Keyword search
News 2010

 2010 News, Editorials and Comment

January 2010
Parents are not warned by their health visitors that the infant's intake of fluoride should be no more than 0.7mg fluoride per day.

The average daily liquid intake of an infant is 1.3 litres.  With 1 mg F/litre of water, the baby ingests 1.3 mg F per day plus the fluoride dermally absorbed when the baby is having its daily bath.  What negative effect is this having on the very young baby's intelligence?

 On 19th and 20th January 2010, the fate of 200,000 Southampton and Hampshire residents will be announced.  The Judicial Review has been deliberating on the decision of South Central Strategic Health Authority to order fluoridation for the Southampton area despite 72% of the people who contributed to the consultation saying 'NO'.  We wish Geraldine Milner and Hampshire Against Fluoridation our best wishes.  If there is any justice, their long-standing fight against fluoridation policy will win the day.  As soon as the decision is known it will be posted on this page.

February 2010
We are now at a stage where no-one in the West Midlands knows how much fluoride there is in our food - because no-one is being commissioned to do the research, despite the Department of Health proclaiming loud and long that they are carrying out a programme of fluoride research! If they don’t know how much fluoride is in our environment, shouldn’t water fluoridation programmes cease until this research is done?

Look at the United States Department of Agriculture website which lists the fluoride content of foods and liquids and prepare to be shocked.

Dental Fluorosis is rife in America because kids are swallowing fluoride from water, toothpaste, soft drinks and food and absorbing it by swimming and bathing in the stuff! Dental decay in fluoridated areas is also high which goes to show that fluoride really doesn't work.

March and April 2010
Have you ever wondered if there is fluoride in your favourite bottled water, wine, tea, beer, cider, etc?  A new Fluoride Testing Service begins from 16th March 2010.  Please go to Fluoride Testing Service page (left-hand-side menu) for information.

Time (US magazine) in April 2010 listed fluoride as one of the top ten common household toxins.  Fluoride is described as "neurotoxic and possibly tumorogenic if swallowed".  

 Editorial - May 2010
During the past three weeks, we have all been exposed to extra fluoride from the Icelandic volcano.  In Exeter and in Boscombe Down, fluoride-laden ash reached the ground on 18th April.  We are all likely to be further exposed if the companion volcano blows.  In the meantime, the English fluoridating water companies seemingly have no intention of suspending water fluoridation during the current volcanic disturbance although they may reduce the concentration if it is shown that atmosphere fluoride is contaminating our surface water supplies.  That will be somewhat too late in the day since by that time, we will have started to overdose by inhaling fluoride if the wind blows in our direction or by absorbing fluoride if we're caught in a heavy rain shower.  There is a very fine margin between 1ppm now in our water supply and the maximum allowable of 1.5ppm.

What gives the water companies and Government agencies the authority to play fast and loose with our health? Should they not observe the precautionary principle? Why should we have to suffer from a body burden of artificial fluoride bio-accumulation which sets us up for becoming more unwell when the atmospheric fluoride fall-out reaches us?

It's a no-brainer to stop fluoride dosing now so that our bodies can recover enough before being exposed to a huge dose of atmospheric fluoride.

Editorial - May 2010

This website has been noticed by the British Fluoridation Society - so we must be doing something right! A recent letter in the Southampton Daily Echo was criticised two weeks ago by the Vice-Chairman of the BFS, John Beal, who is a Public Health official. A swift response was published last week in the same newspaper. Click here to view letters The correspondence promises to become protracted!

Following Nick Clegg's speech in the House of Commons (19th May), there is light on the horizon! The first thing that has to be done is for all anti-fluoridationists to write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking his team to consider the repealing of Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 along with two other dependent pieces of legislation. The reason for this request will be apparent to all anti-fluoridationists but in order to make it easy for those less clued up on the legislative aspects, a suggested letter is attached as a link.

The political scene has now changed, hopefully for the better. Although the new Secretary of State, Andrew Lansley (Conservative), has uncertain views about fluoridation, the two Ministers of State responsible for Dentistry and for Fluoridation hold opinions about fluoridation which are yet to be discovered.

In these financially straightened times, how could any government countenance the use of public money to buttress further fluoridation schemes and to maintain current ones? Water fluoridation is not an essential service and no-one will die if fluoridation ceases or if the dosing plants break down. Fluoridation does not prevent tooth decay even though it seems to do so in fluoridated children aged 1 to 6 years old. The 'seeming' nature of decay prevention is dealt with elsewhere on this site. As a non-vital service, the waste of tax-payers' money on fluoridation schemes is nothing short of scandalous.

May 2010
"Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify cell metabolism, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine."
Journal of the American Medical Association, September 18, 1943.   

