental floss and 14% saying they would only floss if they had a dental appointment coming up. Only a meagre 11% of Irish people claim to floss after each meal.
The findings also show that there appears to be a direct correlation between poor dental habits and tooth decay, with 61% of Irish people over 30 claiming to have lost at least one adult tooth in their lifetime and, alarmingly, over one-third (38%) of people have lost more than three adult teeth.
The research also suggests that people are less likely to visit the dentist the worst their dental health gets - 40% of people who have lost more than three teeth admitted to visiting the dentist less often than once a year.
When it comes to fighting plaque we fare a little better in our oral care habits, with % of people questioned saying they know what plaque is. One in 10 of us say that we chew sugarfree gum to help keep plaque at bay and over half claim to floss or brush or use mouthwash to stop the build-up of plaque. In addition, frequent flossers are more likely to have their adult teeth, with 14% of people who floss after each meal saying they have a complete set of teeth.
Commenting on the survey, Dr Tiernan O'Brien said that it is evident from these results that Irish people need to take a more active role in maintaining good oral care habits to prevent problems such as gum disease and tooth decay.

Daily Echo

IT'S not often us Brits get asked what we really think. We get to vote in national, local and European elections every few years, and in the meantime our views might be gathered for an opinion poll or focus group.
But rarely are we given the chance to put our cross in a box on a specific issue.
If campaigners have their way, that could change in Hampshire.
Since South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) voted to approve fluoridation for Southampton, along with parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, there have been claims that public opinion was being ignored on the subject.
More than 10,000 people had their say during the 14-week public consultation last year, with 72 per cent of responses from those in the affected area opposing the scheme.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 people, 38 per cent said they were against fluoridation, compared to 32 per cent in favour of it.
The SHA insists it followed the legal guidelines required of it before making its decision, but campaigners now argue the only fair way of allowing it to go forward is if there is a majority in a public vote. Those calls have been backed by some of the area's high-profile MPs and councillors, but others - namely Southampton's two Labour MPs - have argued it is not practical or appropriate. So how feasible an idea is it, and would it be worthwhile? Graham Smith, professor of politics at the University of Southampton, said that while single-issue public votes are rare, they are not unheard of. Because of the way the law works, they are never legally binding, but can send a powerful message.
To fluoridate or not to fluoridate: a public vote could overthrow the SHA's decision to add the chemical to our water. A vote could be carried out through a postal ballot, online, through phone polling or text messaging, or a combination of all of them, but it would cost.
The SHA spent almost £25,000 on its 2,000 people survey, and although polling companies said they could not guess at amounts because of the different options available, all said a larger vote would be "expensive".
But for any vote to have legitimacy, it is important it is done properly.
"The less professional it is the less people will know about it and the lower turnout, so the lower the legitimacy of it," said Professor Smith.
"We don't have a history of referenda in this country- it's not something used very often because the Government sets its stall in parliamentary sovereignty and nothing else should detract from that.
"We have seen votes on whether we should join the European Union, and on setting up Scottish and Welsh assemblies, but they have always only been advisory, although the Government said it would follow the will of the people.
"But anyone can run an advisory referendum, it's just how can you make sure everyone who legitimately can vote, can vote?
"How would you check people aren't voting six times, and people aren't coming down from Basingstoke or somewhere else to vote?
"Any public vote would send a signal, and there are examples of where just the threat of a referendum has led to policy change."
There has only been one time when the whole of the UK was given a vote on a single subject, in 1974 when the country was asked if it wanted to stay a member of the European Economic Community.
Since then, mere have been votes on the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, regional assemblies, the future of Northern Ireland, the creation of mayors in London and other major cities, and congestion charging.
But there-are signs that could change. "Switzerland and the USA have initiatives, where it goes to a ballot if there's enough support for something, but in this country we're very behind in this sort of public involvement," said Professor Smith.
A similar system to that in some American states would mean if ten per cent of the population feel strongly enough about an issue, they could ask for a public vote on it.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation has already collected more than 15,000 names on a petition calling on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to step in and force the SHA to reconsider its decision. And Professor Smith said the nature of the decision on fluoridation, and who made it, makes a vote more relevant.
"This is clearly an example where the legitimacy of a referendum is increased because it's not a national policy being dictated by a democratically elected authority," he said.
"We've got this quango who are making this decision on scientific evidence without a systematic public voice - they're a bunch of technocrats making a decision almost in political isolation, and that's a reason for a referendum."

