Such a grim irony FLUORIDE: You have your say
READERS will not have missed the grim irony in the Echo report (Jan 21) on the ongoing fluoridation scandal, in which the people who wish to force the population to receive this unnecessary chemical in their most vital of all supplies are referred to as 'health bosses'.
That a substance which, to the extent that it is actually desired or required, is already fully available - but to which some people are allergic - and which is widely believed to be closely linked to other health problems, could be seriously considered to have benefits outweighing the objections is self-evidently preposterous.
Naturally-occurring fluoride is present in various foods besides water, so there is no possible way of regulating the amount individuals get.
Arguments concentrate on the effects of drinking the water; but it is said that fluoride is also taken in through the skin - so we will be subject to it when washing. Can anyone, likewise, tell us to what extent this is so?
G PAYNE, Southampton.Why hold opinion poll to just ignore findings?
ACCORDING to new reports, the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has stated it was not told the public's view must be taken into account.
Strange then that they commissioned an opinion poll of their own at great public expense, only to ignore the result anyway.
The SHA continues to insist that water fluoridation is safe and effective, yet in 2000, a UK Systematic Review of water fluoridation failed to demonstrate the safety of fluoridation, whilst confirming
the high rate of dental fluorosis and the low quality of evidence for adding fluoride to drinking water. So what has changed?
It is weU known that fluoride accumulates in the bones and displaces calcium, and a study in 1984 (Teotia, India) found a higher incidence of metabolic bone diseases such as osteoporosis and rickets in high endemic Quorosis areas.
We have had dire warnings from India and China about the crippling bone diseases in their populations due to fluoride exposure, and recent news from
America that fluoride levels are to be lowered because they know it is dangerous. Locally, doctors in Southampton have been shocked to find a rising epidemic of childhood rickets, so further fluoride exposure could have be disastrous.
Far from heading all these omens however, the SHA continues to pursue an agenda to mass medicate an unconsenting population, whatever the cost and whatever the consequences.
CAROL SCARBOROUGH, Southampton.Give us a choice!
I do not normally complain but this fluoride in our water really is starting to annoy me!
Unfortunately, we humans cannot live without water - please please DO NOT PUT TOXINS in it! If someone wants fluoride in their water, they can add it themselves! If the Government and the NHS are so keen, they can give out free fluoride tablets to whoever requests it. We should be given a CHOICE.
As regards to young children with bad teeth, there are lots of toothpaste containing fluoride -perhaps the money should be spent teaching lazy parents good oral health and teach children how to clean their teeth properly
Address supplied.Ugly fluoride again!
I note that the issue of fluoridation has again raised its ugly head, and wonder why there are still people who are happy, indeed intent, on promoting the addition of a toxic ion, namely fluoride, to domestic drinking water. It is a poison, which, once ingested, inhibits amongst others the main route of cell respiration, and causes damage to most organs, including the brain, where it interferes with its development in the foetus, infant and toddler and lowers IQ.
I regret that the proponents of fluoridation are, or choose to remain, ignorant of its toxicity.
The airing of the subject will at least alert intelligent people to the dangers inherent in deliberately increasing this type of environmental pollution and its consequent health risks.
Anyone who reads the history of fluoridation in America, and of the real reason for its promulgation, will learn about how it all started, and of the disastrous consequences, hi any exercise to promote the public understanding of science, the myth of water fluoridation should come top of the list.
GRAHAM GODFREY, Address supplied.Threat to democracy'
WHATEVER the outcome of the Judicial Review on Fluoridation one thing is clear - the present legislation must be revoked.
Laws that empower the state to enforce medication without consent through drinking water, is against everything that a decent society stands for.
It is a threat to democracy and a violation of human rights and medical ethics
Reports that the SHA stated neither the Chief Dental Officer nor the Department of Health informed them that the public's view must be taken into account, suggests a conspiracy at the very highest level to impose this policy on unwilling communities whatever the cost.
We do not live in a corrupt dictatorship -let us not be governed by corrupt laws.
Upper Clatford.'Unadulterated' water: surely there should be a system of choice
ONCE again the prospect of drinking water adulterated with fluoride has raised its ugly head in the water supply of Totton.
In order to retain 'unadulterated' water residents in an area including Rushington, parts of Hounsdown and most of central Totton will have to visit providers of drinking water, lemonade etc in other areas
(obviously at a higher cost than that provided by the kitchen tap!). Within my own family it would create the absurd situation whereby one household would be forced to have fluoridated water, the other (in another part of Totton) would escape entirely.
The majority of people will take measures to protect then- families by purchasing
bottled water (at great expense). We must also have regard to the health of children at any schools within the affected area. Surely there should be a system by which those wishing to drink this substance could obtain it, while others could continue to imbibe the current provision of 'unadulterated' water
ALDERMAN EDITH RANDALL & FAMILY