Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 31, Issue 785, 6 August 1954, Page 5

Sir.-Your remarks in a footnote to a letter by "A.W." upon fluoridation call for some comment. You state that before taking the subject any further into fantasy the scientific findings of two genuine authorities should be recapitulated. The genuine authorities named by you, Dr. F. A. Arnold and Dr. Gilbert T. Parfitt, were for fluoridation, and the implied not genuine Dr. Charles M. Brusch and Dr. Leo Spira were quoted by "A.W." as being against fluoridation. I wonder how many people in New Zealand had knowledge of any of these men before the controversy on fluoridation. I suggest very few, therefore the evidence of both schools of

thought must be presented in an unbiased manner. By the tenor of your reply to "A.W." you have apparently decided that the opinions of those experts for the scheme are genuine, and those experts, against are of no consequence. You do not believe it possible to bring Communism into this subject. Perhaps not, "but we must be careful when trying to benefit others that we do not infringe upon the liberty of the subject, thereby unconsciously proposing that which we most vigorously wish to oppose. As water supplies are a public utility the introduction of fluorine immediately can¢gels out the right of the individual to choose or refuse which is a basic principle of democracy. It therefore follows that this scheme is not in harmony with our accepted concept of the British way of life.

E.

C.

(Auckland).