LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Taupo Times, Volume XIV, Issue 63, 12 August 1965, Page 5

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

FLUORIDATION Sir, — Surely the public of Taupo has already decided whether they want to consume fluoride or not. The most concrete and indisputable evidence is held in the records of our four chemists — namely the number of fluoride tablets hought. The only opinion worth listening to is the one which . produces action. - In this question if we residents of Taupo were convinced that this substance was good and necessary for our families' good, I for one would buy it, in the same way I buy good food. The use of any substance in water supply is a very haphazard way of administering a measured dose. Fluoride, as used is a substance which as yet can fairly be classed as "not proven." Even, if good, I wish to preserve my right to choose as in the case of iodised sait — I can still buy plain salt if I wish but purity of water supply is our heritage and right. As we are denied a vote on this far-reaehing matter I join with Mr B. Hodson and Mrs S. Kent and add my plea. — Yours, etc., Mrs E. J. BRADSHAW. POLLUTION Sir, Through the good offices of your paper I would like to ask Mr Story, the Mayor, a question. In the light of his protest against the discharge of sewerage treatment effluent into the Tokaanu swamp, by the new Turangi township, what would his attitude be with regard to a possible treatment plant for the borough of Taupo which discharged effluent into the lake or the Waikato River? As sewerage treatment will probably be a platform at the next local body elections, I think that conservationists will be intensely interested in this problem. KEITH DRAPER.

FLUORIDE Sir, Over the past few months I have read with interest the numerous letters and paid advertisements about fluoridation, the majority of which strongly attack the proposed addition of fluoride to Taupo's water supply. Observers suggest that these critics are being rather foolish in setting themselves up as amateur authorities : against the overwhelming weight of world-wide medical opinions and facts that have established and proven the distinct advantages to be gained from fluoridation. What is it then that nioves these people to attack with such vigour, this "ghastly thing", as your correspondent, S. A. Kent, puts it The answer, of course, can be summed up in a comment made to me by Mr B. E. Hodson, another anti-fluoride correspondent. He pointed out that it was not actually fluoridation that they objected to, but rather the principle behind its introduction. On questioning other people who are against fluoridation, I found that basically, they held the same view — it was the principle they objected to and the majority grudgingly conceded that fluoridation has proven to be of definite benefit. Therefore, let us get this contentious matter in its right perspeetive. Attack, if you must, the principle of the method of deciding on the introduction of public health measures and, for that matter, any other measure affecting the public; but please stop clouding the issue by attacking the actual medical conception of fluoridation and trying to Hse it as a scapegoat for proving your point about "democratic principles." — Yours, etc., ROGER GREENWELL.