Consultation Dates: 25th March 2024 – 17th June at 11.59 pm
Having read the Protocol for the Public Consultation, you are now ready to take a deep dive into our comments on the completion of the Questionnaire. Our commentary/advice is in blue text following each question.
There are 3 variants of the Questionnaire, depending on the answer provided for Q. 1 and these are revealed from Q.2 onwards.
The screenshots below have been copied from the Questionnaire’s Choice 1 option. This is for individuals who are affected by the proposal and for individuals who live outside the affected area, whether it is in the UK or abroad. Choice 1 is also for people travelling into the affected area for work and study (unless they are professionals – in which case they may wish to opt for Choice 3).
Choice 2 is for individuals who cannot personally complete the questionnaire but the subsequent questions are essentially the same as for Choice 1.
Choice 3 is for if you are completing the questionnaire in a professional capacity.
Choice 4 is for representatives of an organisation, whether it is a business or a non-governmental organisation.
Q.1
Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 Choice4
Q.1 Commentary: factual question to complete
Q.2
Q.2 Commentary: factual question to complete
Q.3
Q.3 Commentary: factual question to complete
Q.4
Q.4 Commentary: factual question to complete
Q.5
Q.5 Commentary: factual question to complete
Q.6
Q.6 Commentary: If you are tempted to answer “don’t know” the value of your responses will be reduced. Your water company has a page which will display a Water Quality Report for your post code. It should also tell you if your drinking water is fluoridated.
Q.7
Q.8 Commentary: factual question to complete
Q.9
Q.9 Commentary: factual question to complete.
Q.10
Q.10 Commentary: The above question is the most important question of all and is not at all tricky. If you answer “don’t know” why on earth are you responding to this consultation?
Q.11
Q.11 Commentary: if you are against Water Fluoridation, you will want to tick all the final 4 boxes.
If you choose “Other” you can put in a brief reason in this cramped box above which allows for 150 characters including spaces. Don’t worry – there is more space in the next sections of the Questionnaire to expand on your reasons for selecting “Other”.
Q.12
Q.12 Commentary
The 250-word (max.) box
In this, you can deal with briefly describing the reasons why you are concerned about (1) health impacts, (2) the environment, (3) ethical arguments and (4) the other reasons why you are against the imposition of having fluoride added to your drinking water. You will be given a chance to expand on your brief reasons in the next stage.
The box is not large enough for adding full references – only weblinks, which, if they are too long, can be converted into a shortened URL. (Use Tinyurl or Bitly on-line free URL shorteners.) However, even shortened URLs could reduce the number of useful words to describe your concerns.
Keeping to the 250 word limit in the box is just about do-able even when all four issues are briefly described. Ignore the “optional” notation: you must come over as a reasoning human being with knowledge of the issue.
We advise that you compose the contents of the 250 word box in your word processor and save it to your hard drive after checking its word length. Then copy and paste it into the box below. If you have 3 words to spare, add a note: “See attached file”.
The longer attachment (text file)
The Questionnaire also allows you to now upload your own (longer) text file and we believe it is vital that you take the opportunity to do so. All four concerns can be more fully addressed in this longer file, which we hope you can also compose on your word processor. Here, it is highly important that references are added to justify your concerns.
To do this you need to create a text document (usually in Word) which repeats and expands on your concerns, together with references, before spell-checking and saving the file.
There is no word limit but we advise that it doesn’t ramble. Now is not the time to be indistinct about your personal experiences with poor health. Keep it tight and to the point. In fact, if you come over as not being cogent, the rating for your contribution will be reduced by the data processor. (5.1.a.ii of the Consultation Regulations – https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348238020) This lack of cogency was the main reason why South Central Strategic Health Authority decided to ignore the majority of respondents to the Southampton WF Public Consultation in 2008-2009. However, you can still be cogent even if your English Grammar is not very pretty!
Remember the file name and where you tucked away the file.
Then return to this survey in order to upload the file.
