This morning, BBC Radio Leeds main story was the decision to hold the usual bullshit "consultation" and "fact finding study" on fluoridation in Yorkshire. None of this is at the behest of the public in Yorkshire of course but at the bidding of the Strategic Health Authority. and local Primary Care Trust. Neither of these are elected bodies of course, merely puppet organisations created specifically to do the bidding of the Government and ensure that Fluoridation goes ahead despite public opposition.
This time because of the pipe network, they claim that it will also have to be extended to Northumberland. This comes on the recent revelation that some 50,000 Sheffield are already getting fluoridated water from Severn Trent Water who last year cocked up fluoridation of one of their pumping stations and delivered up to twice the allegedly safe dose of one part per million. The worker responsible for the fluoridation it turns out, was untrained or qualified and when alarms went of, these too were ignored. The drinking water inspectorate, apparently part of DEFRA were not exactly quick off the mark either, Although its true that Severn Trent didnt notify the DWI until a couple of months had elapsed, this whole business only came to light when the DWI published its annual report. Surely it would have been more appropriate to notify consumers immediately in order to reduce any risk. But neither Severn Trent nor the DWI bothered to do so.
It would also have been nice to let the unlucky water consumers in Sheffield who "because of the pipe network" also get Severn Trents fluoridated water that fluoridation was already underway without consultation or notification. A few people know about this but not the general public. But of course when your the SHA or the PCT, you are a law onto yourself and don't need to trouble yourself about little details such as medical ethics or even democracy which lets face it, just gets in the way of incompetent buffoons, going about their business of doing as they damn well please, and drawing on their expenses untill they get their CBEs or Knighthoods for "Public Service" (sic) It also turns ouot that up to 32 primary schools in the Sheffield area are also getting fluoride in their milk.
Any one with a couple of braincells to rub together would be concerned that the allegedly safe level of fluoride in water is one part per million, irrespective of how much water you drink and that also supplying kids with fluoridated milk, might just take consumption over that level. Apparently however, the SHA members have been consuming their own product and no longer aspire to more than one braincell.
The presenters on BBC Radio Leeds, showed little understanding of the seriousnes of fluoride but were indeed impressed by the large volume of calls, emails and texts they received on the subject. Only a handfull of which, as they admitted were PRO fluoride. Most who contacted the station were concerned about this toxic material and its health effects, although the presenters thought poisonous was a more contentious word than Toxic. Presumably they thought Toxic was something to do with debt following on from the Credit Crunch. Most of the callers however were much better informed and complained about not just the effects on health in the long term and the fact that there is little evidence to show that fluoride even protects teeth. They also raised the issue of compulsory mass medication and the fact that the Consultation in Hampshire and Southampton had indeed been a total sham fuelled by a pack of lies about listening to the public, who were subsequently completly ignored. Now this same process is underway in Yorkshire subject to the results of the Judicial Review in Hampshire which has caused a temporary halt to the game.
The chair of the National Pure Water Association Elizabeth McDonagh was treated with little respect however, given only a little time and then challenged about whether she was medically qualified. And this despite the fact that most of the buggers on the SHA know virtually nothing about fluorides effects on the body, or profess too. As if to prove this they refused the BBC's invite to take part on the program. and this from the people charged with the fact finding and consultation process. One would thought that they would have jumped at the chance to take part to get the truth over to the public. The couldnt do this of course because it would merely highlight the real truths of fluoridation, ie; just how stupid and ignorant its proponents really are.
Of the phone calls however, One brain donee claiming to be an ex exployee of Thames Water said fluoride was a good thing because it "purified the water" Little wonder with such a knowledge base that he no longer works for Thames. And what of the poor Hygienist who obviously read directly from the propaganda sheets supplied by the fluoridistas when she claimed to have read "hundreds of reports" saying how "safe and effective" fluoride really was.
Fortunately, the large majority of the good people of West Yorkshire along with most other regions of the country are not that stupid and gave fluoridation the thumbs down and the bums rush. They dont want it. Full Stop. The presenter even spontaneously put the question to a Leeds University Research into Epilepsy who was also a guest in the studio but he made it clear that it should not be foisted upon the public without their consent. Well done that man.
Friends of the Earth should call for the sacking of the SHA' s and the PCT's who are clearly in no way representative of the public or their wishes. They have little understanding of the depth of feeling that compulsory mass medication evokes in people and apparently care even less. Maybe they are ignorant psychophants or just a pain in the arse, or most probably both. either way they should be abolished and replaced immediatley with panels of local people who really understand local needs and feelings and dont bow and scrape to Gordon Brown and his dwindling bunch of nonentities and time servers or dance to the tune of the next expenses cheque or the promise of some meaningless award for doing bugger all at great expense..... our expense!
ONE PICTURE IS WORTH 10,000 TURDS
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Monday, 3 August 2009
SHEFFIELD FLUORIDATION WITHOUT PERMISSION OR CONSULTATION
It now emerges that because of the water distribution network in parts of Sheffield, they already get fluoridated water, despite the fact that there has been no "consultation" or even notification of the affected people. Severn Trent is in the news again this time because they are fluoridating Parts of Sheffield. Severn Trent fluoridate their water as instructed by the Strategic Health Authority and have apparently being doing so for years. So much for the bullshit about "consultation" and public consent. Sheffield was always strongly opposed to fluoridation but is now turning into a Fluoridation Blackspot with covert or at least silent water fluoridation and perhaps more allarmingly, fluoridation of childrens milk in 32 Sheffield Primary Schools.
Even those who have given permission probably have little real knowledge of fluoride or its wide ranging side-effects and this is not surprising as even people on the SHA's andin the BDA know little or nothing of the epidemiology or toxicology of fluoride. If fluoride has any beneficial effects on teeth at all then it is through topical application directly onto the tooth as in brushing with fluoridated toothpaste but even this effect is marginal at best. 99% of all the fluoridated water goes straight to the sewers and treatment plants where it passes into the rivers without any constraint or filtering.
Wake up Sheffield, you and your children are already being poisoned and any future conssultation is only a method of bamboozling you into believing they will take any notice of your opinions. Dont vote for these lunatics and dont pay for drinking water contaminated by fluoride. You are already paying the water companies for disposal of sewage so dont pay them twice over so they can potentially damage your health. They cannot disconnect your supply as this would be illegal. Say No To Mass Medication with toxic waste, Say No To Fluoride.
Further info on fluoride from the National Pure Water Association, the UK Councils Against Fluoride and the Fluoride Action Network and Friends of the Earth.
Even those who have given permission probably have little real knowledge of fluoride or its wide ranging side-effects and this is not surprising as even people on the SHA's andin the BDA know little or nothing of the epidemiology or toxicology of fluoride. If fluoride has any beneficial effects on teeth at all then it is through topical application directly onto the tooth as in brushing with fluoridated toothpaste but even this effect is marginal at best. 99% of all the fluoridated water goes straight to the sewers and treatment plants where it passes into the rivers without any constraint or filtering.
Wake up Sheffield, you and your children are already being poisoned and any future conssultation is only a method of bamboozling you into believing they will take any notice of your opinions. Dont vote for these lunatics and dont pay for drinking water contaminated by fluoride. You are already paying the water companies for disposal of sewage so dont pay them twice over so they can potentially damage your health. They cannot disconnect your supply as this would be illegal. Say No To Mass Medication with toxic waste, Say No To Fluoride.
Further info on fluoride from the National Pure Water Association, the UK Councils Against Fluoride and the Fluoride Action Network and Friends of the Earth.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
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:
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
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
Monday, 20 July 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
