HEALTH chiefs have ordered United Utilities to work out the cost of adding fluoride to tap water in Greater Manchester.
The water company will be given until November to prepare detailed estimates - with a view to a final decision on fluoridation in September next year.
The move has re-ignited the smouldering row between medical groups, who say fluoridation is the best way of combating the region's terrible record on tooth decay, and anti-fluoride campaigners, who claim it is potentially dangerous mass medication.
Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority - GMSHA - confirmed last night the move had been agreed.
They said that United Utilities was drawing up estimates for fluoridation across the north west.
A spokesman said: "At the moment we don't know how much this would cost and that is why we have commissioned this piece of work.
Dental
éThere are potentially great benefits for children. We have some of the worst dental health in the country.
éPeople can talk about the option of using fluoride toothpaste but the reality is that in deprived areas that is not a priority.é
Health authorities were given the power in 2004 to order water companies to add fluoride to water é but only after carrying out widespread consultation.
The situation is complicated by the fact that GMSHA will be replaced with a north west-wide body later this year. That would be expected to make a final decision.
Consultation with the public has been pencilled in for June and August next year.
Steve Clark, of Manchester Against Fluoridation, said: éThey are saying they are just talking about it but it is clearly back on the agenda.
Medication
éWe say that this is mass medication and most importantly that what they use is a cancer-causing agent.
éIt is unnecessary and it is potentially dangerous.é
Fluoridation is topping up the levels of fluoride that exist naturally in tap water to what is considered an éoptimumé level.
In the West Midlands it costs around 50p a person, a day é which would mean annual running costs of up to é1.25m in Greater Manchester on top of set-up costs.
Recent figures showed children in Rochdale had the most decayed teeth in the country.
And five-year-olds in Manchester have three times as many decayed, missing or filled teeth as children the same age in Birmingham, where fluoride is added to the water.
Health chiefs in Greater Manchester had been expected to be one of the first to use new powers to force water companies to fluoridate water, but the issue seemed to fall off the agenda after a massive public row over it when it arose in 2003.
A Department for Health spokesman said: éNational opinion polls consistently show that about 70 per cent of the population are in favour of water fluoridation.é
WHAT do you think? Let us know your thoughts
New bid to put fluoride into our water
May 20, 2006
Comments
Login or Register to comment
It individuals want flouride in their water , let them use fluoride tablets at home.
Dont put those that look after our teeth in danger from mass medication.
We should all fight this proposal, may M.E.N can start a campaign off ?
It's great news that the Health Authority is investigating the possibility of adding fluoride to our drinking water. It would make a real difference for our young children within 3 or 4 years. Children in Birmingham and Newcastle have had the benefits of water fluoridation for nearly 40 years. We want similar benefits for our children and for our grandchildren.
As a mother of 3 young boys I am delighted to hear that at long last the health authority is trying to put fluoride into our water. I make sure that our children brush their teeeth with a fluoride toothpaste and make sure that they don't eat sugar between meals but it would be really great to have the extra security of fluoride in the water. My sister lives in New York which has had it for years and see no reason why we shouldn't.
People should seek legal advice, I intend to. I will take it as far as the court of human rights, they have no right to force this down our throats, heaven knows what harm in can do in the long term. Write to your MP.
so once again the flouride debate is back on the agenda what part of we do not want it in our water supply do these people have trouble understanding
we have had two postbag debates on this subject both of which showed
majorities againstwhich makes me view with some sceptism their claims that 70% of the population have voted to have this poison added to our water supply.
flouride toothpaste is not an option we are told as poorer families cannot afford it but surely it would be cheaper to give the children free flouride toothpaste
than the cost of adding this dangerouse chemical
to our water supply
estimated at 50p per person per day
this would be a more effective way
of getting the flouride to them.
if my four grandchildren are anything to go by kids dont drink tap water or tea and coffee but bottled water and pop so whats the benefit of adding it to the water if kids dont touch the stuff.
last but not least maybe someone could explain to me how these peoplethink they can ride roughshod over my human rights by forcing me to take poison
maybe cherie blair could answer me this one she is always going on about human rights
It is up to the Health and Education authorities to teach people to look after themselves properly. Their intention to mass poison the population as a whole smacks of Stalinism or Moaism. Punishing the masses for their own failures.
It's a good idea, we need the same level of fluoridation as other regions, such as Birmingham, we need more in fact because of the problems. The people against don't live in Greater Manchester and don't care about the problems working class children have with their teeth.
