Water Fluoridation Bill (1985)

What's the first thing you think of when someone mentions politicians? Is it sleaze, such as corrupt deals made at secret meetings between MPs and industrialists in locked committee rooms? Or perhaps it makes you think of the MP who came to see you at election time to ask for your vote and then shows no interest in your problems once he or she is elected. It could prompt a memory of a rigged vote in Parliament on an important Bill - such as the Water Fluoridation Bill of 1985. The fact is that the 1997 British General Election has signalled the end of 18 years of Tory rule but it certainly does not mean an end to sleaze.

This is a sorry tale to relate. We have become accustomed to the antics, tactics and disgraceful behaviour of some of our MPs and the passage of the Water Fluoridation Bill through Parliament is a prime example of how corrupted our political system is. Ostensibly, the Bill was supposed to be the subject of a "free vote" and yet it was anything but so. The Bill was produced by the Government and consequently, to avoid losing face, whipped support to ensure its safe passage through the Commons.

What is disturbing about the two-line whip issued to supporters of the Bill was that a significant number of them were actually anti-fluoride but on the 'payroll'. No doubt many of those who abandoned their beliefs and principles were more concerned with keeping their jobs and perks than obeying their conscience. As a consequence, many anti-fluoride MPs were "persuaded" to change their views and declined to give their reasons for doing so.

Perhaps a clue to the potential embarrassment of the Government losing this battle was in the way the Bill was introduced to Parliament. According to the observations of one MP, the Bill was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament the previous year (it is customary for the Government to declare it's intentions for the forthcoming twelve months via this Speech).

In fact, this was a Bill introduced by means of stealth, forced through the Commons with the greatest speed and by the use of questionable tactics. I could say quite a great deal about what happened throughout January, February and March of 1985 but I have decided to take some of comments recorded in Hansard to give you some idea of the deceit, broken promises, stupid remarks and the prevailing feeling of animosity between the pro- and anti- fluoridation MPs - and then respond accordingly.

NB. Comments which appear in bold or blue type are the Author's and do not constitute part of the Hansard.

14th January, 1985.

The first debate had hardly begun and yet the pro-fluoridation Government scored an early own-goal.

Kenneth Clarke (then the Minister for Health): "The result is that the House may be assured that enactment of the Bill will not force any health or water authority to undertake water fluoridation against its wishes. The bill does not reflect the beginning of any major campaign to put authorities under pressure to fluoridate, where they or their populations are unwilling to do so." [column 83]

Response: Probably one of the biggest deceptions of the first debate. There are a number of examples of where the opposite has be proven to be true. It has since been claimed by some Parliamentary sources that it was never the intention to allow water companies to refuse fluoridation where it has been demanded of them by unelected health authorities. It is also a fact that some health authorities have abused the 'consultation process'. The consultation process is supposed to take into consideration the views of various 'representative' bodies before deciding whether or not to request a programme of water fluoridation. It has already been demonstrated that some Health Authorities, and in particular certain Directors of Health, have either been prejudiced against the anti-fluoridation movement or have had their minds poisoned by pro-fluoridation propagandists. As a consequence, it has been observed that the consultation process was nothing more than a temporary obstacle to those health officials who had already decide to request water fluoridation regardless of the views of anyone else in the community they represented.

On the subject of sugar and diet ...

Mr Meacher: "There should be more parental control to discourage children from eating too much sugar and sweets and the food industry should be more strictly regulated." [col 86]

Response: The following quotes are taken from the Committee On Medical Aspects of food and nutrition policy (COMA), 1999. It is in response to a submission from the Sugar Bureau (the organisation that looks after the interests of the sugar industry):

"..... that fluoride is more important than diet in preventing caries." and "Even with fluoridation and improved oral hygiene there is still a need for dietary modification. There is evidence that despite the benefits of fluoridation there remains a significant prevalence of caries in the population ...."

