SAY NO TO FLUORIDE AND FLUORIDATION: 26/07/2009

Water tests found excess fluoride
Too much fluoride was put into the water supply after a new dosing system at Severn Trent Water failed, the watchdog said.
The Drinking Water Inspectorate said a fault happened at the pumping station which supplies 29,000 homes between Bridgnorth and Wolverhampton last June. Two tests on treated water at the station failed, with one showing fluoride at twice the target level.

Severn Trent Water apologised but said the water had still been safe to drink.
The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) said work to complete a new fluoride dosing pump and dose controller was completed at Dimmingsdale Borehole Plumping Station near Wolverhampton on 12 June 2008.
A routine sample on 1 July 2008 found treated water at the works contained 2mg of fluoride per litre of water - which is twice the target level, it said.
A further test two days later showed 1.86mg of fluoride.

'High standards'
The DWI was critical of Severn Trent Water (STW) who it said did not detect the problem for a month and then tested the supply going to the wrong homes.
The report recommended the firm reviewed its staff training and its awareness of drinking water quality standards.
STW said the elevated fluoride levels were short-lived and "did not pose a risk to health at any stage".
"While the water was still safe to drink, these samples and the way in which they arose fell short of the high standards we expect at Severn Trent," a spokesman said.
The firm said it had taken action in a number of areas to minimise the risk of it happening again, including strengthening its controls and procedures.

Brian Jackson comments...

Perhaps on the only way that such risks can actually be eliminated is by not introducing this toxic waste into the water supply in the first place.
How come it took Severn Trent a month to discover this toxic release of fluoride at twice the legal level.?
And also, how come they actually tested the wrong homes?
Its also a matter of concern that the news has only emerged now nearly a year later. As a result neither the Severn Trent Water Company nor the Drinking Water Inspectorate can be said to have treated this issue with alacrity or the degree of rigour one should expect.
People concerned about water quality in their area can request print outs of their local water supplies by Zones if they contact the Water Companies. This info should be in the public domain. Perhaps if the companies and the DWI are failing in their responsibilities we should shake them up a little.

Our Leeds correspondent draws my attention to this exchange in the House of Lords extracted from Hansard and published on the "They Work for You" website.

Its fairly clear from this exchange that consultation was a bareface lie and real aim of Fluoridation is not teeth at all, its the disposal of highly toxic industrial waste via the water supply. Its illegal to pump it out of factory chimneys or into the nearest river or even a bog-standard landfil site. But its perfectly OK according to the perverts in our Government to dump it in our water and especially wonderful to poison our children by dumping it into their school milk.

There will be a General Election next year and its pretty certain to give the bums rush to many of these nutters in the current Government. Its therefore very important to ensure that we do not vote in a replacement bunch of liars and terrorists. Perhaps in view of all that has transpired in this campaign and the expenses scandal, the web site should be rename. "They Work For Themselves.!"

"A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority are satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding".

The decision under Regulation 5 is to be made by the strategic health authority, not the Secretary of State. Regulation 5 therefore makes clear that it is for the strategic health authority to decide if the health arguments outweigh all other arguments taking into account not merely the cogency of the arguments, but also,
"the extent of support for the proposal".
It is clear that, under Regulation 5, support is a relevant factor, but it is not the only factor or the conclusive issue. It can be outweighed by the health arguments. A majority of local support is not therefore a necessary precondition to the strategic health authority requesting a water undertaker to increase the fluoride content of a water supply.

Government policy is not, and could not be, inconsistent with the regulations. In particular, it could not convert the reference in Regulation 5 to support as a relevant factor into a necessary precondition for a request for fluoridation.
We accept that there may have been a degree of understandable confusion over these issues in the past. However, by way of clarification, the view given by the Chief Dental Officer in February 2008 that,
"a SHA cannot base its decision solely on a simple count of the representations for or against the proposal",
correctly represents government policy. Regulation 5 sets out the law and government policy cannot and does not seek to add to it. It is the for the strategic health authority to take the decision to ask a water undertaker to increase the fluoride content of a water supply and to make the judgment required under Regulation 5 as to whether the health arguments outweigh all other arguments. Local support is a relevant factor but is not a precondition for a request.
Does this answer the above question?
Yes! 1 person thinks so!No! 1 person thinks not!
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c327W)