If twenty people in manchester suffered from regular headaches would you allow the government to put asprin in the water? Of course not,so why allow them to dose us all up with flouride ?? Mass medication isnt good for you,if you need flouride by the tablets or use flouride tooth paste .
I am not an expert by any means.
I just find this a strange decision in view of the fact that the USA are discontinuing fluoriduisation of water because of its affect on the thyroid gland.
I can remember East Sussex using flouride in the water supply when I was a teenager. We were told that it was safe then. The water tasted horrid.
I have always under
stood that this substance is non-bio
degradable which would mean it builds up in every person who uses it, it is not a substance that any one should be forced to use, do we know all the side effects? I doubt it.
Parents should feed their children a healthy diet.They should call to their dentist, and ask what is the right way to clean their children's teeth. When these procedures have been carried out, it will allow people like me to enjoy my drinking water to be free of Fluoride.
At 50p per person, they could instead distribute fluoride fortified pop drinks to deprived people, and leave the rest of us to our fluoride toothpaste.
The article stated: "In the West Midlands it costs around 50p a person, a day ??" which would mean annual running costs of up to ??1.25m in Greater Manchester on top of set-up costs."
At 50p per person per day, the daily costs of fluoridation would be ??1.25M because the Greater Manchester area has a population of 2,284,093. The annual cost would be ??463,367,500.
The most interesting aspect of the whole thing is that in order to fluoridate the Greater Manchester Area, the money is going to have to come out of the SHA budget - Both Greater Manchester SHAs are forecasting debt and implementing cost cutting measures.
Fluoridation will come at the expense of cutting people off from life saving treatments and/or closing a few hospitals - the start-up costs to fluoridate the could exceed ??50M and would take at least three to five years to implement.
So, people with life-threatening health problems will be put on waiting lists while 99.97% of the fluoride they put in the water either gets flushed down the toilet of goes down the drain.
No wonder the NHS is in such sad shape - It's run by a bunch of incompetent nitwits. They have even commissioned United Utilities to do a 'Feasibility Study' for a project they can't afford.
The 'feasibility study is another waste of NHS funds - probably the cost of a few hospital beds or some Alzheimer's drugs.
On top of that, the SHA's obligated by law to conduct public consultations which is going to cost even more money. Then there are solicitors' cost, etc, etc.
By the time everyone gets a little piece of the cake (and not accounting for the inevitable cost over-runs) this ambitious project will probably exceed ??100,000,000.
But the NHS bosses don't care, they can afford private insurance - you're just the punter.
No-one knows how much it would cost to fluoridate Greater Manchester: no new fluoridation schemes have been started in the UK for 20 years. (It's old-style 'nanny-state' thinking, completely out of step with the theme of choice which increasingly informs NHS provision.) The last fluoridation plant to be rebuilt - also by United Utilities, in Cumbria, cost ??4 million. However we can be sure the water company will try to squeeze every last penny out of the situation: it's what water companies do best.
Oh, and fluoridation chemicals are toxic waste. They're industrial grade chemicals, not food grade or pharmaceutical grade. And they've never been tested for safety.
What are the parents of these toothless wanders going to do,make their offsprings gargle with it.what child drinks tap water these days,they are too busy drinking sugary drinks and the parents are too busy to stop them.
So we all have to suffer.LAY OFF MY TAP WATER.
I do not wish to have my water poisoned by Fluoride which is a carcinogenic product.. It is up to parents to care for their childrens' teeth. Manchester water is noted for its quality and it would be quite wrong to spoil this. I shall not use water which contains added Fluoride.
I am a dentist who used to work in Birmingham which has had fluoridated water since 1964 and has amongst the best dental health in England. When I moved to Yorkshire I was immediately struck by the amount of tooth decay in the population in a non-fluoridated area. Both Manchester and parts of Yorkshire desperately need water fluoridation to help improve the dental health of the local communities. Why should our children have to suffer from unecessary toothache when those living in fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle have much better dental health?
The health chiefs have no right in a supposedly free country to enforce medication on the public. If they wish to help children in deprived areas make flouride toothpaste available free on the NHS for those who want it, don't force members of the publice to have fluoridation because it benefits somebody else. That is not democratic, its dictatorship.
If there is a problem with tooth decay among children, then the answer to this is dental health promotion and ensuring children have access to NHS dentists.
