Fluoridation

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29067, 2 December 1959, Page 7

Fluoridation

Sir, —Finally and briefly I wish to state that anti-fluoridationists concede others the right to use pills, potions, and powders as they wish, but that they themselves object to forcible conversion to mass medication on strong moral, physical and democratic grounds. People who live as God or Nature commands, do not require artificialities, drugs, or stimulants, thus are never, or seldom ill, spiritually or physically, and there are many such. In conclusion, I would point out that in addition to the heavy New Zealand antifluoridation vote the president of our society is now Mayor of Auckland. —Yours, etc., W. J. COLLINS. December 1, 1959.

Sir. —These fluorophobes are dangerous because their wild and baseless claims can bluff the general public, who may well feel that there must be something in all this talk about poisons. “J.W.R.’s” case is unassailable, but —and it is a big but—those who have not learnt about the properties of aqueous solutions just cannot understand all this talk about ions; it is easier for them to' give credit to the big lie. Some critics blame sugar, but do not produce one single, solitary iota, jot, or tittle of evidence to support them; the same critics exculpate natural waters in the face of an overwhelming mass of carefully prepared evidence. Like the others, they worship natural water, “where is, as is,” and their hydrolatry is all that matters to them. —Yours, etc., J. DUGDALE. December 1, 1959.

Sir, —I would just like to heartily endorse the views expressed by W. J. Collins and “J.J.F.” in the good sense expressed in their letters against fluoridation. What a contrast to “Common Sense’s” Aunt Sally! The law stepping in and saving the dying child. I have in mind the question of disease, not accident.—Yours, etc., A. A. HISLOP, Kaikoura, December 1, 1959,

Sir, —Ttie deluge of double talk by your correspondent, “J.W.R.,” re the findings of the Royal Commission on Fluoridation, while having the appearance of being very illuminating, have really proved nothing. I am prepared as before to accept nature’s judgment in these matters before any man’s commission. Royal or otherwise. As for science and scientists, I would not want to associate myself with any group who would pollute the ait 1 given to us by nature (or God) thereby further adding to our disease problems and who have brought mankind to the brink of total destruction. No,, let us have our own choice in this matter of fluoride. Those who wish it should consult their chemist and leave the remainder to partake of our water in the condition that nature intended us to have it.—Yours, etc., J.J.F. December 1, 1959.

Sir, —“Civic” is correct in drawing attention to the colossal amount of sweets consumed by youngsters, but surely this aspect favours fluoridation. Experience shows that it is virtually impossible to control eating behaviour patterns. Today’s parents and children know that refined sugars destroy the teeth; yet, having acquired a sweet tooth, they keep on. The scientist, therefore, seeks other ways to control dental disease. To cut decay from the teeth is expensive, time-consum-ing, and what’s more, still hurts. Fluoridating water is cheap, effective, and safe. To say it is harmful is incorrect for, if it were so, millions would now be dead or dying through drinking artificially fluoridated water (one part per million) or "beautiful water supplies” already naturally containing up to 10 parts per million. The man in the street should ponder on this. Will he heed antifluoridationists with their emotional appeals or the world’s leading scientists whose lives are dedicated to improving human health? Is it sane to think these scientists would risk their reputations for posterity to laugh over, for the sake of espousing a harmful cause?—Yours, etc., BE REASONABLE. December 1, 1959.

Sir,—Fluoridation is far from unanimously approved by experts. Many prominent medical men are not happy about the idea of adding sodium fluoride to drinking water. These men maintain that the main danger to health from drinking fluoridated water is that it will interfere with proper nutrition.' It will upset calcium metabolism, interfere with the function of Vitamin 81, and cancel out enzymes essential to proper digestion. These objections do not apply to naturally occurring calcium fluoride. In reply to “Common Sense” I would say that my children will not be grumbling through their dentures in 25 years because they were deprived of their right to rat poison. They are properly fed on natural foods, including 100 per cent, wholemeal bread, and give no work at all to the school dental nurse.—Yours, etc ANTI-FLUORIDATION. November 30, 1959.