The North West Fluoridation Evaluation Group (hosted by ALW PCT) has drafted a Paper to the North West PCT Chief Executives Meeting – June 2008 on behalf of all 24 PCTs in the north west. PCTs in the north west in the coming months will be considering whether to ask the North West Strategic Health Authority to explore the possibility of fluoridation, and the report provides information to help PCTs make this decision. The decision PCTs need to make is not a decision to put fluoride in the water, nor is it a decision to request a consultation. It is a decision to ask the SHA to explore the possibility of fluoridation.
The report identifies 4 possible fluoridation schemes, but these are only included as examples so demonstrate how any future Scheme needs to reflect water flows, water treatment works, dental health, and PCT boundaries. Details of the possible Schemes are available from individual PCTs, but they are examples only – the responsibility to construct a technically feasible scheme is matter for the North West Strategic Health Authority..
The North West Strategic Health Authority will receive the views of PCTs by the Autumn and will consider whether to explore the possibility of fluoridation.
Additional documents:
- Appendix 1 – Terms of Reference
- Appendix 2 – OPM Final Report
- Appendix 3 - Opinion Poll Report
- Appendix 4 – United Utilities Costs
- Appendix 5
Modern science shows that fluoridation is ineffective, harmful and a waste of money
for more info
fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://wwwfluorideAction.Net
By: nyscof on July 10, 2008
at 11:52 am
Compulsory mass medication is unethical and is a violation of human rights.
Water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Since 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters’ union has expressed concerns about fluoride. In 2005, eleven environmental protection agency EPA employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service, called for a halt on drinking water fluoridation programs across the USA and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.
Other dangers to human health posed by water fluoridation include dental fluorosis, bone fracture, bone cancer, osteosarcoma, skeletal fluorosis and other potential risks.
The evidence in favour is extremely flawed and quite probably bias.
Why does it take you years just to decide whether to decide to consult the public? I know your pretense is to consider the viability based on costs. But I know the real reason for the endless meetings is to consider how you will get the public to swallow it. Before you spend any more public why dont you just publish a number in the local press that people can ring to vote yes or no?
I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that.
By: Dont Doit on June 24, 2009
at 2:11 am