Britannia Radio

This is a long message, it may be beneficial to print out and read at leisure)

Quotation:
"What is morally wrong, cannot be politically right."
Lord Soper

Index to this email

Introduction
Green Party press briefing on Water Fluoridation, UK Law, &
EUHuman Rights
Fluoride 10 top scientific facts
Jack Straw Letter Councils against Fluoride
Discussion in Houses of Parliament
Recent debate in the House on Fluoridation

I strongly suggest that everyone informs themselves about the fluoridation of our water supplies, because it is a compound of very toxic and corrosive 'Fluorine', and it is morally wrong to add this toxic poison to our precious fresh water supplies.

This government are pushing for more water supplies to be fluoridated - they say to improve our dental health, on the say so of Dentists with no real medical foundation.
Many studies in forerunners America and Canada, proved that it is a toxic poison which builds up in the bones and teeth binding to the calcium, which it has a great affinity for.
The result is brittle bones and teeth, and dental fluorosis (browning of teeth), lowering of IQ, and sperm count, plus many other things (see below), and it can interfere with the way medication works, especially thyroxine.

So we need to ask our MPs why the government are undertaking this damaging policy.

Belgium refused to add it to their water, because it is toxic.

**************************************************************************
Water fluoridation contravenes UK law, EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
A Green Party press office briefing
8 July 2003

http://camden.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2003/F%20illegality.htm

***********************************************************



9) Fluoridated Water for Adults: Very Little, If Any, Benefit

Historically, most of the research on whether water fluoridation has a benefit, has been focused on children. By way of contrast, only a small handful of studies have ever examined the effectiveness of fluoridated water for adults. According to a 2001 review by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (Locker 2001), "The absence of adults from water fluoridation studies is difficult to explain... Whatever the reason, it must be regarded as a major limitation in the research effort to date."

In 2007, an important study was published which sheds light on whether fluoridated water is effective at preventing tooth decay in adult populations (9a). Despite a recent press release to the contrary, the study indicates very little, if any, benefit.

To assess fluoridation’s effectiveness, the study examined the dental treatment costs accrued over 5 years by 51,683 members from an HMO. The HMO members, including both adults and children, lived in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities of 3 separate regions in the Northwest. The authors, a team of pro-fluoridation researchers, state that the study shows a "small" benefit from fluoridated water which "may" have led to some cost-savings. A close inspection of their data, however, shows that this "small benefit” -- if it even exists -- was very small indeed.

For example, in the largest region examined in the study, representing over 75% of the HMO members surveyed (the Portland metro area of Oregon), fewer children and adults in the non-fluoridated areas required treatment than children and adults in the fluoridated areas. Moreover, the children and adults in the non-fluoridated area who sought treatment accrued lower total costs over the 5-year period than those in the fluoridated area. As noted by the authors, the “Portland metro had lower treatment costs for the NF (Non-Fluoridated) area...”

These findings from the Portland region are remarkable: after all, one of the most-frequently cited claims by fluoridation proponents is that every $1 spent on fluoridated water saves $80 in dental bills. In this study, the dental care costs in the largest region surveyed were lower in the areas without water fluoridation.

Even among the the smaller regions in the study (Marion County, Oregon and Clark County, Washington), which produced more favorable results for the fluoridated areas, the results were still inconsistent and the benefits marginal. As the authors admit, "the effect we observed was generally small."

One of the reasons given by the authors for why the benefit was small and inconsistent was that the population being studied was insured and had ready access to dental care and preventive procedures. However, a separate study by a University of Michigan research team suggests that water fluoridation is equally ineffective in low-income areas as well (9b). The study examined a group of 800 low-income African American adults living in Detroit. Despite the fact that Detroit has been fluoridated since 1967, the authors found that tooth decay was "severe" and "extensive", with tooth decay rates reaching as high as 99.8% for individuals aged 14 to 35 years.

What makes this Detroit study particularly interesting, is that -- unlike the vast majority of studies investigating fluoridation’s effectiveness -- the authors actually assessed the quantity of fluoridated tap water consumed by each individual. When they then compared the quantity of fluoridated water consumed with the rate of tooth decay, they found no relationship. In other words, ingestion of fluoridated tap water for up to 4 decades did nothing to produce better teeth in this disadvantaged population.

REFERENCES:

9a) Maupomé G, et al. (2007). A comparison of dental treatment utilization and costs by HMO members living in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 67(4):224-33.

9b) Burt BA, et al. (2006). Dietary patterns related to caries in a low-income adult population. Caries Research 40(6):473-80.

10) Second Thoughts About Water Fluoridation

Several authors of the studies noted above have advised that the use of fluoride for the prevention of tooth decay be re-evaluated in light of red flags surrounding its health effects. In 2007, two reviews attempted to re-evaluate water fluoridation's purported benefits. The reviews, one published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the other in the dental journal Clinical Oral Investigations, have helped to advance the fluoridation debate by elucidating some (not all) key points which critics have been raising in recent years (10a,b).