So far we have not seen a deterrent. A sugar tax would be one idea. And is fluoride really more important than diet? It is diet which is the main cause of tooth decay but COMA seem to want to put the cart before the horse and help protect the interests of the sugar industry.

NB. COMA was disbanded in March 2000. It will be replaced by a new committee, The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN).

The 'free' vote?

Nicholas Fairbairn: "If the measure passes tonight it is because the payroll vote is unfree (sic) to vote against it." [col 93]

Response: Absolutely correct. The two-line whip issued to the 'payroll' MPs virtually forced them to vote with the Government. Without this measure the Bill would have failed.

Compulsory medication.

Enoch Powell: "Fluoride is not a substance introduced into water to produce a specific medical effect upon certain individuals." [col 95]

Response: Rubbish. Fluoride has been added to water on the disputed premise that it will reduce tooth decay in children. It is also legally defined as medication.

Rights of water companies.

Kenneth Clarke: "The decision of two local bodies will therefore be required - the health authority and the water authority - before fluoride can be added. It will be up to the water authority to decide to what extent it wishes to be guided by the health authority." [cols 96/7]

Response: Another broken promise. There has been a fair bit of backtracking on this pledge.

Support the party or your constituents?

David Atkinson: "I admit that it is rather tempting to use the free vote tonight to vote against the bill. Most of the letters I have received from my constituents urge me to vote against it. Many of them refer to the fact that fluoride is a poison. Much evidence has been referred to tonight, but we have the assurance of my right honourable and learned Friend the Minister that it is not a poison." [col 101]

Response: Another of Ken Clarke's 'misconceptions'. He tells the house that fluoride is "harmless". And Atkinson goes against the wishes of his constituents and supports the second reading - so why did he not bother to vote on the third reading?

Sugar and diet (again).

Mr Pavitt: "A good deal of evidence has emerged from recent research being undertaken, particularly in the London hospital and by the dental working party established by the Labour party. It shows the way in which Coca Cola, ice cream and so on are injurious to children's health." [col 103]

Response: Again, why not a sugar tax?

Crazy!

Dr Miller: "The Bill recommends 1 mg per litre, but one can be sure that 2 mg, 3 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg would not do any harm. There is a vast margin of safety." And ... "Any water that is not fluoridated is not safe to drink." [cols 115 & 120]

Response: You have to read Dr Miller's comments to accept that he made them. They are profoundly stupid statements. There is plenty of evidence showing harm from consuming small quantities of fluoride. There really is no answer to the second remark though it is not untypical of the absolute rubbish used by the pro-fluoride MPs.

Note that there is NO proven essential requirement of fluoride for the human body and anyone who suggests such a thing is in a very tiny minority (and possibly serving the interests of the toxic fluoride waste producers).

Medical effects.

Gerald Howarth (quoting Lord Jauncey, from McColl v. Strathclyde Council, 1983):

"I am not going so far as to state that no chronic renal failure patients with kidney function reduced to 20% or less will ever suffer any harm from drinking fluoridated water. This is a possibility."

"I consider the Petitioner (Mrs McColl) is well-founded in submitting that drinking water fluoridated to one part per million can, in some circumstances, cause enzyme inhibition."

And quoting Sir Arthur Amies, emeritus professor of dental medicine at the University of Melbourne:

"The case against fluoridation medically requires only such evidence as is necessary to support a reasonable doubt. Where the public is concerned, no reasonable doubt can be ignored, and the doubt about fluoridation is more than reasonable, it is considerable." [col 117]

Response: Gerald Howarth also spoke of cot-death but his remarks and warnings seem to have fallen upon deaf ears. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil - Motto of the pro-fluoride lobby?

Dangerous

Edward Leigh: "... is it not true that whether or not fluoride is dangerous, some people still consider it to be dangerous? Some of my constituents said to me that it effects their health." [col 122]

Response: Sad to say that those who have claimed harm from fluoride are unlikely to find any help in the medical community. Such is the enormity of fluoride propaganda that too many doctors are not taking the issue seriously.

