Dear All,
I hope our readers derive as much pleasure as I do from the way people are willing to help others thousands of miles away - people that they will probably never meet. It is both moving and confirming. It confirms that once people have seen the stupidity and danger of this silly practice they just can't walk by on the other side of the street and let it happen to someone else - at least not without warning them.

And then, of course, there is the threat to democracy in countries which pride themselves on their democracy - the democracy that their sons and daughters sometimes are called upon to risk their lives to defend.

The following letters from Liz Vaughan from Cumbria and Ailsa Boyden from Australia elaborate on these themes. These are followed by an e-mail from Roy and Carol Smith who give us an update on some of the letters that have been printed in their local papers (including Stephen Sherrill's letter from California) on the Allerdale scandal.
Paul Connett. - June 29, 2002.
_______________________________________________________________
Letter #19 to South Africa. Liz Vaughan, Cumbria, UK ,liz@vaughan200.fsnet.co.uk.

Dear President Mbeki, Deputy President Zuma, Health Minister Dr Msimang and members of the South African Government.

We are a consortium of councils in the UK, North West Councils Against Fluoridation, we also speak on behalf of Northern Ireland Councils Against Fluoridation. These are elected councils representing in the region of 6 million people, the issue has been debated again and again in our council chambers and we find there is very little evidence to show any benefits to teeth of water fluoridation. Damage to health is well documented, fluoride has adverse effects on bones, the thyroid gland, etc. The Government-commissioned York Review into water fluoridation stated that although the estimated benefit is approximately 14.6% improvement in tooth decay, in fluoridated areas 48% of people have dental fluorosis and 12.5% need expensive veneering of their teeth, current cost is in the region of £200 per tooth, veneering needs renewing in about 7 years.
(See web site <http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk>http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk )

We are very sad to hear that fluoridation is proposed for the people in your beautiful country and urge you to reject it. As elected councils our policy has always been to uphold the basic human rights of the people we represent to choose what medication they and their families wish to take and not to have 'preventative treatment' enforced through the public drinking water. We wish to protect the people from a substance added to the drinking water that failed the safety tests in Europe and has not been tested as being fit for human consumption in the UK. To dispose of the toxic waste of the phosphate fertiliser industries into drinking water supplies is deplorable.

With fraternal good wishes.

Yours sincerely,
Cllr Liz Vaughan.
North West Councils Against Fluoridation.

______________________________________________________________
Ailsa Boyden writes to United Utilities which have clandestinely fluoridated the water of Allerdale, West Cumbria despite the vote of the people and their councillors.

To: Mr John Roberts, Chief Executive Officer, United Utilities,
john.roberts@uuplc.co.uk and Mr John Barnes,
Director, United Utilities, John.barnes@uuplc.co.uk

Dear Messrs Roberts and Barnes,

Re: Refluoridation of Allerdale Borough's water supply and legal responsibility

In the light of so much public and council opposition, the refluoridation of Allerdale Borough's water supply is yet another encroachment upon democracy. There is a libertarian issue at stake. Would you, and Public Health Consultant Dr Peter Tiplady, like it if the Allerdale Borough Council were to send a policeman to your homes, on a daily basis, for the rest of your lives, to force each member of your families to take a known accumulative poison that might benefit 0.5% of one tooth surface of a child you had never met? No. Of course you would not.

To force fluoride upon the unwilling is another step down the road taken by the former Romanian dictator who forced all Romanian women of childbearing age to be gynaecologically examined on a monthly basis so the government could be certain that none were having abortions. The Romanian Government's aim being population maximization not dental benefits! You might argue that fluoridation is one enormous step away from these forced physical examinations. It is not. It is one more "stone" being loosened under democracy's already flimsy "foundation".

Populations have striven long to achieve a measure of democracy. Many still die as a result of seeking it. Those assisting with fluoridation's undemocratic process are also assisting in the destruction of people's hard-won freedoms.

It is a matter of grave concern that United Utilities has chosen to fluoridate water supplied to a large majority of people in opposition to this measure; especially in view of the fact that the true representative of these people, the Allerdale Borough Council, voted against it.