FIGHT FLUORIDE IN THE UK

Do not dismiss this bcause of its conclusions as the recorded York investigation is good evidence that it did not back fluoridation as either safe or effective.

Water Fluoridation Is Killing You

Daily Echo letter

Fluoride decision must rest with local people
I'M sorry to hear that Southampton MP Alan Whitehead isn't in favour of a referendum on the issue of adding fluoride to our tap water. The proposals impact on an area much wider than his constituency If the Strategic Health Authority gets its way here, I fully expect that it will set a precedent for other parts of the country
The fact is that Mr Whitehead is part of a Government that placed the decision-making power with the Strategic Health Authority The promise that Prime Minister Gordon Brown made about letting local people decide would be quite bogus without a referendum.
I will be placing a motion to the next meeting of Hampshire County Council, asking that the authority formally supports a referendum. The people must decide.
DAVID HARRISON, town, district and county councillor.

Chief dental officer impressed by imaginative schemes to prevent tooth decay

Chief dental officer impressed by imaginative schemes to prevent tooth decay
8:10am Wednesday 8th July 2009By Barbara Jordan »
IMAGINATIVE projects to tackle alarming levels of child tooth decay were commended this week by the country’s chief dental officer.
Barry Cockcroft visited Widnes to see for himself the range of initiatives being put in place by Halton’s health chiefs.
Keith Milsom, consultant in dental public health with NHS Halton & St Helens, said: “We have the worst dental health than anywhere else in the country.
“Mr Cockcroft was particularly impressed by the engagement we have with dental professionals and the enthusiasm we have for delivering evidence based preventative activity.
“We will be measuring the dental health of children in three years to see if our measures have been successful.”
Too much sugar intake, symptomatic of disadvantaged areas, he said, has caused the problem.
Free tubes of fluoride toothpaste and toothbrushes were sent to 30,000 children aged between three and 11. This will be repeated every six months over the next two years.
Extra capacity has also been secured in dental surgeries to ensure all children receive free treatment.

Wow, no mention of fluoridation. Another worst case in the country - how many are there? Why can't Southampton use these methods to lower decay rates?

Canada - Fluoride levels in water lowered

Fluoride levels in water lowered
By Hanneke Brooymans, Edmonton JournalJuly 7, 2009
Epcor has reduced its fluoride levels by 13 per cent following a recommendation from a Health Canada expert panel.
The panel, consisting of academics and members of public health agencies, reaffirmed the federal government's existing maximum allowable level of 1.5 parts per million, but said the optimum is 0.7 ppm. Epcor previously capped fluoride at 0.8 ppm.

Fluoride in drinking water protects against cavities, but some believe it may have detrimental health effects, among them cancer, an abnormal increase in bone density and a lowering of IQ.
The expert panel rejected those concerns as long as the fluoride remains at or below recommended levels. It specifically addressed a 2006 study by a Harvard scientist who found a link between fluoride in drinking water and a rare bone cancer in males under 20. The findings were a preliminary analysis of a longer study, and the panel recommended no conclusions be drawn until the study was completed.
The panel's report is dated January 2007, but was not published by Health Canada until April 2008.
Late last fall, Epcor was asked by Alberta Health Services to implement the change.
Epcor says it relies on Health Canada to set maximum and optimum levels for fluoride, but it needs regulatory approval from Alberta Environment to make any changes.
The change to the concentration in Edmonton's drinking water was made last Thursday, said Les Gammie, director of Epcor's water services quality assurance. Water from the river naturally contains about 0.1 ppm of fluoride. More fluoride was added to Edmonton tap water in 1966 after a plebiscite was passed to have it added for dental health protection, Gammie said.
Health Canada could not answer any questions Monday on fluoridation rates. Prior to this latest concentration change, Epcor had kept fluoride at 0.8 ppm since March 1998. From 1966 to 1998 the concentration was one ppm.
Epcor says its fluoride concentration is reported daily to Alberta Environment.
hbrooymans@thejournal.canwest.com

Yet the SHA insist 1 ppm is optimum level. Voodoo science. Doesn't make any difference how much you drink, the same optimum level for you.