Sounds familiar?

News June 2010
A few weeks ago, on Tonight on ITV, the producers asked for people's suggestions for reducing the Deficit. The email address is I can think of a good saving: stop fluoridation and save millions of pounds now needlessly spent on upgrading fluoridation installations, on feasibility studies and on installing new dosing kiosks which no-one wants.

Editorial. June 2010

Trading Standards has been told by Nestlé, the joint owners of San Pellegrino Natural Mineral Water (NMW), that labels in relation to the fluoride content (Fluoride = 0.00) are incorrect and that the correct level is 0.5 mgF/litre water (0.50). Trading Standards is not requiring a product recall "as it was not believed the level of detriment to the consumer was significant to warrant this and as the label did not make any specific claims such as "Fluoride Free"... Nestlé intends correcting the label so that new stocks of San Pellegrino from September 2010 will show the correct level. There are several more brands of NMW and Spring Waters on sale in the UK which also have incorrect levels of fluoride on the labels and these are progressively being reported to Trading Standards. These NMWs and Spring Waters are listed on this site's fluoride analysis database, v. 3 of which was uploaded today. However, note that Spring Waters and Table Waters do not have to show the fluoride content. But, if they do, the accuracy of the labels is important. In some cases, the composition of minerals in Natural Mineral Water (NMW), Spring Water and Table Water on the labels is incorrect. Parents who are expecting a baby should therefore look at the FADS database in order to avoid water which contains fluoride. LABELS ARE NOT ALWAYS A GOOD INDICATOR OF FLUORIDE CONTENT.

News 31st July 2010
The level of fluoride in Coventry water (CV5) has once again increased and now stands at 0.9 ppm (July 31st). The assumption is that Severn Trent has now completed the upgrading of the dosing kiosk at Frankley WTW and that fluoridation is once again in full swing. The concentration of fluoride in tap water in CV4 is also at 1ppm following the upgrade (1st August 2010).

NEWS 11th August 2010

We have just heard that East Midlands NHS commissioned a fluoridation feasibility study at the beginning of 2009 and that the long-overdue publication is imminent.  The report cost £50,000 to produce - yet more waste of public money.  Once the 9 PCTs in the region have had time to examine the report, they will decide on whether or not to forge ahead with fluoridation.  It's by no means certain that consultations will take place, because parts of the East Midlands are already fluoridated 'by creep' and consulations are only necessary if more than 20% of the non-fluoridated population in an area is likely to become compulsorily fluoridated.   But what is an 'area'?  A Freedom of Information request to West Midlands SHA asking this question is in the pipeline. 

Information on the feasibility study has been uploaded to the EMAF page on this website.  The source of the information is at [LINK].

Another thread was posted (11th August) on the YourFreedom website and this one asked the Chancellor to stop funding fluoridation programmes by the use of tax-payers' money. Following closure for comment, it is hoped that the Chancellor will be examining fluoridation expenditure and spurious dental health benefits claimed for fluoridation during his 2010 Spending Review.  

A letter was also sent by this site's co-ordinator to the Chancellor in mid-September and an encouraging acknowledgement was received a week later.

On 17th August, another important thread to the Human Rights Topic was added to the YourFreedom website.  This thread dealt with the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 1997.  Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention were too late to be incorporated into the UK's Human Rights Act 1998.  Even now, 13 years later, the UK and Ireland have not signed up to the Convention and this means that they have not ratified it.  Could this be because they are both fluoridating countries? 

Editorial 24th August 2010
With the planned demise of the Strategic Health Authorities and PCTs, the law controlling fluoridation will need to be tweaked.  It is believed that responsibility for new fluoridation programmes will devolve to local authorities, but what about responsibility for existing programmes?  Who will have the responsibility for reviewing their continuation?

 NEWS 24th August 2010

WMAF has got a "baby sister".  A Google Blog "Fluoridation Rebellion" has now been created which allows interested people to comment directly with WMAF without the need to send an email.  The blog is being beta tested so please be patient if it doesn't yet work correctly.
With the planned demise of Strategic Health Authorities and PCTs, the law controlling fluoridation will need to be tweaked.  It is believed that responsibility for new fluoridation programmes will devolve to local authorities, but what about responsibility for existing programmes?  Who will have the responsibility for reviewing their continuation?
Important information has been posted on regarding the demise of SHAs and PCTs and the shouldering of the responsibility for fluoridation by local government.


"Whatever touches all must be approved by all."
(An ancient Roman adage)

"No decision about me without me."
(Government White Paper on Health, July 2010)

... and ...

"Article 2 – Primacy of the human being
The interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science."

"Article 5 – General rule
An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time."