According to the BMJ review, the evidence underpinning water fluoridation is of “poor quality.” Indeed, if fluoridated water were defined as a medical treatment — which the authors suggest is a reasonable characterization — there would be insufficient evidence to justify its continuation. As noted by the authors:

“If fluoride is a medicine, evidence on its effects should be subject to the standards of proof expected of drugs, including evidence from randomized trials... There have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation.”

Highlighting the uncertainties surrounding water fluoridation, the authors point out that international tooth decay rates appear entirely unrelated to the water fluoridation status of each country. The authors state:

“Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.”

In addition to questioning the magnitude of fluoridation’s benefits, the authors point out that -- after 60 years -- its safety has yet to be established. The published studies purporting to prove fluoridation’s safety are, according to the review, “insufficient to rule out all but the biggest effects.” As a result, the authors suggest that:

“In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation.”

Consistent with the BMJ review, a review in the journal Clinical Oral Investigations examined the research on fluoridation’s effectiveness between the years 2001 and 2006 and found that water fluoridation “may be unnecessary.” According to the authors:

“For the past 50 years, CWF (Community Water Fluoridation) has been considered the most cost-effective measure for the control of caries at the community level. However, it is now accepted that systemic fluoride plays a limited role in caries prevention. Several epidemiologic studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities clearly indicated that CWF may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has [become] low.”

REFERENCES:

10a) Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.

10b) Pizzo G, et al. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.

See also: Top 10 Scientific Developments of 2006








Fluoride Action Network | 802-338-5577 | info@fluoridealert.org


*************************************************************************

Jack Straw Letter

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/min_justice_re_mhra_failure_to_designate

*********************************************************************************
Discussion in our Houses of Parliament

Mr. Wray: Many early-day motions are tabled. Some get hundreds of signatures, but they never go anywhere. Neither will that one.

The jewel in the crown was Birmingham, which has been fluoridated for 30 years—[Hon. Members: "For 40 years."] That is even worse. The Government never reported back on the professor who went into five primary schools and found that 34 per cent. of the children had dental fluorosis—caused by chronic fluorine poisoning. That is where the disease comes from—a poisonous waste. No one from the medical profession ever discovered that fluoride was attracted to bones and teeth; they knew nothing about it. Cattle were found down in England with skeletal fluorosis, which came from people dumping fluoride, which was very expensive to dump. People wanted to find a cheap way of getting rid of that, so they sent an agent to have a look. It was him who discovered that it was attracted to bones and teeth. That is where chronic fluorine poisoning and skeletal fluorosis came from. I think that the company at the time may have been Fisons.

Under the 1926 food and drugs legislation, it is a crime to add any kind of fluoride to foodstuffs. The Medicines Act 1968 clearly states what is a medicinal product. Why would a Government who believe in democracy want to transfer a non-medicinal product to a health authority and take away the democratic right of a local authority?

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): I am interested in amendment No. 8, but I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could clarify one point. I understand entirely that he recommends that the requirement should come from a democratically elected local authority. What would be the basis on which such an authority would make such a request?
Mr. Wray: The reason for wanting to take the decision away from local authorities is that local

10 Nov 2003 : Column 103

authorities up and down the country refused to fluoridate. It was then put in the hand of water authorities, but they cannot do it because of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946, so the Government have to try to persuade the water authorities. Because of indemnification, the water authorities will not like that because they have heard public complaints about the fluoridation of public water supplies and dental fluorosis. They will not implement fluoridation. In fact, an attempt was made to force authorities in the north of England, and that case was lost because the judge said that the water authority had a responsibility to its shareholders and customers.
Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): In the event of fluoridated water being eventually proven harmful to the health of human beings, who does my hon. Friend think will be liable if the victims sue? Would it be the manufacturers of fluoride, the water companies, the strategic health authorities or even the Government?

Mr. Wray: If any of my children get dental fluorosis or chronic fluorine poisoning, I will sue everybody until I get the right one—the Government, the fluoride company, whoever. One reason why fluoride is said not to be a medicinal product is that a product licence would be needed to procure the fluoride. That licence would state clearly what the product is—a fluorosilicate, under European Union directives, and something that is certainly not on the approved medicines list. I have heard Ministers speak about fluorspar and natural fluoride. Natural fluoride comes from fluorspar. It is insoluble. With fluorosilicates, as soon as they hit the water, they dissolve. With fluorspar, the actual fluoride comes from the fluorspar and is insoluble. There is a very big difference.

I do not care who takes fluoride. Give it to your sons, give it to your daughters—in toothpaste or in tablets, as long as it is self-administered. Once we start to use water as a panacea, as mass medication for the whole population, half of whom do not even have teeth, we might as well put the fluoride into buckets.

