SEVERN TRENT DELIVERS DOUBLE THE LEGAL LIMIT OF FLUORIDE TO CONSUMERS

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.

UK GOVERNMENT ADMITS FLUORIDE CONSULTATION IS A SHAM

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.!"

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, 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

ANDY BURNHAM - CONFLICTING INTERESTS, CONFLICTING ADVICE

On BBC Radio Four this morning, Andy Burnham MP and Minister of Health (sic) was asked about the conflicting advice from the government about Swine Flu and this is not surprising. Should we travel or not, should we avoid crowds, Public Transport, major indoor sporting events or concerts; should we call NHS Direct or our GP etc etc etc. ????? Well as one might expect from Andy Pandy, sometimes he dances on his masters strings and sometimes he seems to pull them. Suffice it to say that according to Burnham "its not for Ministers to tell people what to do !" (shurely some mistake. Ed?)

This is quite an astonishing climb down from Andy Fluoride PLC or maybe even a handbrake turn. First he pushes fluoride through the Commons and gets the crap on the Labour agenda. But he clearly states that it will only happen with the full consent of the public in the targeted area and during the "consultation" in Southampton even Gordon Brown repeats this promise. Then of course when the good people of Southampton tell him clearly to flush the idea down the toilet its all change again. Democracy is thrown out of the window, all previous pledges are abandoned and the "medical evidence and science" must out weigh public opinion and wishes. One must presume that this is a reference to the cheques of unknown size that Burnham has been trousering from the British Fluoridation Society to whose tunes he normally dances.

According to Burnham we should not worry about swine flu but if we are concerned then we should all be frantically washing our hands at every opportunity to avoid contagion.... er! That's it! What type of soap should we use though. ordinary soap, industrial bleach or maybe even fluoride.??? After all the latter kills just about anything so it should work on the flu bugs too. Of course according to the all unknowing Gandhi Burnham its all entirely up to us, its not for gobbashites to dictate to us about such things. Now go wash your mouth out with fluoride, Burnham, and don't skimp on it neither, we all know how safe and effective it is and meanwhile we all will carefully wash our hands of the New Labour Project, its Targets, its league Tables, its Consultations, its promises and its dreadful tenth rate Ministers.

PAUL CONNETT SPEAKS IN LEEDS NEXT SATURDAY

NATIONAL PURE WATER ASSOCIATION

Foremost international speaker against water fluoridation

Professor Paul Connett

Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, St Lawrence University, Canton, New York State, USA

will present the case against water fluoridation

including the recent scientific evidence for harmful effects

in an illustrated lecture

at the

Crowne Plaza Hotel

Wellington Street

LEEDS

LS1 4DL

on

Saturday July 25th

From 7.00 pm to 9.30 pm

The hotel is about eight minutes walk from Leeds City railway station

Free car parking is available in the hotel car park. Tea/coffee served on arrival.

NPWA 42 Huntington Road York YO31 8RE Enquiries 01302 785542

www.npwa.org.uk www.fluoridealert.org

RUNNING FROM THE CURE -- HEMP

FLUORIDE PETITION TO GOVERNMENT. 10 DOWNING ST, ILL-INFORMED, AND IN DENIAL

Today, fluoride petitioners to the 10 Downing Street Website would have been totally underwhelmed by the rather predictable response that arrived in their in-boxes. Ill informed and out of date as ever, the Government is hardened in its wickedness and stupidity. The hand of Andy Bullshit and his backing band The Fluoridistas is also still clearly visible as a moments reading will attest. They even repeat the crap about about the York Review claiming it as support when it clearly was not.

I wont go on much about this as its not really worthy of comment. but clearly Gordon Brown and his dwindling band of yes men wants out of Government and is doing everything he can to bring this happy day about. I came from a long line of traditional Labour voters and now feel ashamed that I ever voted for them. But i wont get caught again as the song by The Who puts it. Even now I think I hear the sound of my father doing cartwheels in his grave. Calm down Dad, they are very close to the edge of the cliff now.

If you really want to hear the Governments response to the petition, you can find it here ...... http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page19843

If on the other hand you would prefer to hear up to date and scientific data and opinions on fluoride and fluoridation may i suggest you try these web addresses

UKCAF United Kingdom Council Against Fluoride http://www.ukcaf.org/
National Pure Water Association http.//www.npwa.org.uk/
The Fluoride Action Network http://www.fluoridealert.org/ and my own blog at
www.sayno2fluoride.blogspot.com
If any of these links fail to work, please paste them to your browser.

This Mailing list is hosted by Friends of the Earth England and Wales. you can find them at http://www.foe.co.uk/
If you wish to submit any news or information on fluoride and fluoridation you can do so by joining this mailing list. Write to me at sayno2fluoride@btinternet.com or call me on 01282-860985 and your name can be added to the list. If you subsequently send in any items your email address and contact details will not be shared without your permission. Campaigns such as this one to irradicate fluoride from our diet and water supplies is not won by sitting at home worrying, its won by co-operation and networking. Together we can win this struggle.

ALAN WHITEHEAD MP, MORE FLUORIDE U TURNS

According to Alan Whitehead holding a referendum on plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water is "unrealistic", a Southampton MP has warned.
There have been mounting calls for the public to be given a vote over the controversial scheme, after health chiefs backed it despite widespread public opposition. Southampton Test MP Alan Whitehead however, believes staging a single-issue referendum would not be possible because it would set a precedent that could then be applied to all sorts of issues.

"These suggestions are not realistic to where we are now," * he said, adding that believes the legislation needed would be fraughtwith problems. Having a referendum on fluoridation would set a precedent for any aspect of British sub-national public life. "It would have to be followed up with a referendum on any decision to build a road, where to put a walk-in centre, or what maternity facilities to provide, because these are all issues that are important to people involved."

Dr Whitehead has backed the scheme to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, saying he believes it will improve children's teeth. However, he recently called for the process to be put on hold for an examination of the way the public consultation was carried out.

Well thanks for the U Turn Doc, but we are not all as daft as you think. Firstly, I am not aware that any examination of the "consultation" (sic) process has taken place so why do you no longer think fluoridation should be put on hold? I am also not impressed that you claim Fluoridation is a "local" issue and therfore not suitable for putting on to the public in a referendum.

Burnham and Johnson, those well known music hall stars have made it clear that they want fluoridation rolled out across the whole of the UK. Secondly even if it did "set a precedent" this might be a good thing. Your government has lied and exaggerated on a regular basis so setting a precedent for telling the truth would indeed be a welcome addition to the democratic process. Incidentally I should also try looking up the word "democratic", memorise it and then apply it next time you and your party seek election. It will probably be too late to help you remain in office but it might help you at some time in the more distant future.

* believed to be a reference to cloud cuckoo land

For the very latest info on fluoride and fluoridation and all its issues, visit the following websites to stay up to date. Dont just get mad, get active.

UKCAF United Kingdom Councils Against Fluoride http://www.ukcaf.org/
National Pure Water Association

http.//www.npwa.org.uk/
The Fluoride Action Network

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Friends of the Earth Fluoride Mailing list.

fluoride@foe.co.uk