FLUORIDE

Vol.15, No.2, Autumn/Winter 2009

WATERSHED

A Southampton resident has beengranted Legal Aid for a JudicialReview to challenge the SCSHA’sdecision. Mrs Geraldine Milner argues that fluoridation should nothave been approved because it wasat odds with pronouncements inParliament, from members of theGovernment, that such schemesshould only be allowed if most of the local population is in favour.South Central Strategic HealthAuthority (SCSHA) had receivedwritten responses to theConsultation showing that 72% of the population was opposed. AMori telephone poll also showed amajority (38%) were opposedagainst only 32% in support.A spokesman from solicitorsLeigh Day and Co said that thelaws created in 2003 and 2005 were"silent" about public opinion but"Government minister after government minister stood up whenthe Act was being passed inParliament and said it should onlygo ahead if the local populationwas in favour — but that was not inthe actual legislation."Mrs Milner also claims thatopponents' cogent arguments werenot properly considered by theSHA but, at the preliminaryhearing, the Judge disallowed this part of her claim and declared thatthe case would proceed only on thelegality of the decision.The SHA said in a statement:"South Central Strategic HealthAuthority is pleased with the rulingand the judge's view that 'in allother respects the decision-making process was unimpeachable'. TheSHA remains confident that thedecision that has been made by theSHA board was carried out inaccordance with the relevantlegislation laid down by Parliamentand is in the best interests of thehealth of local people."Mrs Milner's lawyers haveappealed the judge's ruling on thesecond ground, and this is due to beheard fairly soon. Depending on theresult, the Judicial Review will goahead on one or both grounds and adecision could be made as early asnext spring. SCSHA have set aside£400,000 to fight the case.The forthcoming Judicial Reviewhas already had an impactelsewhere. The North WestStrategic Health Authority hasstated that it is waiting for theresult of the case before pursuingits plans for fluoridation of Manchester and the North West. A joint complaint to theParliamentary and HealthOmbudsman by New Forest EastMP Julian Lewis and Councillor David Harrison, alleging that theconsultation was one-sided andignored residents' opposition, isalso on hold until the result of theJudicial Review is known.

2005 ECJ Judgment

In our last edition of Watershed wereported the citing of a 2005European Court of Justice judgment* by the Medicines andHealthcare products RegulatoryAgency in support of its positionthat fluoridated water is a food andnot a medicinal product.We would like to make it clear that neither fluoridated water nor any of the fluoridating agents werethe subject of this ruling.The essence of this judgment isthat when a product is exportedfrom one EU member state, where itis marketed and regulated as a food,to another member state, where it isclassified as a medicinal product,only Community law specific tomedicinal products will apply in theimporting member state.*See judgment details on p3.

NHS South Central’s decisionon fluoridation in Hampshireto be Judicially Reviewed

National Pure Water Association

42, Huntington Road, YORK. YO31 8RE

Telephone: +44 (0)20 8220 9168

www.npwa.org.uk

IN THIS ISSUE: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SCSHA DECISION, HAF’S DAY IN LONDON,RECENT ACTIVITIES, ANOTHER CASE OF POISONED HORSES, FLUORIDATION OVERFEED, CYANIDE IN THE RIVER TRENT, FLUORIDISTAS AT THE HELM & MORE…

Recent Activities

The BBC having receivedinformation that the SHA for Yorkshire and the Humber hadcommissioned a feasibility study onfluoridation from Yorkshire Water plc, your Chairman, ElizabethMcDonagh, was invited to makeher television debut at the BBC’sLeeds studio. The brief altercationwith dentist Ronnie Levine took allof three minutes on the 6.30 editionof ‘Look North’ on 2 June. Blink and you missed it. However, a few people have made kind remarks.Elizabeth was also on Radio Leedson 4 August.On 9 June, members of NPWA’sExecutive Committee went toLondon to support HampshireAgainst Fluoridation. At themeeting in Parliament, NPWA’sChairman expressed theAssociation’s hope that the political parties would come together andinvestigate the scientific issues properly, free from bias. She said,“We are delighted that Julian Lewisis taking a lead on this and will be pushing to get his party(Conservative) to consider theissues and hopefully take a standagainst fluoridation”. Wecollaborated in a joint statement onthe events of the day which wasissued to the press by the Alliancefor Natural Health.The Chairman gave a talk on“Water in Healing” to the ‘Life andLight Group’ in Shipley on June 18and alerted her audience to theearly moves to fluoridate parts of Yorkshire. The Green Party inYorkshire has also been alerted tothe current threat.Earlier in the year we respondedto a call for information from theEU’s Scientific Committee for Health and Environmental Risk.Subsequently they changed their protocol and made a further call for information. So we respondedagain – just in time for the deadlineof 25 June. On 27 and 28 June wemanned our usual stand at theBuxton Health and HealingFestival, issuing leaflets andsupplying an interested public withinformation.

