UK - Letter in Hampshire Chronicle
Ignoring an inconvenient truth
SIR — Dr Bullock in his letter (Chronicle, March 26) is guilty of putting forward a spurious argument.
The doctor confuses the very necessary need of a trace element in our diet (correctly citing iodine deficiency as being a major cause of thyroid disease) with the intake of a very toxic element, fluoride.
This is not a trace element necessary for our health. While fluoridation of water supply is known to reduce the incidence of an unpleasant disease, it is one which is preventable by far less drastic methods.
It is a coincidence that Dr Bullock's letter should come so soon after we have had yet another example of a sham consultation on this so-called public health measure.
The investigating committee of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) approved water fluoridation for part of Southampton, unanimously. This particular consultation was run, as a fig leaf of democracy and at considerable cost to the NHS. By Act of Parliament a "consultation" was required and from the beginning it was stressed that it was never intended to be a referendum.
In the best traditions of Sir Humphrey in Yes Prime Minister, the careful selection of members of an enquiry can ensure that the desired conclusion is delivered.
The decision of the SHA would have been more convincing had some of the committee dissented. Unanimity only serves to support the idea that the decision was not in doubt from the beginning.
It is true that the study of fluoridation of the water supply has been advocated for over 40 years. Were fluoridation as safe and ethically acceptable, as it is purported to be, then why is further research still needed?
An inconvenient truth, often not mentioned, is that fluoridation of the public water supply has now been discontinued in a number of countries world wide.
Why is this?
Prof Richard Johns,
St Cross Road,
Winchester.
SIR — Dr Bullock in his letter (Chronicle, March 26) is guilty of putting forward a spurious argument.
The doctor confuses the very necessary need of a trace element in our diet (correctly citing iodine deficiency as being a major cause of thyroid disease) with the intake of a very toxic element, fluoride.
This is not a trace element necessary for our health. While fluoridation of water supply is known to reduce the incidence of an unpleasant disease, it is one which is preventable by far less drastic methods.
It is a coincidence that Dr Bullock's letter should come so soon after we have had yet another example of a sham consultation on this so-called public health measure.
The investigating committee of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) approved water fluoridation for part of Southampton, unanimously. This particular consultation was run, as a fig leaf of democracy and at considerable cost to the NHS. By Act of Parliament a "consultation" was required and from the beginning it was stressed that it was never intended to be a referendum.
In the best traditions of Sir Humphrey in Yes Prime Minister, the careful selection of members of an enquiry can ensure that the desired conclusion is delivered.
The decision of the SHA would have been more convincing had some of the committee dissented. Unanimity only serves to support the idea that the decision was not in doubt from the beginning.
It is true that the study of fluoridation of the water supply has been advocated for over 40 years. Were fluoridation as safe and ethically acceptable, as it is purported to be, then why is further research still needed?
An inconvenient truth, often not mentioned, is that fluoridation of the public water supply has now been discontinued in a number of countries world wide.
Why is this?
Prof Richard Johns,
St Cross Road,
Winchester.
posted by Bill at
10:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home