Fluoridation

Press, Volume C, Issue 29643, 13 October 1961, Page 3

Fluoridation

Sir.—l am quite overcome by "Vigilant's'’ list of "scholarly scientists of standing.” but would point out two omissions, namely "Vigilant” and “Uncle Tom Cobiey and all.” How very strange that the World Health Organisation should be unmoved! It is unfortunate that the scholarly and scientific schulweis appears, on •quotation, to be a question-begging propagandist who dresses up opinion as fact. “Silver Nib,” also presumably a scholar and a scientist, says that fluoride is a slow poison. At 1 ppm. “slow” is right, because the antifluoridationists are still waiting hopefully for evidence in this direction. Nevertheless, the "mass mind is an ignorant mind,” so our scholarly an-d scientific opponents get along by parroting the same fabrications as in the past. May I ask your correspondents to be more specific and local and deal with the Hastings experiment?—Yours, etc., J. DUGDAsLE. October 12. 1961.

Sir, —The list of "scholarly scientists” mentioned by “Vigilant” in today’s issue carries little more weight than would a random selection from a telephone directory. I have studied fluoridation in the world’s scientific publications for some years, and as far as I am aware, not one of his list has published in a reputable scientific journal on this topic. I appre. date that all these men are, dedicated opponents of fluoridation, but refuse to accept their personal opinions, however sincere, as scientific fact Ever since man became a social animal, he has unanimously agreed on nothing; and today in any community, men (even “scholarly scientists”) can be found who aye prepared to make statements on topics which, though still sdentiflc, are far removed from their own province or speciality.— Yours, etc., J.WJL October 12, 1961.

Sir,—J. Dugdale is being a little harsh on John Forster. Why should W.H.O. or any other group compel people to use water with an additive. if they do not wish to do so, especially as an individual altXnative method is available in the form of fluoride tablets? And why select water? Even if the tests were satisfactorily conclusive, which they are not, at most we can only have decaying teeth as a result of our obduracy. Yet no-one is compelled to quit smoking to cut down lung decay in the form of cancer. The choice is left to the individual. Neither are alcoholics compelled to prevent the progress of their particular disease. So why pick on teeth? More important things clamour for attention. Keep individual liberty, and let us decay in our own way.— Yours, etc., FREEDOM FOR ALL. October 11, 1961. Sir,—lt was refreshing to read the letter by “MJJS.” with a constructive suggestion towards the solution of

tbe fluoridation conirevensy. Those who have opposed the fluoridation tA public water supplies have had to steel themselves against a great deal of unpieasantaea, so this letter is as accepWde as a draught of pure water, I hope others will send in helpful suggestions, ahto, and assist in putting an end to this most regretoble controversy.—Yours, etc, PEACE. October 11, 1961.