Ivan Lawrence: "... at the end of a 210-page report, prepared for the Ministry of the Environment in the Province of Quebec in 1979 by an advisory committee which consisted of a number of experts, it said of the fluoridation of water that it: poses serious dangers to health and has not proved to be a very effective deterrent to dental caries." [col 123]

And sleaze...

"When I first came to the House I could not have cared less about fluoridation. I then sat on the Select Committee and found that witnesses who assured us that fluoridation was beneficial and safe could not answer simple questions to show they knew what they were talking about. Only then did I begin to smell a rat and to realise that there was more to this than we had been led to suppose." [col 125]

Response: The pro-fluoride lobby is not short of 'rats'. Exactly how many rats there are will not become apparent until the pro-fluoride lobby's 'ship' is sunk.

19th February, 1985.

New clauses.

Dennis Skinner: "Some members of the payroll vote are trying to wrestle with what is freedom of choice on fluoride, especially now that the lady (Mrs Thatcher) has gone to Washington. The Whip in charge of this Bill is more than a little anxious. He came rushing up the corridor to me and said, "Are you with us?" I said, "When that happens we can all fold up. You can't get 100 to close the debate, can you?" [col 993]

Response: An obvious sign that the Government wanted to shorten debates they knew they could not win and hurry through to the next reading of the Bill.

Who pays the piper calls the tune ...

Chris Hawkins (Responding to Mr Hardy): "Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the tactics that the Government have needed to use to get through the Bill on a supposedly free vote are quite shabby? [col 1005]

Michael McGuire: "The Government chose the day and time because they thought they could pass the measure comfortably. They did not think that a sufficient number of free men women would stay behind. Tonight it has become clear that the payroll vote are trying to get into the Whip's good books, as are the Parliamentary Private Secretaries who hope to become Ministers; The vote has never been free. It has always been carried by the payroll vote, even on Second Reading." [col 1008]

Response: The above two comments highlights the corruption surrounding fluoridation. It has also become very clear that since 1985, some of the payroll 'performers' have certainly done quite well for themselves.

26th February, 1985.

More new clauses and more evidence of harm.

Keith Best (Quoting from a letter to the 'American National Fluoridation News'): "This child was born in a year when fluoride vitamin drops were the 'in thing', and he has now a constant reminder of my brainwashing. He has turned eight and his second teeth are coming in yellow like his first. Jennifer, the little girl across the street, has also been given fluoride vitamin drops for the first five years of her life, causing her baby teeth to be discoloured. Now that she is five going six her second teeth are coming in and she is suffering from a disease that will not affect her physically, but could very well submerge an already shy personality. Jennifer has fluorosis, and her top teeth are vertically striped and the bottom ones are mottled; Those of us in the neighbourhood who have children are torn between the urge to show everyone the damage fluoride can do, and the desire to spare the children's feelings by not asking them to show their diseased teeth." [col 209]

And quoting from an article in a Scottish newspaper:

"Compulsory medication is only allowed by a court order for the mentally ill. Each person is put into this category when the water is fluoridated. This is easily recognised as a form of dictatorship." [col 210]

Response: It has been the claim of various pro-fluoride MPs throughout the reading of this Bill that fluoridation would most benefit those who were poor and "ill-educated". It would appear that these MPs think that the 'lower' classes are mentally ill and incapable of using a toothbrush. Society may well produce some eccentrics but to treat an entire population as being mad is another thing altogether.

