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.
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
307Indifference to fluoridation Press, 10 April 1978, Page 16
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.