It is really important that you justify your choices with references because (1) referencing scientific sources and sources relating to ethics confirm your arguments, and (2) the DHSC ought to learn about all the issues which its staff and advisors have not taken on board.
Ethical arguments could relate to the lack of medical ethics or to the more general perception of the lack of ethics inherent in forcing compulsory medication onto an entire population.
We then advise converting this saved file into a .pdf file. A free conversion app. can be downloaded and added to your available printers’ list. Try the free BullZip .pdf Printer software. When you are ready to convert, SAVE the file and then send it to the printer. Select BullZip as your printer. Make sure to choose where the .pdf file is to be stored in your directory structure so that you can find it again when you want to upload it to the questionnaire. This may seem counter-intuitive, but BullZip will not command your printer to make a hard copy.
Once you have your longer text file ready, return to the questionnaire in order to upload it in addition to the max-250-word file.
[NB. Those respondents who are asking another individual to fill in this part of the questionnaire will be at a disadvantage if this text is not composed in advance of starting to fill in the questionnaire. The same applies to creating the longer file (Q12, second part). It follows that those who do not have access to computer technology are put at a disadvantage because their responses may not be as cogent as those who are computer literate. On the other hand, because Choice 2 is selected at the start of the questionnaire, allowances may be made by the data processors. We can but hope!]
Q.13
Q.13 Commentary:
A response (which is optional) to the cost benefit analysis question is requested here. There is an official cost benefit analysis referred to as an Impact Assessment which can be accessed as part of the Consultation documents. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66014cd665ca2f67417da764/impact-assessment-community-water-fluoridation-expansion-in-the-north-east-of-england.pdf
NB. This is not for the faint-hearted nor for anyone who is not familiar with accounting calculations and terminology so unless you feel competent to authoritatively comment on these issues, then we suggest you do not attempt to respond to this question.
Q.14
Q.14 Commentary
This question allows respondents to deal with any issue which hasn’t been included in Q. 12. These could incude legal concerns including how the water woud not comply with Article 3 of the Drinking Water Directive, concerns about developmental neurotoxicity and reduced IQ, human rights, the compulsory nature of the medicine if not already mentioned previously, the foolishness of adding heavy metals to drinking water which will be consumed over a lifetime, and how the water company would not be selling drinking water if the water became medicinal water because this would violate their licence to provide potable water. Most of these concerns and others are described elesewhere on this website and on www.ukfffa.org.uk
Again, there is a 250 word limit with the option of uploading a file which fully expands on these issues. It is vital that a fully referenced .pdf file is uploaded.
Q.15
Q.15 Commentary: this review screen reproduces your answers to the questions which can then be edited as required.
Q.16
Q.16 Commentary: factual questions to complete
Afterwards, pressing NEXT at the bottom of this page will presumably register the response.
It is possible to travel backwards through the form before registering your responses. It is not possible to back out of the questionnaire altogether. This may give the data processor an indication of how many people did not stay the course.
Final Words
Our concern is that members of the public do not know enough about Water Fluoridation issues, do not know where to find relevant and trustworthy information and scientific/ethical references, and most certainly would not be able to fill in the Cost Benefit Analysis section. This would leave the field wide open for pro-fluoridation respondents to display their professional and technical knowledge plus arguments in favour of WF which would tip the balance.
“Cogency” is therefore the name of the game, and this website has been set up to redress the balance and we hope that it will provide everything that impacted residents need to make a decent fist out of completing the questionnaire. If there is anything lacking in the NEWFC website, please contact us and we will rush to redress the deficiency. (wmaf@live.co.uk)
This PC is unjust because there is a very strong and influential lobby of health professionals, civil servants and politicians all sponsoring the addition of a developmental neurotoxin to drinking water. We are also concerned that NHS Staff will be urged via their Intranet to participate in favour. Have they not realised that they would all be exposed to the medicinal water if they became fluoridated? Or perhaps cognitive dissonance rules. Ill-health caused by fluoride toxicity could never have the temerity to creep up on them!
North-East Water Fluoridation Concerns and Fluoride Free Alliance UK
4th April 2024