Keith Best (more quotes): Dr Allen London, past president of the American Academy of Dental Medicine: "Any degree of dental fluorosis, even the least detectable, is an abnormality and is due to the toxic action of fluoride on the tissues forming in the tooth." ... And Dr Phillips, professor of Biochemistry: "A fluoridated tooth can become carious and once it does there is no satisfactory repair." ... And a Swedish biochemist, a Nobel Prize winner for his work on enzyme chemistry: "as far as is known the toxic effect of fluoride is due solely to its inhibitor effect on many enzyme systems." ... And Dr Emsley, reader in chemistry at Kings College: "... has markedly increased the credibility of earlier claims of genetic damage, cancer and allergy from low fluoride levels." And ... "In 1973, the Russian Research Institute of Industrial Health and Occupational diseases found that fluoride caused genetic damage to a rat. In 1974 the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in the USA found that fluoride caused genetic damage in mice, sheep and cows. In 1978, the Pomeranian Medical Academy found that fluoride causes genetic damage in humans. In 1979, the National Institute of Dental Research in the USA showed that fluoride does not cause genetic damage in mice. We can be thankful about that. In 1981, the Institute of Botany in Baku showed in three studies that fluoride caused genetic damage in rats. In 1982, the University of Missouri, Kansas City, showed that fluoride caused genetic damage in a mouse, so unfortunately mice come back into the league of sufferers. In 1983, the Kunming Institute of Zoology, Kunming, China showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in deer. In 1984, the Nippon Dental University in Tokyo showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in hamsters and embryo cells. Also in 1984 the same university study showed that fluoride causes genetic damage in a human cell culture." [cols 214-218]

"We did not want to jeopardise the fluoridation programme"

Quoting Ivan Lawrence in committee ... "Water authorities know what happened in Annapolis in the United States in 1979, when it all went wrong. A mistake by a waterworks employee caused the discharge of 1,000 excess gallons of fluoride into the drinking water, increasing its concentration to 15 times its normal level. As a result, eight patients at a private clinic suffered nausea, vomiting, weakness and a burning sensation in their chests after an hour or so of treatment on their dialysis machines. All were taken off the machines, one patient died and the doctors were at a loss as to what had caused the illness of the dialysis patients. When they learned that a flock of people were going to the hospital suffering from diarrhoea and nausea and that an accident had occurred at the waterworks, one of the local officials said; 'We did not want to jeopardise the fluoridation programme'. The authority said that it would never have detected the error of the employee had it not been for the kidney patients on the dialysis machines." (Official report, Standing Committee H, 29th January 1985; c. 17-18.) [col 221]

Response: What more could you say? Read on ...

Some facts about [hexa]fluorosilicic acid ("hex")

Nicholas Fairbairn (quoting from Fison's literature): "Introduction. Fison's Fluorosilicic Acid, Foremost in Fluoridation - Fison's Limited. Fertiliser Division: General: Fluorosilicic Acid is a highly corrosive and toxic liquid. [col 281]

Nicholas Soames: "Nonsense."

Response: An incredibly stupid remark to make. It also highlights Nicholas Soames lack of knowledge of the subject of fluorides.

Nicholas Fairbairn (continuing): "... these are the substances we shall have to drink" - "Care must be exercised while handling this material. The vapour must not be inhaled. Due to the highly corrosive and toxic nature of this product; In handling full protective clothing, including goggles, gloves, boots and a PVC suit, should be worn. It is essential that tap water is available near handling points and that eyewash bottles are suitably sited. Health hazards: 1. Vapour - the vapour irritates all parts of the respiratory system and can cause severe lung damage. The T.L.V. (Threshold Limit Value) for fluorides ... is 2.5 mg / cubic metre of air. (Health & Safety Executive note EH15/76). 2. Liquid - fluorosilicic acid burns the eyes severely and also the skin. If swallowed, the acid would cause severe internal irritation and damage. Note: Symptoms may develop after several hours." [cols 281-283]

Response: Do the contemptuous MPs who tell us that this chemical is perfectly safe think we cannot see for ourselves that this highly toxic industrial waste it will still cause problems for sensitive or hypersensitive people?

Nicholas Winterton: "It appears from new evidence that a number of members have changed their view merely because of their position and not because of medical evidence that has been presented to them."