(European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 1997)

On what authority does the UK Government ignore these principles?

NEWS 16th September 2010

Miracles do happen:  Red Bay, Alabama, USA, has stopped putting fluoride in water.  [The substance used in water fluoridation programmes in the USA is the same as that used in the West Midlands.]

The Franklin County town of Red Bay recently stopped putting fluoride in the water.  Town leaders say it was an economic decision. They had officials look at several studies and never found any evidence that supported keeping the fluoride in the water.  "I guess we wound up saving about $50,000 a year in the production of our water, and we're a small system so $50,000 a year is a big saving," said Joe Beasley, Red Bay Water and Gas Department.  Leaders say because they're not adding fluoride, they also were able to cut back on other chemicals used in the system.

NEWS 27th September 2010

Statistics for visitors to this site have continued to rise.  This is encouraging and shows that there is interest in, and concern about the topic.  Those of you who are concerned and who live in the West Midlands are asked to communicate directly with the co-ordinator (  we live in a time of change, your active support is needed and you are the answer to the problem.  The stranglehold exerted by the Department of (ill)Health can only be broken if you all tell your MPs and your City and Town Councillors that you do not want to be fluoridated.  You have the power to change the status quo but only if you speak up.  Silence is consent.  Are you consenting?

Editorial  (updated 3rd October 2010)
We have had a perfect opportunity to challenge the unjust law which allows us to be fluoridated.  Nick Clegg's "Your Freedom" website ( was well subscribed and is now in the stages of being archived in preparedness for the next stage.  It's reassuring to know that Nick Clegg was given much information about the water fluoridation issue whilst he was an MEP and we know that he is against the practice.

To inform yourselves about the current European legal situation go to the first two articles on the home page of for an update.

News from Severn Trent Services, USA

The SORB 09 process features a small footprint and enhanced design and automation for improved operation efficiencies compared to conventional activated alumina adsorption systems. The system is a regenerative process that utilizes a weak caustic soda solution to remove fluoride from a solid activated alumina surface, extending the treatment life of the media. 

Perhaps we could persuade them to instal the solid activated alumina surface between the fluoride dosing kiosk and the water pipe leaving the water treatment works!


 Editorial, 5th October 2010
At a recent meeting in Brussels before the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, (SCHER), those opposed to fluoridation had the chance of presenting their scientific objections to water fluoridation to a panel of scientists.  The first part of a report on the SCHER meeting, written by Paul Connett, Director of the Fluoride Action Network, has been received today and uploaded to this site.  It makes very interesting reading.  Of particular interest is the way in which out-of-date scientific reports have been used as a basis for informing the SCHER scientists who have been entrusted with the responsibility of deciding on the safe limits for fluoride in our diet and environment.  The scientists did not have time to undergo their own desk review of available scientific literature and have depended on those promoting fluoridation and on those opposing fluoridation to inform SCHER.  

It is a sad reflection on the European Commission that, had those opposed to fluoridation not had the courage and scientific knowledge to refer more relevant up-to-date scientific papers to SCHER in advance of the September meeting, the continuance of water fluoridation would have remained unchallenged.   The opportunity to present evidence to SCHER this September was therefore opportune.  However, the case against water fluoridation rests on more than scientific arguments and it is imperative that the illegality of fluoridation is rammed home. Proponants of fluoridation should not be allowed to bask in the comfortable but misguided surety that they hold the upper ground.  Their promotion of fluoridation is illegal since the practice flouts several pieces of UK and European legislation.  

Part 1 of the SCHER report by Dr Paul Connett  LINK
Part 2 of the SCHER Report  LINK
Part 3 is due out shortly

To inform yourselves about the current European position, please go to

News, 13th October 2010
The pro-fluoridationists are at it again!  This time, they are trying to push fluoridation onto Yorkshire where a feasibilty study by Yorkshire Water is being conducted.  Yorkshire is a girt large county and the possibility of water fluoridation being an economic proposal is remote ... but, it only goes to show that there are an awful lot of too easily persuaded public health officials and dentists in England. "The study was due to be completed in April 2010, but six months later, it's unclear if fluoridation of the region's water supply is possible."  For the news item, go to [LINK] .  This may be a storm in a teacup but Yorkshire visitors to this site are advised to keep a weather eye on the developing situation.

News, 15th October 2010
In addition to the SCHER initiative, the European Commissioner (Mr Dalli) who is responsible for SCHER's activities, has been approached by United Kingdom Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF).  The case against water fluoridation is first and foremost, a case which argues its illegality.   The most recent correspondence from UKCAF to the Commissioner is on the home page of

News, 5th November 2010
Questions and answers in the House of Lords, two of which are staged!  Earl Howe's inglorious replies.