Annotations

Sustianbility YoursPosted on 28 Jul 2009 8:57 am (Report this annotation)
So consultation on Fluoride means; 1) Don't act democratically 2) Non-health and non-scientist (The SHA Boards) make decisions on potential toxicology and epidemiology issues on our behalf. Nice touch that, if the majority of the consulted public 'want' fluoridation, and not the real way round, when the majority of the public understand that clean un-molested water is what is wanted, a little ironic that. When will the SHA understand that all the 'safe and effective' research is faulty, based on a teeth only approach to the study and 1940's corporate science, and not whole body effects, of which all the science points to very real high risks of harm, and first hit, like lead in petrol, are our children. Fluoride is a poison, and as the EC decided in 2005 that it was also a medicine and therefore cannot be used in the preparation or cleaning of food and consequently neither imported nor exported within or to and from the European Community. The proposal to fluoridate water therefore would place the British Government in direct contravention of EC regulations.

Water is for drinking, not for medication.

Baldwin of Bewdley (Crossbench)
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 9 June (WA 143), whether the undertaking by Lord Warner on 8 March 2005 that "fluoridation schemes would only be introduced where the local population were in favour" (HL Deb, col 706) still represents Government policy.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c326W)

Lord Darzi of Denham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Labour)
Section 89 of the Water Industry Act 1991 as substituted by the Water Industry Act 2003 requires strategic health authorities to consult and ascertain opinion before proceeding to make a request to a water undertaker to increase the fluoride content of its water supply. The Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/921) make detailed provision about how consultation and the ascertainment of opinion is to be carried out. Regulation 5 sets out the pre-condition to a strategic health authority proceeding to request a water undertaker to increase the fluoride content of its water supply.
Regulation 5 is in the following terms:
"A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority are satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding".
The decision under Regulation 5 is to be made by the strategic health authority, not the Secretary of State. Regulation 5 therefore makes clear that it is for the strategic health authority to decide if the health arguments outweigh all other arguments taking into account not merely the cogency of the arguments, but also,
"the extent of support for the proposal".
It is clear that, under Regulation 5, support is a relevant factor, but it is not the only factor or the conclusive issue. It can be outweighed by the health arguments. A majority of local support is not therefore a necessary precondition to the strategic health authority requesting a water undertaker to increase the fluoride content of a water supply.
Government policy is not, and could not be, inconsistent with the regulations. In particular, it could not convert the reference in Regulation 5 to support as a relevant factor into a necessary precondition for a request for fluoridation.
We accept that there may have been a degree of understandable confusion over these issues in the past. However, by way of clarification, the view given by the Chief Dental Officer in February 2008 that,
"a SHA cannot base its decision solely on a simple count of the representations for or against the proposal",
correctly represents government policy. Regulation 5 sets out the law and government policy cannot and does not seek to add to it. It is the for the strategic health authority to take the decision to ask a water undertaker to increase the fluoride content of a water supply and to make the judgment required under Regulation 5 as to whether the health arguments outweigh all other arguments. Local support is a relevant factor but is not a precondition for a request.
Does this answer the above question?
Yes! 1 person thinks so!No! 1 person thinks not!
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c327W)

Annotations

Sustianbility YoursPosted on 28 Jul 2009 8:57 am (Report this annotation)
So consultation on Fluoride means; 1) Don't act democratically 2) Non-health and non-scientist (The SHA Boards) make decisions on potential toxicology and epidemiology issues on our behalf. Nice touch that, if the majority of the consulted public 'want' fluoridation, and not the real way round, when the majority of the public understand that clean un-molested water is what is wanted, a little ironic that. When will the SHA understand that all the 'safe and effective' research is faulty, based on a teeth only approach to the study and 1940's corporate science, and not whole body effects, of which all the science points to very real high risks of harm, and first hit, like lead in petrol, are our children. Fluoride is a poison, not a medicine Water is for drinking, not for medication