On 8 July, Ian Packington and theChairman visited one of our oldestmembers, Ulrich Weigert fromSheffield. Ulrich supplied us withsome fascinating informationregarding the NPWA campaign inwhich he has been actively involvedsince the 1950s. Ulrich is 94 and isstill giving talks against fluoridation.We hosted a meeting at the CrownePlaza Hotel in Leeds on the eveningof 25 July. The speaker wasProfessor Paul Connett who showedhis new DVD,

Professional

Perspectives

, and gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining whyfluoridation is unscientific andabsurd. The meeting called for mucheffort especially on advance publicity. Our thanks to Committeemembers and others who attendedand helped in any way.Members of the ExecutiveCommittee have pursued a number of issues. Notable are efforts resultingin Unison's Health Care groupwithdrawing their endorsement of fluoridation, various

Freedom of

Information

requests and a survey of service obtained via our phone-line.There have been many enquiries andrequests for books, leaflets andinformation. The Committee isconstantly kept busy dealing withthese and with printing of leaflets,financial matters and keeping up withfluoridation news worldwide.Ian Packington ran a fringemeeting at the Liberal Democratconference in Bournemouth on 19September. Thanks to him, and toMarianne, Anne and Jan who, withElizabeth and Ian operated the standat the Harrogate Health and HealingFestival on 26 and 27 September.Activity was virtually non-stop andmany signatures were collected for the Register of Objectors. We are allvolunteers and are looking forward toserving the NPWA as it moves intoits fiftieth year of existence in 2010.

Another case of fluorosis inhorses drinking artificiallyfluoridated water

The diagnosis of fluorosis inquarter horses owned by PixiMacicek closely resembles the caseof Cathy Justus’s horses withwhich most NPWA members arefamiliar. The Macicek farm is inHitchcock, Texas. When the horsesmoved to the farm in 1992,fluoridated water ‘from a treatment

plant in Houston’ with 0.9 to 1.1 ppmfluoride was the only source of water. In 1999, county authoritiestook over artificial water fluoridationin the district, using fluorosilicicacid. No other sources of fluorideintake by the horses have beenidentified.

The Macicek horses sufferedcolics, urticaria and abscesses. Mostof them were diagnosed with lowthyroid function, all had deformedhooves, some legs grew crooked andtwo horses suffered fractures. Twohorses were anaemic, one acutely so.One horse with a low red blood cellcount failed to improve on ironsupplementation but became “a better horse within weeks” when giveniodine. Veterinarians, consultedwhen lameness prevented the horses being ridden, never looked at thehorses’ teeth. The teeth of all thehorses showed varying signs of dental fluorosis as did the teeth of horses on a neighbouring farm. Theneighbour’s horses also drank theartificially fluoridated water and hadsimilar lameness problems.From 22 February 2008, theMacicek horses were provided withwater containing only 0.10 to 0.11 ppm fluoride, from a newly-drilledwell on the farm. All the horses began to drink more water. Thecolics ceased and a decrease inmuscle and joint stiffness was noted.Hooves began to grow normally andthe overall appearance of the horsesimproved. The owner’s recurringmigraines also ceased when shechanged from fluoridated water towell water.Further details are to be found in aResearch Report by Pixi Macicek and Lennart P Krook in the July – September 2008 volume of Fluoride41(3)177-183 -http://tinyurl.com/ygh2kezThealtitude at Cathy’s farm at PagosaSprings, 7,200 feet above sea level,has been proposed as a factor whichcould have led to poisoning of horsesfrom a fluoride concentration littleabove 1ppm. The Hitchcock farm isonly about 18 feet above sea level,indicating that even at low altitudes,1 ppm is not a safe drinking water concentration for horses.The Research Report points to theabsurdity of the statement that horsescan tolerate 60 ppm fluoride in the totaldaily feed, made in an official US pub-lication,

Effects of fluoride in animals.

Fluoride overfeed in UK

In the last Watershed we reported ona fluoride overfeed incident inQueensland. Well, it’s happenedhere as well. So much for all thoseassurances made in Southamptonand elsewhere that fluoridation plants always have reliable fail-safemechanisms built in. The incidentoccurred in 2008 but came to publicknowledge only with the publicationof

Drinking Water 2008 for theCentral Region of England A report by the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water, July 2009.