Daily Echo

SOAPBOX: The great debate over fluoride in water rages on
Evidence being misrepresented
I TOTALLY agree with Sue Robson (Soapbox: fluoride debate) about the way the evidence on water fluoridation has been misrepresented.
All health interventions should be based on the best available evidence. In the case of fluoridation, the findings of the most comprehensive Government-commissioned systematic review (the York Review) are constantly misrepresented and we are told no health problems have been identified so therefore, it must be safe and effective. Because this is the message coming down from the PCT, SHA and other medical bodies, influential people such as our two city MPs and certain city councillors believe that water fluoridation is a good thing.
If these people studied the evidence themselves, they would see that the' York Review did not find fluoridation to be safe and effective. The conclusions were that there is a great deal of uncertainty about fluoridation, that it leads to a large increase in fluorosis and that the evidence was of such poor quality that no confident statements can be made regarding safety or efficacy.
ANNA PECKHAM, Southampton.

We are being farced to ingest poison
CONTRARY to John Noon's comment, fluoride is a proven damage to health, not an improvement.
During the public meetings at St Mary's Stadium many specialists showed the evidence of fluoride's damage to the liver and in relation to bone cancer amongst other organic damage.
The ingestion of this noxious substance is clearly scientifically recorded as permanently damaging to the enzyme ptyalin secreted by the salivary glands in the mouth. The brown staining of the teeth is a clear sign of permanent organic damage to the whole digestive system.
Sections 23 and 24 in the Offences Against The Person Act clearly show that it is 'unlawful to administer or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing'. We the public are being forced to ingest a poison when 72 per cent of that public have clearly shown that they don't want it.
The water companies cannot at present control a constant dilution of chlorine in my area of Southampton. We have to run the taps to hopefully reduce the taste and smell of chlorine in our drinking water, and the water company says there is nothing they can do about it.
This means that they cannot possibly control fluoride at a constant one part per million in the water supply So rather than being beneficial for health, fluoride destroys a digestive system that has taken millions of years to evolve, to the detriment of the whole species.
The members of the SHA should not be applauded for their actions, as Mr Noon suggests. They should be brought before the law for their crime against the person, and before their own professional bodies for their ignorance of, and their malpractice in, the field of health care.
M SIMPSON, Southampton.

Southampton Daily Echo

Give us our referendum
IN answer to Mr Alan Whitehead (June 30) about the fluoride debate and that he said we don't need a referendum. Is he kidding?
With so many people against this he certainly doesn't care what the people think or feel. I thought his job was to listen to the people but obviously he is not. Doesn't he realise that if this goes ahead this will not be a democratic country anymore and look at the problems that would bring.
Can I ask you Mr Whitehead that if you were to go to the doctors and you were forced to take medication you did not want, how would that make you feel? This fluoride is the same principle. We want to choose what we drink and what goes into our bodies. Listen, Mr Whitehead, our water should be left alone.
Why don't you give these poor children who they say need this topping up of fluoride some money to buy fluoride tablets? It could come out of the MPs' expenses claims.
MRS KINCH.

Fluoride Fury. Can Port Macquarie stop the inevitable? Part 5 of 5

Fluoride Fury. Can Port Macquarie stop the inevitable? Part 4 of 5

Daily Echo - It's the right to choose

It's the right to choose
I AM so pleased to read that Alan Whitehead does not think that a referendum is a good idea regarding the fluoride issue. However, I fail to understand how he can compare it with decisions on road building, walk-in centres and maternity facilities.
All these things do not take away our right to choose what we, as individuals living in a democratic society, put inside our bodies. Whether you think fluoride is good or bad the fact remains it should not be forced on the public and should be left to individual choice. Fluoride can be given or administered to those that feel they would benefit without impacting on the wider community.
The SHA asked me why I had a problem with fluoridating water supplies as folic acid is put in bread without consent. The difference of course is that I can CHOOSE whether I buy the bread or not.
Just for the record -1 have worked in four different schools in the Southampton area over the last 12 years and so far have seen no evidence of 'good dental education' for the children or their parents.
I will gladly offer my time, voluntarily to carry out this duty for the PCT if they would like.
MRS PLACE, Southampton.