With 83% of the public and also the council voting against fluoridation, there seems to have been a degree of underhandedness involved in the unreported recommencement of fluoridation. Had United Utilities and/or Dr Peter Tiplady taken the ethical high ground in regard to this matter, at the very least, the Allerdale Borough Council would have been forewarned of the intention to reinstitute fluoridation.

It is to council's credit to have taken the opinion of the public into account. It is to others shame not to have consulted with council. If Public Health had the will they would find the way to opt out of any fluoridation agreement made decades ago; especially in the light of new scientific evidence that shows no benefit to teeth from ingesting fluoride and that reveals adverse effects from doing so.

This brings to mind legal responsibility which United Utilities and Dr Tiplady may not have considered. What would be the legal implications for United Utilities and Dr Tiplady in the event of an overfeed of fluoride causing mass poisonings?

There have been many accidents resulting from "fail-safe" equipment. See http://www.fluoridealert.org "Fluoridation Accidents & Poisonings".

Would current liability insurance indemnify United Utilities and Dr Tiplady against litigants seeking damages for injury or death resulting from fluoride poisoning via water supplied by United Utilities? If you think, "Yes" it may be time to rethink this supposition and consult the relevant insurer/s for a corroborating answer. United Utilities' insurer, and Dr Tiplady's, may think it a gross negligence forcing a known poisonous substance onto unwilling consumers who have voted overwhelmingly against this procedure; particularly as you have now been told that there have been a lot of fluoride spills into municipal supplies and that mass poisonings and deaths have resulted.

I leave you to ponder the above and ask you to please share this letter with Dr Tiplady.

Yours faithfully,
Ailsa Boyden
AUSTRALIA.
_____________________________________________________________

Roy and Carol Smith update us on the Allerdale scandal.

Dear Paul,

3 letters appeared today in the Keswick Reminder mckanes-keswick@btconnect.com about the fluoridation of Allerdale, 2 anti and 1 pro and I'll add ours from last week. As yet, I don't know if Stephen Sherrill's letter has been sent to you, so it's copied below as no. 2.

The Keswick Reminder is a brief weekly paper of only 4 pages but it takes local issues very seriously and is following the fluoridation debate closely, although the Keswick area itself is not artificially fluoridated.

Roy and Carol.

Dear Editor -

Ref. Cornhow Fluoridation Plant

Both United Utilities (UU) and the North Cumbria Health Authority (NCHA) have totally ignored their moral obligation to inform the public on re-fluoridation from Cornhow. Local democracy has been trampled on, in spite of the recent poll showing 83% of the respondents and the Council vote coming out against fluoridation.

Together with the results of the York Review, this should have meant fluoride being removed from water supplies in Allerdale and Copeland. Fluoridation chemicals have twice failed the formal vote in Europe, so why have they been awarded British and European safety standard numbers in the UK?

Why hasn't fluoride been banned by Royal Decree as it was in Holland in the 1970s? Most of our European partners have rejected or banned it, when health risks ignored by this country were taken seriously there, thus respecting and protecting their people's Human Rights to choose their own medication without compulsion.

Is an obsolete mid-twentieth century agreement relevant to today's generation, which when formulated had no basis in existing legislation, and therefore was experimental? It was not legalised until 1985.

If there was nothing sinister about re-introducing fluoridation on June 10th, why weren't the 65,000 inhabitants informed beforehand? Instead of refuting existing health risks the onus should be on the proponents to prove otherwise.

In fact the York Review of October 2000 was unable to find strong 'evidence' of an improvement in dental health but certainly found endemic fluorosis.

Mary Lawley, 23 Briar Rigg, Keswick.
Friday, June 28th 2002 - Page 7:

(Roy and Carol tell us that "Mary is a Member of Cumbrians Against Fluoridation and the National Pure Water Association, UK, and has been fighting fluoridation for decades").

----------------------------------------

Dear Editor,

The water fluoridation debate has been raging for over half a century with vigorous opponents and proponents on both sides of the issue. But for a non-expert to form and intelligent and logical conclusion regarding fluoridation, he must ask two fundamental questions. (1) Does it do what proponents claim it does? (2) Will it do no harm?

