Fluoridation

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33626, 30 August 1974, Page 8

Fluoridation

Sir, — Fluoride may reduce dental decay in children’s teeth but fluoridation of the water supply is a dangerous, expensive and clumsy method of achieving this end. It is dangerous because it sets a precedent. Perhaps in 10 years time nutritionists may discover that the health of a section of the community is suffering because of the lack of a trace element of some kind’ and this is added to therl water supply. Later on, in! order to reduce the in-1 cidence of violent crime, a| suitable tranquilliser is ’ developed and this added, also. Fantastic? Perhaps but!

■fluoride tablets or toothpaste, are quite effective and far, less expensive .for the ratepayer. — Yours, etc., DENTA. August 28, 1974.

Sir, — Fluoridationists propose that fluoride in Christchurch water be increased to 667 per cent of its natural concentration. They admit that, at the raised concentration, toxic signs (mottling) may be expected in six to ten per cent of children, but state that this is of “no aesthetic significance” — a strange criterion of poisoning indeed.; This visible, toxic sign cannot be produced after the! first eight years of life, but; other, invisible, chronic! symptoms may be. The atti-j tude of fluoridationists is! essentially that of nuclear! bomb testers and unscru-' pulous drug manufacturers: “If some individuals are adversely affected, that’s; just too bad. We are determined to push this thing through.” The common technique is to deny that any]

; adverse reactions occur — until faced with in-, j controvertible proof. — Yours, etc., PAUL MALING. August 28, 1974.