In August 2008, Severn TrentWater notified the Inspectorate of a problem of fluoride overdosing atDimmingsdale treatment workswhich serves Wolverhampton andBridgnorth. Two water samplestaken at the Plant contained fluoridein excess of the DWI’s MaximumContaminant Level of 1.5 ppm. Theincident had occurred one month before notification and hadcontinued for four weeks. Alarmshad been ignored. The DWI state intheir Report that the water companydid not notify them promptly, didnot liaise with local/healthauthorities and carried outinadequate follow-up sampling andinadequate investigation into theroot cause of the failure. Staff training and staff competence wereinadequate. The inspector’srecommendations included“improved training and supervisionof staff altering, commissioning or operating plant and equipment potentially impacting on drinkingwater quality”. This training should be in line with the requirements of the

Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies 2005

. The Inspector alsorecommended written procedures inthe operation of the plant and robustend-to-end testing of all control andshut-down systems. He expressedthe hope that Severn Trent wouldshare the results of its investigationswith other water companies whowould hopefully learn from theincident.Severn Trent have reported theoverfeed and their response on awebsite – http://tinyurl.com/yjujf9b They assure the public that “Thereis no suggestion from the worldwidescientific evidence that such a shortterm elevated level of fluoridewould have caused adverse healtheffects in the short or the longer term.”

Cyanide poisons fish in Trent,5/10/2009

An alarm was raised by anglers onthe River Trent near Rugeley, Staffs,after a poison, later identified ascyanide, killed thousands of fish.The river is a haven for trout,salmon, roach, perch, and other wildlife.The cyanide had entered SevernTrent’s water-treatment plant atStrongford, Staffs., and killed the bacteria used in the treatment process. As a result, partially treatedeffluent with one ppm cyanide andan unacceptable level of ammoniawas discharged into the river. This is believed to have killed the fish. Aninvestigation has been launched intothe source of the pollution whichmay be illegal disposal of industrialchemicals.A spokesman for the EnvironmentAgency said there was no health risk to the public as the Trent is notsourced for drinking water. [That’sas well! – Ed]. However, peoplewere warned ‘as a precaution’ tostay away from the banks of theriver as a clean-up operation beganon a 20-mile stretch of the Trent inStaffordshire.

Fluoride Fatigue

sold out

Demand for Dr Bruce Spittle’s book “Fluoride Fatigue” has exceeded our expectations and NPWA officesupplies have now run out. Therewill be a delay before we can obtainfurther supplies from the Australian publisher but readers are remindedthat they can access the entire textonline at – http://tinyurl.com/yzh963z

Say NO

leaflets

We have recently received from our printer 16,000 copies of our yellow

Say NO

leaflets. This popular leaflet, devised when Jane Joneswas Campaigns Director, has beenonly minimally updated since. Itgives the reasons for our oppositionto fluoridation and invites people to join the campaign by making smallregular monthly subscriptions.The 'Say NO' leaflets are fairlyinexpensive and members are oftenkind enough purchase them for their own local campaigns. They cost £2for 25 or £7 for 100 including p&pfrom: Say NO Leaflets, NPWA, 42,Huntington Road, York, YO31 8RE.Please send a cheque payable to NPWA to cover the cost of your requirements.

This is much appreciated as itenables us to replenish funds for subsequent printings. However, for areas under threat (specificallyManchester and Southampton) wehave supplied quite large quantities of leaflets without charge for distribution by local groups.Another recent campaign, led bytwo members, has seen (one-time)distribution of leaflets into organicfood boxes, health food shops inDerbyshire and London and to keyFOE groups country-wide. Quite afew health food shops and alternativetherapy clinics place them on display.We also distribute the leaflets whenwe hold meetings, have stands athealth fairs and give talks to groups.These initiatives have led to a number of new members joining the Associa-tion and we thank all members whohave helped with distribution.

Southampton’s ‘Court Leet’considers ‘Presentments’ onFluoridation

Four ‘Presentments’ on fluoridationwere made before Southampton’sAncient ‘Court Leet’ on 6 October.Two of the four, given by MaryWilliams and Stephen Matthews, wereupheld. Mary’s presentment outlinedconcerns about the possible healtheffects and level of opposition.Stephen’s was an environmentalconcern. He said that 110 tonnes of fluoride added to Southampton Water per year could disrupt the fragileecology of the Solent oyster fisheryand that fluoride accumulates in theshellfish.The Council currently supportsfluoridation but its Cabinet isexpected to discuss the issue again.

*2005 ECJ Judgment

HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH and Orthica BV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Joined Cases C-211/03,C-299/03, C-316/03, C-317/03 and C-318/03) can be accessed at – www.tinyurl.com/lneaxg