Fluoridation

Press, 2 September 1980, Page 20

Fluoridation

Sir/. — In your editorial of August 29 you claim that fluoridation is practised “without any known harm.” However, in a complete absence of clinical studies in New Zealand on bodily effects of fluoridation, one' must look overseas for _ enlightenment. The United States Newburgh-Kingston . study dealing with pediatric findings after 10 years of fluoridation showed that the rate of anaemia in children in fluoridated Newburgh was 2.35 times greater than in children in non-fluoridated Kingston. Similarly, after 15 years of ■■ fluoridation' in Grand Rapids, the Michigan A health statistics showed that, compared with neighbouring unfluoridated Flint, Grand Rapids’s death rate from anaemia was 125 per cent higher, from diabetes 84 per cent higher, from cancer 30 per cent higher, and from strokes 36 per cent higher. Agreed, children have a right to good dental health, but all citizens have a right not to have to imbibe a poison.— Yours, etc., - . ROBYN E. HOLMES. August 29, 19801

[Mr E. B. H. Dick, president of the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Dental Association, comments: “I have consulted several of the medical authorities in Christchurch. They expressed considerable surprise at the statements made by Robyn Holmes, and said that,-if there were any truth in these figures, surely they would have appeared in the reputable medical literature. Many similar toshow cause-and-effect relationships, without taking into account the many . variable factors, have been - made in the past, and alarming statements have been made as a result; yet when subjected to statistical analyses they have been shown to be totally erroneous. It is, of course, difficult to comment on an isolated set of figures with-, out knowing the source, and references, as well as the time of the study. Perhaps Mrs Holmes would care to quote the sources Of her information.”]

Sir, The residents of Riccarton will soon be able to give an opinion on whether their water should be fluoridated. This clear-cut moral issue has been confused by the “expert” opinion of that closed shop trade union, the Dental Association. *-The "association thinks it is okay to

tamper with the health of a whole borough simply because they know. best. History has been full of bloodletters, leeches and dogooders,. who knew best. Quite simply, if there is one individual in Riccarton who does not want fluoridated water, the Dental Association, and friends, have no right to force their opinion on him. The citizens of Riccarton who respect the rights of others will know what to decide. The others, who think it is all right to force .“medication” on their neighbours, need a crash course on German history (1933-45).—Yours, etc., TREVOR LOUDON., August 31, 1980.

. Sir, — People who are in favour of fluoridation of water are presumably quite happy about chemical addi-tives-in their food, such as colouring and flavouring. ■lf they wish to buy such foods, that is their choice, but personally I try to buy foods in as-natural a state as possible. Since I purposely try to avoid eating chemicals in foods, I object strongly to the idea of having to consume chemicals in the water I drink, regardless of their benefits- or otherwise. Have those in favour realised -that fluoride builds up in vegetables watered with fluoridated water, and that in cooking the proportion of fluoride will be increased when some of the water is boiled away, such as in boiling vegetables and making jams. Thus it is very difficult to calculate exactly what one’s intake of the chemical will be.—Yours, etc.,

MRS B. J. IMAGE. August 30, 1980.