A few comments on Sir Iains slides

1
BOLTON RESEARCH FORUM 23 MAY 2005 - GUY HARKIN

• A few comments on Sir Iains slides
• Why G.M PCTs favour looking at Fluoridation
• Where we are up to
• Difficulties in the consultation process
• Where we go from here

2
BDA News release, 20 July 2000 Water
fluoridation has been proven beyond doubt to be
safe and to massively reduce tooth decay
There is no scientific controversy over the
safety of water fluoridation. Lord Turnberg,
Hansard, 2005 There is no doubt that the York
report came down strongly in favour of the idea
that water supplies, where possible, should be
fluoridated.
3

• Dr Spock vs. James Lind
• Treatise on the Scurvy 1753
• Admiralty Action 1795

4
Lord Jauncy in McCall vs. Strathclyde Regional
Council 1983 In a perfect world each study
might have been carried out in a more perfect
manner in one or two details nevertheless the
message is loud and clear from all parts of the
world. Water Fluoridation reduces the incidence
of caries. With evidence such as this available,
it is not surprising that the majority of Dental
Professionals in the UK favour fluoridation of
water supplies.
5
West Midland DMFT Statistics 2000/1. Quartile
position among all PCTs in England and Wales
6
(No Transcript)
7
Where are we up to ?

• From request to require
• Only after consulting local community
• Water supply v complicated -130 water zones in
  NW England
• Technical feasibility studies and mapping
  exercise completed
• Capital and revenue costs of various
  alternatives now being
• prepared by United Utilities

8
The Minefield that is Consultation (General)

• Who to consult?
• How to consult?
• How to weight responses?
• Hopefully rescued by DOH detailed guide-lines

9
The Minefield that is Consultation (Fluoridation)

• IGNORANCE - 42 think that water is already
  fluoridated
• only 28 believe that there is fluoride in
  ordinary drinking water
• CONTROVERSY - small but highly organised and
  vocal opposition v. strong support from majority
  of professional bodies
• MISTRUST - MMR Vaccine Royal Liverpool
  inquiry, Bristol Royal inquiry, MRSA, Harold
  Shipman etc.
• MISINFORMATION -

10
Typical Anti-Fluoride Propaganda Fluoride
the Suppressed Facts

• Fluoride is a carcinogen, immuno-suppressant,
  enzyme poison and
• narcotic, which accumulates overtime, especially
  in bones and the
• brain, and is officially graded as more toxic
  than lead and only
• marginally less so than arsenic! Over 40,000
  published scientific
• papers show that over time the ingestion of
  artificially fluoridated
• water causes and aggravates a list of conditions
  so long that it fill two
• sides of A4 paper including cancer, brain
  tumours, arthritis,
• Alzheimers, diseases, irritable bowel syndrome,
  behavioural and
• mental development problems in children, thyroid
  conditions,
• diabetes, renal failure. There is absolutely NO
  evidence that it
• benefits childrens teeth. The UK Governments
  York Review (2000)
• found no evidence of any dental benefits to
  fluoride although fluoride-
• pushers often state incorrectly that it did. In
  fact, there is enough
• fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to KILL a small
  child

11
Spot the Deliberate Mistake
Fluoride is so dangerous according to
biologist/chemist Dr. Herbert Schwartz, that it
should be banned. Putting fluoride in the water
is like starting a time bomb. Cancer, heart
trouble, premature senility, both mental and
physical are conditions attributable to fluoride
treated water supplies. It is making us grow old
before our time by producing symptoms of ageing
such as hardening of the arteries.I believe if
fluoride were now proposed for the first time to
be used in drinking water it would be banned by
the Food and Drug Administration
12

• Has the SHA gone mad ?
•   
• The GMSHA is considering a proposal to add a new
  chemical to the
• drinking water of Greater Manchester on the
  grounds that it is good
• for people with skin conditions, digestive
  ailments and kidney
• problems.
•  
• Consider the following facts.
•  
• The chemical concerned is universally accepted to
  be a dangerous substance, which contributed to
  the deaths of hundreds of individuals last year
  in the US alone.
• It is one of the most commonly used solvents in
  the heavy chemical industry.
•  
• It is also widely used in the nuclear industry,
  where only specially trained and licensed
  operatives are allowed to undertake its use.

13

• Its corrosive qualities have been known for
  hundreds of years
• It is a major component of acid rain, which is
  known to have had a
• disastrous environmental impact across the
  globe
• As they stand the proposals involve the
  unregulated evaporation
• of sea water after which the chemical is to
  be transported
• hundreds of miles before being dumped without
  supervision in
• the rivers and reservoirs of the North West.
• There is no intention of consulting the Health
  and Safety
• Executive, the Environmental Agency or the
  Drinking Water
• Inspectorate before the SHAs plans are
  finalised.

14

• Imagine a consultation on the addition of
  Chlorine in the current climate
• known carcinogen
• widely used as chemical weapon
• Adds a revolting taste to water supply
• Antis won in Peru 1991 - cholera outbreak
  
• 1,000,000 affected 6 10,000 deaths

15
Next Steps

• Cost- benefit analysis of options to be
  commissioned
• If the PCTs are satisfied that the expenditure on
  any or all of the schemes can be justified and
  allocated equitably between them they can request
  the SHA to undertake a formal consultation under
  the 2003 Act
• If consultation is positive scheme(s) will be
  introduced
• State of the art evaluation required both under
  the Act and as part of PCTs, fiduciary duty to
  ensure best value in its commissioning of
  services.