Andover Advertiser letter

Democracy v tyranny in fluoride issue
THE fluoridation battle took an interesting turn when Hampshire Against Fluoridation took its 15,348 signatures from protesters to Westminster on 9 June.
They were joined by two more MPs, this time not because either objected to fluoridation, but because they value democracy more, believing that fluoridation should not be imposed on a public who clearly do not want it.
This is no longer a battle between dentists and the public, or between dentists and chemists, toxicologists, etc, it is also between democracy and tyranny.
If fluoridation is imposed on Hampshire, let us be quite clear who will be responsible. The 12 unelected members of the Strategic Health Authority; a Government who were elected by a very small number of the electorate, led by an unelected Prime Minister (who was voted in as an MP by the Scots, who have their own parliament now), and who are now distrusted and despised by the electorate, and a Minister for Health who, at the time of his appointment, was vice-president of
the British Fluoridation Society, a Government-funded propaganda organisation (not listed in the Register of Members' Interests), whose Early Day Motion contributed to the SHA's present powers, and who has described fluoride opponents as "the flat earth society"!
Since it was suggested to him that he might be seen as in a position of conflict of interest, he agreed to resign from the BFS, on last reports.
The Chief Dental Officer has said that the beauty of fluoridation is that it requires no coercion. How else could the enforcement-of fluoridation over majority public opinions be described?
So, democracy or tyranny? You are the voters. It will be your money. At the next election you will be able to show if the Government's contempt for you (except as a provider of John Lewis comforts, of course) is equalled by yours for them.
Vote for those who put democracy first.
Margaret Reichlin,
MacCallum Road,
Upper Enham.

Fluoride Fury. Can Port Macquarie stop the inevitable? Part 3 of 5

CHALLENGES TO EUROPEAN COMMISSIONERS OVER WATER FLUORIDATION.

CHALLENGES TO EUROPEAN COMMISSIONERS OVER WATER FLUORIDATION.
UK Councils Against Fluoridation have just updated our website with the latest news www.ukcaf.org
Dr Philip Michael Vice President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment has challenged the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) over its competence and authority to carry out a proposed study into the safety of water fluoridation.as the 'SCHER committee is not fit for purpose.'
We at UKCAF have written to the Secretariat that neither national regulators (MHRA) nor Commissioners have authority to express 'opinions' on whether or not fluoridation needs to be subjected to medicinal regulation and that as Dr Michael says SCHER is not the appropriate body to assess the risks of medicinal intervention.
Dr Caroline Lucas MEP has also made a formal complaint that the MHRA has not furfilled its responsibility to verify the correct classification of hexafluorosilicic acid as a medicinal product.
The full letters are on our website and we trust that you will circulate this important news.
Liz Vaughan and Doug Cross UKCAF

12th July Social Meeting

HAF will be holding a raffle on 12th July during their social event,(See July Newsletter) to help with general costs incurred. So should anyone wish to donate prizes please bring them along on the day.

Fluoride Fury. Can Port Macquarie stop the inevitable? Part 2 of 5.

What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found

Click the above to find out the truth about the York Report. They got it wrong on this radio show.

Echo letter

I WISH her well in her current circumstances but to use the cliché I do find myself blaming Margaret Thatcher for the state we are in today.
What did she do in the eighties' She banned free school milk. What did children drink instead? Not milk usually; but sweet drinks with obvious potential to rot teeth. So began a culture in which many parents give children predominantly drinks of the kind which are had for them. This was a generation ago. What do we have now? A whole lot of children with mouths full of decaying teeth. What did the Iron Lady also do? She stealthily eroded the NHS, This was calamitously continued after her reign and many dentists went into private practice, leaving the NHS dental provision in a complete mess.
As a result the children who need it most are the ones
least likely to receive treatment.
What now do the powers-that-be deem to be the solution to this problem?
Not the introduction of more dental services, but the imposition of fluoride on the whole of the community, whether they like it or not and whether or not they will develop am of the many potential side effects.
Added to this, we are to be expected to endure the shadow of the frightening prospect of an accidental overdose, reports of which are actually openly accessible to the public and accurate.
No wonder that Mrs Thatcher did not receive the plaudits she was expecting from her old college at Oxford; the first person to be so humiliated, I believe. C JORDAN, Southampton.