This debate came to an ignominious end when Tony Marlow rose to make a point of order. He was followed by John Cope who moved that 'the question be now put'. The Deputy Speaker 'overlooked' Tony Marlow and the House proceeded to a Division.

Not forgetting those clauses ...

New Clause 18: "If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the addition of fluoride to water supply is harmful to health, he shall terminate any application made under section 1(1)."

Clause 1 (amendment): "There shall be no increase in the fluoride content of the water supplied by a water undertaker in England and Wales unless approval is given for such action by a majority in favour of it in a county council or councils, or in each district council in the area to be affected."

Response: New Clause 18 appears to be one of common sense and the amendment to Clause 1 would at least allow a little local democracy to come into play. Clause 18 was voted down by 55-129 and the amendment to Clause 1 was, eventually, voted down by 43-122.

5th March, 1985.

The controversy that surrounded the closure of the debate on the 26th February would not go away. Tony Marlow again raised the issue with the new Deputy Speaker, Ernest Armstrong, who refused to be moved on the subject.

Nicholas Fairbairn: "I appreciate the ruling you have given, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am raising a different matter, one of principle, out of which the objection of my Honourable Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Tony Marlow) arose. It arose because there was an attempt by the Government, under the false pretence that there was a free vote, to have a forced closure." [col 878]

Deputy Speaker: "As the Honourable and learned Gentleman knows, what the Whips may have been deciding is not a matter for the Chair. ..." [col 878]

In a nutshell, the Deputy Speaker made it clear that the closure took precedence over points of order - seemingly regardless of their importance or validity and against the Rules of the House which state: "... is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority..." [cols 877, 880]

Whether or not the Deputy Speaker, John Cope, was being 'favourable' towards the Government will probably never be known.

A new amendments to Clause 1.

This amendment would have forced parliament to reconsider fluoridation every twelve months. It was doomed to fail. And worse ...

Nicholas Fairbairn: "All of these wretched Ministers and their Parliamentary Private Secretaries will come back in one years time, be just as dishonest and give the vote that keeps their jobs and leaves their conscience in the gutter, as all of them are doing now." [col 898]

Ian Percival: "I just do not understand how many friends and colleagues of mine whom I have liked and admired for so many years can support, let alone be so determined to drive through this House, a Bill that authorises compulsory medication. It is no use trying to disguise that fact." [col 905]

Contempt for the truth.

Michael Brown (responding to Kenneth Clarke's arrogant dismissal of contrary evidence): "My Hon. Friend the Minister said last week that he would not take notice of any old report, article or information that came before him." [col 915]

Nicholas Fairbairn: "The refusal even to consider the scientific arguments demonstrates that the Government are saying, through their officials, that they do not care what the evidence is and that they propose to ignore it." [col 916]

Response: Correct. It shows how a Minister, and payroll MPs, can abuse their position in power by ignoring all of the facts and make decisions on public health based on dishonest, misleading and inaccurate information.

Treachery.

Michael Brown: "My Hon. Friends the Members for Reading West (Tony Durant) and for Fareham (Peter Lloyd), who became Government Whips not so very long ago, had to change their minds overnight in favour of fluoridation, although on several occasions in the past had formed part of the anti-fluoridation campaign." [col 920]

Response: Michael Brown gave numerous examples of MPs who had previously stated their opposition to fluoridation [cols 920-924] but the most pertinent quote came from John Home Robertson who said: "In some instances people face both ways at the same time. I have particularly in mind the Honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Ian Lang) who is the Government Whip and whose name appeared on the letterhead of a letter by the Scottish Pure Water Society sent only a month ago to all Scottish Members of Parliament urging them to vote against the Government. When I last saw the Honourable Gentleman, he was urging Government supporters to vote for the Government."

The first debate of the 5th March commenced 10-57 p.m. and the first vote on the first amendment took place just after 3 am the following day. However, Parliament does not recognise an end to the day so it was still officially 5th March. Again, the pro-fluoride forces in Government voted down the first amendment by 122-43.

