The British Dental Association backed by the British Fluoride Society over many years has tried to introduce fluoridation to the water supply in the UK for our own good. They now insist that fluoridation helps everybody. The logic of that is it helps those without teeth those suffering kidney failure, the thyroid patients and those who claim that they are allergic to fluoride. There have always been people and bodies who object such as the National Pure Water Association. At one time the very effective secretary Jane Jones who believed that her thyroid problem was caused by fluoridated West Midlands water strove over many years to have fluoride removed.
The NHS got fed up with the resistance by water companies and councils so they set up a review of all the evidence by the York University and the government promised that if the York found that fluoridation was effective and safe they would take the councils and the water companies rights away and allow the local NHS head administration (Strategic Health Authority) in the area to decide after the people were consulted. The York did not find convincing proof either way except that it found damage to teeth called fluorosis was prevalent in fluoridated areas. It also said the fluorosis was not just cosmetic and to remedy the affects was very expensive and not paid for by the NHS. The York review called for more investigation and the NHS then funded two, one a laughingly inadequate investigation on whether the fluoride ion from artificial fluoridation fluorosilicic acid and natural calcium was the same. The few students that took part over just a few months did not show any difference except one who was so much different they discounted it.(Perhaps he drank guiness brewed in Ireland's fluoridated water.)
The other investigation was on papers that the York review had looked at or rejected. But on this evidence the NHS got the government to amend the water act to insure the water company against loss or liability. It prevents the councils from saying no although their opinion will be taken into account.
In Southampton the City Primary Care Trust supposedly having tried everything to improve dental health in lower income families children asked the SHA to see if fluoridation was feasible. The Strategic health Authority has and now they are starting the consultation process.
Totton Council has said no to fluoridation and the NFDC may well do so. The health scrutiny panel of Test Valley has said no. The Hampshire County Council and City Council have yet to decide.
Hampshire Primary Care Trust met at Eastleigh and discussed fluoridation as Eastleigh and Totton will have their water fluoridated if Southampton goes ahead. Although the HPCT have no plans to fluoridate the rest of Hampshire they consider their duty was to help the Southampton PCT especially as the initiative was a National one. In December the SHA will
also ring 1000 people at random to ask their views on fluoridation this will influence the judgement as to whether we want fluoridation. All the letters sent in and all correspondence and evidence will be judged by a supposedly independent assessor in this case the Birmingham University who on their web site praise water fluoridation. The evidence is "weighted" with little regard to a private citizen unless the argument is cogent and backed by peer reviewed publications.
At the end of January 2009 the SHA will take the advice of Birmingham University and then decide but under the one sided rules if despite a miracle the evidence points to the people of Southampton rejecting fluoridation the SHA can still go ahead.
30 October: The Southampton Council Health Scrutiny panel back the fluoridation proposal by 4 to 3 votes.