We have a socialist Government and they should never medicate people against their will. It is illegal in English law to medicate someone against their will. It is as though a doctor diagnosed all his patients and prescribed them fluoride without seeing them. We have never done that in this country. That is what bothers me—the fact that a Labour Government who believe in democracy want such demagoguery and want to fluoridate public water supplies.

The Government know the moral aspects and the medical aspects; they certainly know the legal aspects. Why are fluorides forbidden and criminal under the Poisons Act 1972? Why are the human rights of the individual being taken away by a few Members of Parliament who are not even taking the time to read exactly what will be going into our water? Why do they not find out what fluoride is and where it comes from?

Out in the commercial world somebody will be making big bucks. That is what this is all about. If the whole UK water supply is fluoridated, somebody will get their palm greased. They will be ready when the Government decide to put fluoride in the water.
10 Nov 2003 : Column 104

There will be no way of really measuring one part per million. How will the Government know how many children are already taking fluoride tablets at school? How will they know how many people already brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste? If a baby ate a tube of toothpaste she would die. There is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a child.

Mr. Etherington: Earlier my hon. Friend was asked about the democratic processes that might be used by local authorities to ascertain the wishes of the public. Does he share my view that whatever the system is I would have more confidence in it than if the matter were left to a strategic health authority?

Mr. Wray: I certainly do.

What worries me is that the Minister is misleading the House. The chairman of the York university review committee, Professor Trevor Sheldon, sent a letter to the press about the statements—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman accuse the Minister of misleading the House? If I did, I hope that he will very quickly withdraw that statement.

Mr. Wray: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I withdraw it.

Trevor Sheldon wrote an open letter that stated:


"The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definitive evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation."
Why does the Minister not promote the comments of the director of the Medical Research Council, Dr. Paul Harrison? He said:


"But there is a lack of research on some important aspects, which is why we're highlighting the need for more research . . . Because of the wide use of toothpastes and other dental health care products containing fluoride, we need a better understanding of how much fluoride we're all absorbing."
Everybody else is worried, so why does the Minister say that it is safe to take fluoride? All those bodies have looked at the evidence and considered the studies.
In 1997, Wolverhampton fluoridated its water supply, so why did dental costs rise by 112 per cent? Should not those costs have been lower after fluoridation? We are not getting the right facts in this case.

I hope that hon. Members will vote for the democratic right of local authorities to retain control under amendment No. 8 and that they will vote against the fluoridation of public water supplies. That is a criminal act and it is illegal under various Acts passed by the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House? It is obvious that only a short time is left for this debate so I hope that in future contributions, including those from the Front Benches, Members will bear in mind the fact that there is a great deal of interest in taking part.

10 Nov 2003 : Column 105

Mr. Wiggin: I shall try to keep my comments as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to address a large number of amendments.

Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly about amendment No. 8, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) has just discussed. We shall certainly press it to a vote and on the Opposition Benches it will be a free vote.
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire): Some time ago when we held a debate on the composition of the other place there was a series of genuine free votes. To indicate that they were genuinely free votes, the Government Whips Office put in Tellers for both sides. Has my hon. Friend received any notification from the Treasury Bench that Government Whips will be telling on both sides when we vote on this group?
Mr. Nick Ainger (West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire) indicated assent.

Mr. Wiggin: I see that the Government Whip is nodding. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for making that vital point; if we are to have a free vote, free it must be.

Currently, the Bill gives strategic health authorities the role of consultation with local communities to determine whether fluoride should be added to their water supply. We want that to be undertaken by local authorities. The Minister has insisted that any decision to fluoridate water will be determined by "local" people after "local" consultation. Strategic health authorities are not local. The SHA for my constituency is in Coventry, which is a long way from Herefordshire so it is not local in any sense of the word.
Strategic health authorities are neither democratically elected nor accountable. Their accountability comes only through the Secretary of State, which is not a direct local mechanism. They do not match up with the Government's insistence on local consultation and I should prefer an element of democratic decision making with elected and accountable local authorities having that power.
*****************************************************************

******************************************************************************

fluoridation of water : 2 Written Answers
=========================================

Written Answers - Health: Fluoride: Drinking Water (22 Jun 2009)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-06-22b.281140.h&s=Fluoridation+of+water#g281140.r0
Ann Keen: Under regulation 5 *of* the *Water Fluoridation*
(Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005, a strategic health authority
(SHA) considering the outcome *of* a consultation on *water
fluoridation* is required to take into account both the extent *of*
support for the proposal and the cogency *of* the arguments advanced. In
so doing, the authority has to be satisfied that the health arguments in
favour *of*...

Written Answers - Health: Fluoride: Drinking Water (22 Jun 2009)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-06-22b.281143.h&s=Fluoridation+of+water#g281143.r0
Ann Keen: The Government support the *fluoridation of water* because
*of* the potential it offers for reducing inequalities in oral health.
To help inform public consultations, Ministers will, if asked, explain
the reasons for their support.