The vote on the second amendment was delayed as Nicholas Fairbairn attempted to 'filibuster'. With few Government troops left in the Commons, Kenneth Clarke asked for the question to be put. This vote on the second amendment, which would have forced a 'renewal' of fluoridation policy every year, was taken just after 5 am and again was voted down.

However, due to the fact that it was an all-night session, the vote was reduced to 103-38. if the supporters of the Government had counted less than 100, the debate would not have closed.

New amendments.

This debate revolved around the 'safety' of fluorides to be used. It was the turn of (Sir) Ivan Lawrence to carry the battle for the anti-fluoridation vote.

Ivan Lawrence (quoting Dr John Emsley): "My work and the work of the research group has shown that fluoride combines itself to other molecules by what are called hydrogen bonds, and in particular very strong hydrogen bonds. The implications are that some of the molecules that we have investigated are important chemicals in the living cells in the human body." [col 960]

And on the 'Quebec Report' ... "Although there is a lack of evidence regarding the effects of the accumulation of fluorides along the food chain, there is enough evidence to conclude that the actual presence of fluorides above certain levels in the aquatic environment is causing important biological damage to both plant and animal systems." [col 967]

Response: Ivan Lawrence earlier quoted from another report on frogs and trout indicating: "The embryonic development of their eggs (frogs) is delayed when they are submitted to a concentration of 1 part per million of fluorides. Similar effects are observed in tadpoles ... The eggs of trout do not hatch when they are exposed to 1.5 parts per million of fluoride." [col 967]

The fact that fluorides can cause biological and environmental damage at extremely low levels (with implications for other life-forms) caused a certain amount of merriment. It appears that some MPs think that environmental issues are something worthy only of childish antics and asinine gesturing.

Ivan Lawrence (continues): "I now come to a report that I received during the Committee stage from ... Mr C W M Wilson, MA, MD, B.Sc, D.Ph, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh and Fellow of the Royal Society. "We carried out some animal experiments in Strathclyde University. This controlled investigation demonstrated that sensitivity to fluoride ions could be induced in guinea pigs and that the resulting allergic effects could be equally effectively produced by fluoridated tap water. This fluoride sensitivity could be potentiated by simultaneous challenge by food protein. Attention is drawn to the possibility of enhancement of food-induced allergic symptoms by preparing and cooking food in fluoridated water. The major scientific conclusion which can be drawn from these results is that evidence is now available which shows that fluoride can exert pathophysiological disordered function effects by virtue of its immune sensitising action rather than through its toxic action. A relatively high proportion of the population is food and water contaminant sensitive and in consequence is potentially vulnerable to allergic challenge. These allergic individuals are not protected by limiting fluoride ion concentrations in mains water to one part in 1 million." [col 973]

Response: Ivan Lawrence quoted many respected sources which in turn provided substantial evidence showing the harm that can be caused by fluorides. I suggest you look at columns 956 to 1023 in Hansard, 5th March 1985. The wealth and quality of evidence against fluoridation should have been enough to 'kill the Bill'. Of interest, columns 987 to 989 were dedicated to the Burk and Yiamouyiannis study on cancer. It is these two authors, and Dr Yiamouyiannis in particular, who have been unjustly criticised and slandered by so-called scientific and medical professionals. But the bigger the threat you are to the pro-fluoridation campaign, the more you are likely to suffer'

Ivan Lawrence (Quoting Dr Colquhoun, a retired Chief Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, who discovered that his previously held views that fluoridation was effective were not accurate.):

Dr Colquhoun stated: "I found on my study tour that new better designed research was under way, which I reported to the health department on my return and which I, along with other believers in fluoridation, hoped would finally prove the superiority of fluoridation over other methods of prevention. But the results of this research, though often presented in guarded and ambiguous ways, have not supported the case for fluoridation at all. They show that dental decay rates have dropped dramatically in most developed countries whether they practice fluoridation or not, and in fluoridated countries it dropped in unfluoridated places as well. Also, the European countries which discontinued fluoridation some years ago, there are no reports of an increase in dental decay as a result." [col 997]

