Fluoridation In Waimairi

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30264, 17 October 1963, Page 3

Fluoridation In Waimairi

Sir.—Does it cost more in Hastings than in Napier to insure against death?—Yours, ’ J. DUGDALE. October 16, 1963. Sir, “Cut Out the Cackle’s” proposition had already been proved wrong by my letter only three days prevtousSy. This fact illustrates my observation of proponents’ “apparently complete insensMiiy to ethics and thear weakness of logic.” As for the benefits being “obvious,” they are not obvious to me, nor, I think, to any scientist prepared to apply the usual rigorous criteria to the statistical surveys. “Cut Out the Cackle” states that our most useful drugs have in many cases minor undesirable sideeffects (actually, they are

quote dangerous in some cases), and states (quite cerrectly) that we do not hesitate to use them with “dis-

orfariri narfwiri and to oocntder weMM to tt> tn* perspective.” TWs is preriarfy why snti-fluorjdattonisbs are opposed to toe todtscriandnatie, advocated by proponents. As Sir Stanton Hacks stated, “ . . . It is tapossabte to prescribe a dose that in aH cases wail be toerapeuttcaßy effective, or in aS cases won be oorppletey safe . . .’’—Yours, etc, PAUL MALING. October 15, 1963.

Sir,—Your footnote to my letter had a facetious overtone and ended up with an implied attack on the large numbers who are able to use their discretion in valuating the continual threat implied in world affairs as run byforces who prefer to remain behind toe scenes. It ill behoves you as a supposed exponent of a free and unbiased press to resort to such tactics, in view of the evidence you give in your editorial conduct of applying control. This correspondence has been running for three weeks without the closure being applied, yet you were quick to apply it when you recognised that a spokesman for banking interests had laid himself wide open to an attack which could bring them within the orbit of the powers suspected of working towards world government. "Oh, would some power the giftie gie us.”—Yours, etc, W. B. BRAY. Leeston, October 16, 1963. [Would it, indeed! When we see ourselves as protecting our space against the demands of monetary-re-form propagandists (who will have reasonable access to our columns during the election campaign), ithers see us as promoting the aims of some sinister international plot.—Ed, "The Press.”]

Sir,—Adherence to belief in a world government plot is not a “fundamental article” of anti-fluoride “faith.” Profl uoridationists apparently take a cynical delight in ridiculing the opposition, thereby displaying intolerance to anything except their own biased viewpoint. Fluoridation against the wishes of a minority is a violation of individual freedom. Those who scoff at the idea of a “world government plot” should remember that disregard of human freedom was a vital factor in Nazism, which unquestionably aimed at world domination, while Communism today is a similar example. As John Stuart Mill says in his essay "On Liberty,” "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” (Quoted by Robert Newton, in a pamphlet distributed by the Waimairi Action Group.)—Yours, etc.

~ A.R.J. October 15, 1963.

Sir.—" Graduate Engineer” missed the point in my letter. I did not compare fluoride with medical treatment. I used an illustration to show that increased knowledge is constantly disproving “facts” of the past in all fields. There have been an increasing number of deaths of babies and young children these last years from an unknown virus. “Unknown” is the key word. Does “Graduate Engineer” know that they do not spring from the poisons we put on our land and the enormous number of our foods containing minute quantities of poison as preservatives? The long-term effects of fluoride have not been found yet.—Yours, etc., HANDS OFF OUR WATER October 16, 1963.

Sir, —In reply to “Cut out the Cackle,” who asked if the Waimairi council is to have some functional value, I would say—yes, plenty, but not functions which infringe human rights. They are misplacing their function when they vote to force mass medication down the throats of people. It is not a council’s function to turn the country’s water supply into medicinal fluid. In a referendum the average voter may not have much technical knowledge, but most people are instinctively against any meddling with the purity of the water supply. It is not a council’s function to be bene-

volent despots who say, This is good for you, ao you mutt have it whether you like it or not”—Yours, eta, DEMOCRATIC WAY OF LIFE. October 13, 1963.