Daily Echo letters

TAMPERING with our water is a dangerous precedent.
But human behaviour is such that it will not be trampled upon. Water is the staff of life and we hold the right to protect it from dangerous chemicals.
If we, the majority of Southampton people, are against this particular element being put into our water then we MUST be respected.
J Moorby via email
THE SHA is obviously involved in people's health. They are trying to improve the health of children's teeth by adding fluoride to the water.
Does this not mean that they want to add a medicinal compound to the water which I will consume each time I drink the water of Southampton?
Each time I drink the fluoridated water I am being medicated against my will. Has anybody taken this case to the European Court of Human Rights to see what their opinion
Colin Hollyman via email
WHY oh why did all those brave men and women give up their lives in the name of democracy and freedom when Gordon Brown can order a closed door on introducing fluoride to our water?
A M Allen Southampton
CHILDREN in poor countries don't have bad teeth. Why? Because they don't get sweets. It's parents who decay teeth by what they give their children to eat.
Valerie Name and address supplied
I CANNOT begin to express how disgusted I am with this Government and the fact that they are not prepared to listen to people. How dare they Ignore so many and force people to have something they absolutely do not want?
G A Cardy Southampton
I AM normally silent on matters, whether I agree or not with decisions made by others. However, when 12 members of a health authority have the power to override the result of their own consultation to
" introduce a toxic substance into my tap water and they expect me to drink it without complaining, I am more than happy to be party to, as another correspondent described me, "the vociferous minority" protesting against fluoridation.
John Pope Southampton
THERE'S hope in the US
toward some day rescinding the plan to force fluoride into the blood of consumers. This turn of events occurred for several reasons - vast prospective experimental data on animal carcinogenity of unnatural fluoride, convincing epidemiological cancer data on humans in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated cities, and the fact that nearly 70 per cent of US water is injected with these agents.
The FDA has been notified of these California activities.
The FDA labels toothpaste fluorides as drugs, fluoride drops as prescription drugs, and water fluoridation as uncontrolled use of drugs, where side effects and allowed daily doses can't be labelled.
steve7676, Lima, Ohio
WHAT'S the point any more? The Government doesn't care what the public think.
soton1980
WHY not do a deal with Colgate or Crest to give away free toothpaste and brushes on the estates so kids won't have rotten teeth. This will mean that responsible people who look after their teeth won't have to be poisoned as a consequence.
Condor Man Southampton

Give us a public vote on fluoridation

Give us a public vote on fluoridation
Hampshire MP Julian Lewis is backing the Daily Echo's calls for a public debate on fluoridation of our drinking water.
JON REEVE talks to him
A HAMPSHIRE MP has backed calls for a public vote on fluoridation. Julian Lewis says there must be clear backing from the people before any scheme to "medicate" them can be introduced.
The New Forest East MP, whose constituency includes part of the area affected by the controversial scheme, believes South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) was wrong to give the plans unanimous backing despite public opposition.
More than 10,000 people responded to last year's public consultation, with 72 per cent of those living in the affected area who gave their views saying they were against fluoridation.
The SHA also commissioned a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, in which 32 per cent said they supported the scheme, compared with 38 per cent opposed to it.
The Daily Echo is backing calls for the people to be given a vote on the subject,
something Dr Lewis also agrees with. "I think it's a terrific idea," he said. "I know what the fluoride addicts would say, that they don't care how big a majority you get, because we don't think they're voting for reasons that are scientifically sound. "It's one thing for these unelected doctrinaires to ignore a 72 per cent negative response to a public consultation, but it would be quite another for them to ignore a majority in a mass vote. "They have shown they are completely impervious to public opinion."
Dr Lewis has already lodged a complaint with the health service ombudsman about what he believes was the "hopelessly biased" nature of the consultation, and has spoken in the Commons on the subject several times. "I'm not prepared to see it rammed through," he said. "It is not appropriate for an undemocratic, unelected body who don't even live in the area to impose it just because they ' believe that, no matter how many people say they don't want it, their arguments don't hold water and can be ignored.
"I believe it is wrong for a population to be fluoridated against its will. You have to have a significant and adequate degree of public acceptance of this before you do it.
"Whether you oppose it or agree , with it in principle, you must have public consent."
Dr Julian Lewis is backing calls for a public vote on fluoridation