Keyword search
East Midlands Against Fluoridation

Posted on 10th August 2010. 

E MAF is a 'not-for-profit organisation which is opposed to compulsory water fluoridation.  We aim to prevent further areas of the East Midlands from being fluoridated, to get fluoride removed from the water supplies of those parts of the region which have become fluoridated 'by creep' and to get fluoride removed from water supplies which are deliberately fluoridated.  Parts of the East Midlands are already fluoridated at either 0.5ppm or at 1ppm.  Those areas receiving the lower level are being fluoridated because of the way the water grid is constructed (fluoride by creep).  Most people in the areas receiving 0.5ppm have never been consulted and few are aware that they are getting a compulsory medicine.  Even those people receiving 1ppm F/litre of water are not always aware that they are being compulsorily medicated.

(EMAF currently shares this site with WMAF.)

News - 11th August 2010

East Midlands' fluoridation feasibility study nearing publication

Encouraged by the Dental Division at the Department of Health, the British Dental Association, the British Fluoridation Society, the National Fluoride Information Centre, the British Dental Health Foundation, East Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the PCTs in the East Midlands area, NHS Nottingham City has been coordinating a feasibility study over the past few months on behalf of the 9 PCTs in the area in order to determine whether or not it's financially viable and operationally feasible to introduce fluoridation throughout the East Midlands.

Today, East Midlands Against Fluoridation learned that the feasibility study is nearing publication.  Here is the source of this information:

Study nears completion on fluoridation of water supply

The results of a 50,000 study into fluoridating water supplies should be finished later this year.

Health officials have been working with water companies since early 2008 on the costs and practicalities of adding fluoride to public water supplies.

They are now deciding whether the benefits of fluoridation would outweigh the cost which would be borne by health trusts.

Supporters of fluoridation said it was necessary to reduce tooth decay.

Critics said it might harm people's health and was not effective enough to justify the cost.

The study is being led by officials at NHS Nottingham City on behalf of all nine primary care trusts in the East Midlands.

Alison Challenger, a consultant in public health who is involved in the study, said: "The technical assessment work is done. This looks at how and where fluoride might be added to water.

"We have had to look at the cost of setting up plants, where they would be and the cost of ongoing maintenance.

"Each primary care trust area is different and some may decide they do not want to fluoridate supplies.

"It may be that it is decided health promotion is more cost-effective. Those decisions will be down to individual trusts.

"The feasibility study will produce a report for each area so that it can discussed and debated locally."

Philip Martin, a dentist in Braunstone and chairman of Leicestershire local dental committee, said: "The dental profession is very keen on the idea of fluoridation of water supplies as a method which would benefit patients and prevent the early loss of teeth and other problems.

"I'm disappointed that it didn't happen years ago."

The National Pure Water Association campaigns against fluoridation.  A spokesman said: "There is no high-quality scientific evidence that fluoridation makes a difference. American research shows that for disease control fluoride has to be applied to the tooth surface and that doesn't happen with drinking water.

"It should also be remembered that fluoride is a toxin."

The British Dental Health Foundation website said studies carried out for the Government by York University and the Medical Research Council failed to find any evidence that fluoride added to water caused harmful side effects.

It said: "Opponents of fluoridation claim they have firm evidence that fluoride added to water is harmful.  "Scientific analysis has not supported their claims."  Worldwide, more than 300 million people drink fluoridated water supplies which has "led to improved levels of dental health", it said.

A spokesman for Severn Trent Water said: "All decisions on whether to fluoridate are made by strategic health authorities and fluoridation can only happen under their direction. Water companies are obliged to fluoridate if directed to do so."  He added that it was possible to fluoridate only parts of a county's water supply.

To read the Medical Research Council's report, go to:


Visitors new to the site are reminded that water fluoridation is a compulsory medical intervention which benefits no-one and which damages teeth and health.  It's an intervention which is against our human rights and the legislation which allows the practice is illegal.  For an explanation of this illegality, please go to Criminalising the Water Sector .  The author, Doug Cross, is a well-respected forensic environmental analyst who has been deeply involved with combatting environmental malpractices for many years.  He is the scientific and legal advisor to United Kingdom Councils Against Fluoridation.  UKCAF is a organisation which comprises many English local authorities which neither practise nor advocate fluoridation.

For more in-depth information on the fluoridation controversy, please go to the Home Page on this site.

Over the next few weeks we aim to bring pressure to bear on the Government to halt this process before it wastes any more public finance and before it ruins more people's lives and teeth in the East Midlands.  If you wish to become an activist against the fluoridation of the East Midlands, please phone Sian Winstanley on 01246 473902.

Other sources of information:

Derbyshire County Primary Care Trust Board Papers 21st January 2010

This is Nottingham, 10th Dec. 2009, "City asks for fluoride-in-water report".