Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Indifference to fluoridation

Sir, — Faulty observation and a deficient ethical sense are the foremost characteristics of fluoridation propagandists. Thus Peter Meredith questions “why the opponents confine themselves to the matter of children’s teeth.” Not one opponent in this correspondence has done so, however. In my latest letter I expressly referred to “us all”, that is all citizens, young and old. Peter Meredith’s advocacy of generating in the elderly . (like cattle, whether they wish it or not) an incipient nathological condition of the bones by means of fluoridation, as a preventive of bone fractures, is as shallow as the Fluoridation Commission’s judging a toxic sign (mottling of teeth) “no disfigurement or aesthetically objectionable apnearance.” (Para 111) If pathology is to be judged aesthetically, measles may yet become fashionable. —- v ours, etc., PAUL MALING. April 7, 1978.

Sir, — The statement by Mr J. A. D. Anderson stands as its own indictment of the thinking of the Christchurch Metropolitan Ratepayers’ Association. In spite of the emphasis on economic considerations, they ignore the biggest wastage of public money. Each year, the fillings nlaced in school children’s teeth by dental nurses and dentists

cost the New Zealand taxpayer more than $18,000,000. Consider the saving of even a 20 per cent reduction. If the Christchurch City Council had to pay for the fillings in the school children’s teeth in Christchurch (already amongst the most dentally disadvantaged children in New Zealand, with most fillings), 1 am sure fluoridation would be quickly introduced as a proven, safe means of cutting this annual exnense. Furthermore, the Christchurch Metropolitan Ratepayers’ Association would be pushing for fluoridation to cut rating demands. The unfortunate fact that different sources of public money are used for the same purpose (dental health), conceals this terrible waste of money. — Yours, etc., JOHN ASHBY, Vice-President, Canterbury Branch, New Zealand Dental Association. April 6, 1978.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19780410.2.122.2

Bibliographic details

Press, 10 April 1978, Page 16

Word Count
307

Indifference to fluoridation Press, 10 April 1978, Page 16

Indifference to fluoridation Press, 10 April 1978, Page 16