If it works, then after 50+ years we should be able to see some evidence of its success.

Contrary to claims, virtually all of the recent large scale studies show little or no significant difference in the tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. Paradoxically, some communities that have been fluoridated for decades show a higher rate of tooth decay today than their non-fluoridated counterparts and communities that have abandoned fluoridation have not experienced a predicted increase in tooth decay.

Furthermore, over the same half century, a significant reduction in tooth decay has occurred in communities world wide that have never fluoridated their water.

On the issue of harm, it's safe to say that most ordinary citizens know very little about fluoride. But irrefutable evidence of fluoride's toxicity can be found in any standard toxicology textbook. Most people know that lead is toxic and that it has been removed from gasoline and paint. And even if lead were a super cavity fighter, who would be in favour of adding it to drinking water? This fluoridation folly must end immediately.

STEPHEN F SHERRILL

(Roy and Carol write: Thank you, Stephen. Your letter was also printed by the Cockermouth Times and Star letters@times-and-star.co.uk today, along with 3 others which included one from Australia - more tomorrow.)

----------------------------
A proponent writes in today's Keswick Reminder :

Dear Editor,

Fluoridation of water supplies

Fluoride is essential for strengthening the mineral composition of the tooth enamel making it more resistant to acid attacks. Fluoride that is ingested during the formation of teeth produces a lifelong beneficial effect because it is incorporated into the developing tooth substance. Children who drink fluoridated water from birth have 90% less extractions during childhood than those who have drunk water with less than the recommended fluoride level (0.7 - 1.2 parts per million). This is the advice of the British Medical Association, based on very well documented and researched international information.

This particularly relevant now that so many of the products destined for our children have a very high sugar content.

The campaign against fluoridation of water shows how effective the action of a small, dedicated group can be where health is concerned. However, we are talking about the future health of our children's teeth - and much else. Do these people want to go back to the days when only local water was available and those who in areas without natural fluoride always had bad teeth and the most appreciated 21st gift for a girl was a set of false teeth?

N C TAYLOR
---------------------------

Here is Roy and Carol's letter that they had in the Keswick Reminder on 21/6/02, but they don't know about the other weekly press, and the daily News and Star letters@cumbrian-newspapers. co.uk has not printed it, yet

Dear Editor,

Fluoridation: after many years, the debate gets no better. North Cumbria Health Authority's arrogance is boundless. Why force feed 65,000 people with something they do not want? Why has this un-elected body led by un-elected Dr Tiplady ignored the wishes of the people, their elected representatives and their MP? Will someone please explain why after 34 years people are not allowed to change their minds on fluoridation, and why after 25 years fluoridated West Cumbria was near the bottom (167th) of the league table and unfluoridated East Cumbria near the top?(7th)

What right have they to compel treatment on the public that does damage 1-in-2 children's teeth (fluorosis), on the assumption that some may not develop problems? Science Fiction as proved by the York Review. Where is the strong evidence it improves dental health in the population? Even York couldn't find strong evidence out of 3,000 papers, more fiction! We have recent information showing that fluoridation is not working in America, either.

Our European partners had no trouble either rejecting or banning artificial fluoridation. What is the problem in the UK? People not looking for evidence of harm cannot hope to find it. If everything is fine why is the Medical Research Council still looking at fluoridation? Are west Cumbrian mothers told young children up to 6 months and over 6 months will receive 3 x and 6 x the recommended dose respectively, using fluoridated water to reconstitute milk? (BMA Statistics.) We asked Dr Tiplady 6 months ago for comment on this, as yet no reply!

Compulsion violates a 'core principle' of the NHS Plan: "The NHS will shape its services around the needs and preferences of individual patients" ie not force fed mass treatment based on thirst - totally unscientific. Please stop behaving like health police. This is the 21st century not a police state.

Yours faithfully,

AR Smith(Mr) and CA Smith(Mrs)

You can contact Carolyn and Roy Smith , who are members of Cumbrians Against Fluoridation, and the UK NPWA and founder members of F.A.N. at smith33@lineone.net

They thank all those who have sent letters to United Utilities and the local press. These letters from around the world give them hope and keep their batteries charged!