Fluoridation

Press, 11 January 1986, Page 16

Fluoridation

Sir,—Regarding the safety of fluoride, I supply information about a reward possibly unknown to most residents. Dr Robert J. H. Mick, a United States dentist and originally a promoter, had for 14 years offered a $20,000 reward to, as he put it, “the first individual who can provide one copy of any controlled experiments with the United States Public Health Service’s recommended fluorides and water, at the P.H.S.-recdmmended parts per million that shows that poisonous fluorides are safe, beneficial and will cause no future body harms.” Getting no takers, he raised his offer to $45,000. There being no takers still, five other doctors joined him and raised the reward to $lOO,OOO. Since 1970 with over 30 co-sponsoring doctors it has stood at $200,000, still unclaimed to this day. While the promoters of fluoridation are unable to prove that fluoridation is safe, it has been scientifically proven that fluoridated water produces serious side effects. — Yours, etc., L. A. HITCHCOCK. January 8, 1986.

Sir,—L. A. Hitchcock (January 4) writes that fluoridated toothpaste is a good argument against fluoridation. Then we have a child who dies after eating fluoride tablets. What has this to do with fluoridation at 1 p.p.m.? Needless to say, “antis” endorse fluoride tablets. As for fluoride at 1 p.p.m. being cumulative in the body, this fallacy has been exploded long ago. If only it were possible to bet on this proposition there would be plenty of sucker money to be picked up. T. R. Loudon (January 4) is literally and figuratively wrapped up in his body and

flinches at a hint of danger. Instead of looking for facts, he hunts up opinions. This “argument from authority” was anciently dismissed as a fallacy in logic. It is worthless but let it go. It suits T. R. Loudon. — Yours, etc., J. DUGDALE. January 9, 1986. Sir,—J. Dugdale (Januaiy 2), quoting from 20-year-old Health Department documents, falls into the same trap as most fluoride supporters. Doubtless there are many papers of that era favouring Thalidomide, Debendox, Daikon Shields and D.D.T. Later evidence has proved them tragically wrong. Original research on fluoridation was funded by aluminium consortiums wanting a means of disposal for their by-products and by sugar companies wishing to promote an effective method of controlling tooth decay without decreasing sugar intake. Any research which was unfavourable to fluoride was suppressed. However, significantly, the first fluoride toothpaste bore warnings against its use by children under six. Despite its support for fluoride, the New Zealand Health Department, after 30 years of promoting tablets for expectant mothers and babies, now recommends against their use and has halved the dose for pre-school children. — Yours, etc., HAZEL TAIT. January 4, 1986.

[Correspondents will have another opportunity to discuss fluoridation before a referendum is held in Waimairi in conjunction with the local body elections. In the meantime the subject is closed. — Editor.]