UK - Daily Echo

Elected councillors have a duty of care
I WAS heartened to read the recent article on fluoride and that the Tory and Lib Dem councillors are opposed to it.
Labour group leader Richard Williams apparently voted in favour of it as he has seen "some potential benefits".
To be fair, he did say he would not push others to vote in favour but surely after all the many highly qualified people who have expressed their concerns about the dangers of fluoride, he might reconsider his views?
The view of the majority who vehemently oppose the compulsory mass medication (72 per cent) and the contamination of our water with industrial waste must be paramount.
For those who agree that something must be done to reduce tooth decay in children, I believe the modern diet and too much sugar in foodstuffs are responsible. Perhaps the Scottish system of school dental visits and the coating of teeth with a fluoride varnish, which I believe has been successful, might be the answer.
I recall a letter published in the Echo a year or so ago from a Mrs H Colverson who said: "Calcium fluoride occurs naturally and is good, whereas sodium fluoride is a waste product of the aluminium industry and is bad."
Guess which fluoride is being imposed upon us? Surely we are entitled to expect our elected councillors to assume a duty of care and reject it.
MAUREEN DARNELL, Southampton.