Fluoridation

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29070, 5 December 1959, Page 3

Fluoridation

Sir,—Earlier generations of bigots taught tjhe removal of filth from the streets on the same false hypothesis that so many of our self-appointed “nature” experts oppose fluoridation: any interference with nature is harmful. They opposed countless “artificial” measures which have removed the dread from parenthood and enormously improved our chances of long and healthy lives. The voting on fluoridation shows that many voters have been far more foolish than the mediaeval burghers. In spite of being able to read they have (-ejected the advice of the overwhelming majority of medical and dental scientists and practitioners based on massive experimental and observational testing of the theory that fluoridation is effective and safe. They have been vain enough to trust their imagined understanding of unsupported hypotheses of cranks who have thus prevented a democratic choice of better teeth for thousands of children. And this after a rigorous public inquiry.—Yours, etc., E. W. HULLETT. December 3, 1959.

Sir,—J. Dugdale certainly knows how to wield the lash of the tongue. However, it is surely - time he began to practise what he preaches. In all his tirades published by you on this subject he has not produced “one tiny jot, iota, or tittle” of evidence why he considers that the minority should force the majority to take fluoride with their water. This is the question in point, not whether fluoridation is good or bad for anyone. My decision against fluoridation is a personal one, backed obviously by sufficient evidence. Unlike others, however, I do not wish to impose my opinion on everyone, but as a normal independent human right, I insist categorically on the right to decide my own destiny.—Yours, etc.,

D. G. HAMILTON. December 4, 1959. .

Sir,—For the benefit of those correspondents who infer that no-one who opposes the fluoridation of municipal water supplies can have scientific knowledge, allow me tp state that L have a degree in science, with Chemistry as the major subject. They would do well tp.- .take note of the opinions ot scientists such as Sir Stanton Hicks, professor of human physiology and pharmacology. at the University of Adelaide, who has done many years of nutritional research in New Zealand, and Dr. G. L. Waldbott, M.D., a former vice-president of the American College of Allergists—both firmly opposed to municipal fluoridation —to name only two.—Yours, etc., PAUL MALING. December 3, 1959.

Sir, —J. Dugdale states that those who blame sugar do not produce “one single, solitary iota, jot, or tittle of evidence to support them.” lam pleased to be able to produce more than just an iota of evidence—part of the prologue by W. R. Aykroyd, M.D., Sc.D., director of the Coonoor Laboratories, Southern India, to the book, “Work of Sir Robert McCorrison.” by H. M. Sinclair, M.A., D.M., B.Sc., director of the Laboratory of Human Nutrition in the University of Oxford: “Since India is a country in which malnutrition abounds, it is pleasing to record that its inhabitants are relatively free from one condition for which dietary defects have been held responsible: namely, dental caries. The Anglo-Indians were the only community exhibiting caries in any marked degree. The Anglo-Indians, though in general miserably poor, were better off than the mass of the Indian population. Their susceptibility to caries seemed to be related to their diet, which was often the ‘poor European type,’ containing large quantities of white bread and a good deal of sugar.” Four hundred million can’t be wrong. —Yours, etc., COONOOR. December 3, 1959.