And ... "Evidence that there is now no dental benefit related to water fluoridation. The Health Department's own statistics show that water fluoridation is not related to any significant differences in child dental health. Statistics from Auckland Health District indicate: (a) children's filling rates are related to the income levels of the suburbs where they live and not to fluoridation, (b) fluoridation merely accelerates temporarily a decline in dental decay which was happening anyway. [col 998]

Statistics from the Greater Auckland region, that is three health districts containing over a quarter of New Zealand's population, show: (1) where an unfluoridated area is compared with a fluoridated area of similar income level, the percentage of children who are free of decay is consistently higher in the unfluoridated area. (2) As well as the above, decayed, missing and filled teeth scores show, when socio-economic differences are allowed, child dental health is better in the unfluoridated area; (4) The Health Department's collected statistics, as well as controlled surveys, show that the above is true for the rest of New Zealand also. (5) Early fluoridation research in the 1940's and 1950's was very defective. New and better research, which I noted on my world study tour for the Department of Health in 1980; which has since been published, shows that in most developed countries, dental decay has declined whether fluoridation was practised or not. In the countries in Europe which discontinued fluoridation some years ago, there have been no reports of an increase in dental decay as a result; If fluoridation in the food chain is a benefit in unfluoridated areas, as the health department claims, it must be above optimal in fluoridated areas; Evidence of chronic fluoride intoxication related to water fluoridation: First, Auckland school dental nurses and I observed and reported high levels of dental fluorosis - chronic fluoride intoxication - among children in the fluoridated areas, some of it disfiguring, but not in unfluoridated areas. Read carefully, the health department report, which claimed to discredit these findings, supports them. From around the world, there are reports of increasing dental fluorosis. International scientific literature supports our claim that what the health department calls diffuse white opacities is dental fluorosis; so do the results of the recent survey initiated by the health department. Recent scientific evidence has increased the credibility of earlier claims of harm from low fluoride intakes." [cols 998, 999]

Response: It was now approaching 10 am and Ivan Lawrence had spoken for about four and a half hours. The two amendments which would have ensured that the compounds used to fluoridate water were proven to be safe were thrown out.

Further amendments were proposed but again with the inevitable conclusions. It was after 4 p.m. that the Water Fluoridation Bill was moved for the third, and last, time. The concluding vote, taken close to 8 p.m., was 165-82 in favour of the Bill. However, throughout this very sorry process a vast amount of evidence was ignored by the pro-fluoridation lobby and also not heard by the majority of Parliament.

Finally, a quote from Dr Miller: "I would not object to taking fluoride in one part per million or two, three, four or five parts per million. I would only start worrying if it reached 50 or 60 parts per million." [col 1079]

Response: Dr Miller's mentality is typical of the presiding attitude in the House at the time. It gives the distinct impression that the House is not a place a democracy but a something like a bawdy alehouse with some Members drunk on power and who arrogantly administer their half-baked, ignorant and misguided views at the expense of a vulnerable public.

This concludes the list of extracts from Hansard. The sleazy reputation of Parliament seems well earned considering that our democratic right to drink untainted water is not considered by our MPs (some of them part-timers) to be of any importance. So what is important to our representatives in Westminster? Perhaps it is being paid to ask questions or giving preference to big business interests over the ordinary citizen. It could be that Mr Al Fayed was right and that some MPs are like taxis just waiting to be hired. What we should understand is that when committees have to meet in locked rooms and conduct secretive meetings then we should realise that this type of democracy is something which is determined by a perverted minority. So how do you like this piece of 'democratic' legislation? Do you accept that you have a 'democratic' right to be lied to, deceived and poisoned?