Forcing fluoridation of water onto people, effectively giving medical treatment without our consent is not the answer, it's wrong, and has health risks.
The way to defeat this proposal is to make it commercially non-viable - for people to pledge to refuse to pay their water bills if this goes ahead.
I for one will not be paying for the 'privilege' of being medicated against my will.
why cant the public vote on the issue - after reading the positive and negative effects of fluoride written by both parties, ie, gmsha and manchester against fluoridation.
I take issue with the figure of 70% in favour quoted in the article. Whenever public opinion polls have been taken following information given on both sides of the argument, the result has been 90-95% AGAINST fluoridation.
As a former cancer sufferer I object to even more medication which will notimprove my dental health one iota and may cause serious health problems in years to come. It is parents responsibility to look after their children's teeth and ensure a healthy diet but unfortunately some are too lazy and ignorant to do this or even read the info in the media about this. There are more older people in this country than young so why should everyone have to suffer. The harsh fact is that some people are not fit to bring up children and there is no end to the state nannying
The 'fluoride' added to water supplies in fluoridation programmes is hexafluorosilicic acid. This chemical is not present naturally in water. Natural fluoride is usually the calcium or magnesium salt of fluorine. Fluoride is not an essential element it is a cumulative poison. Fluoridationists continue to claim that fluoridation would bring about 50% less dental decay. The ??<sup>~</sup>York Review??<sup>TM</sup> found no reliable studies to collaborate this. ??<sup>~</sup>York??<sup>TM</sup> scientists??<sup>TM</sup> estimate was an uncertain 15%.
Comparisons between Manchester children's teeth and those of Birmingham are flawed because 'confounding factors??<sup>TM</sup> are not considered e.g. Is there more calcium in Birmingham's water? Are Birmingham families more affluent? Is the availability of dentists and the spending on dental treatments the same in the two cities? If any of these (and many other factors eg confectionery consumption, tea-drinking) are not identical in the two places then comparisons are invalid.
Birmingham is not the general health capital of Britain. Birmingham has the highest figure in the country for rejection of sperm donors. Infertility is one effect of fluoride. No systematic testing of blood and urine is carried out to determine if people's illnesses in Birmingham are linked to fluoride/fluoridation.
In February this year A BBC Wear poll for several days showed over 90% opposed to fluoridation?"?until a hacker altered figures overnight to show 90% in favour. Presumably someone supporting fluoridation did not like the truth and had resorted to dirty tricks.
Fluoridation gives no control whatsoever on an individual's fluoride intake which depends on how much water he/she drinks and how much fluoride he/she obtains from other sources. Babies whose bottle feed is mixed with water fluoridated above 0.7 ppm are at risk of getting too much fluoride.
It is a fundamental right to be allowed to decide what you put into your own body. Fluoridation is enforced medication of the entire population, which is against sound medical ethics and human rights. Less than 1% of the fluoridated water will go anywhere near teeth. Most will wash cars, flush loos, fill baths and swimming pools etc. Fluoridation is ineffective, unnecessary, old-fashioned, unscientific, illogical, expensive to the NHS and down right dangerous. It needs fighting tooth and claw.
Yours truly
Elizabeth A McDonagh BSc(Hons), Cert. Ed.
Executive member of National Pure Water Association
This is mass medication with out consent.
Where is the democratic process?
Bone cancer has been linked to fluoride.
Does any one have any idea where fluoride comes from?
It is a by product of aluminium industry.
This is kept secret.
I urge the people of Manchester to fight this every one has the right to safe clean and TOXIC free water.
Wright to your mp , do not let a few scientist and a few government officials tell you children??<sup>TM</sup>s teeth will be saved from drinking fluoride. if they are so worried about children??<sup>TM</sup>s teeth then fund more dentists.
These are the same people who told us smoking was good for us. The same people that told us asbestos was harmless, the same people that told us mad cow dieses would never cross over to humans.
The children of Spain and other euro peon countries where fluoride is not added have exactly the same levels of tooth decay in children as the united kingdom will have if its added.
Hi, I dont know what the problem is. I lived in Northern Ireland for 32 years where it was the done thing to put fluoride in the tap water. This never done me or anyone else any harm. It also did NOT stop me getting fillings or teeth pulled. Every time i go back home i can taste it for the first few drinks, but after that i am fine. And before you shout louder, just remember all those Queues for dentists we dont have.