WHEN presenting the case for compulsory fluoridation much is made of the fact that this area came 94th out of 99 in the tables for dental health (LET, December 23). However, no-one ever states exactly what this means.
Do the children in the top areas have no dental cavities and the ones in this area have one, 10 or 20? I tend to be wary of information that uses a vague meaningless jargon to justify its findings.
Let's be honest, the real reason we are being urged to accept fluoridation is because it will provide a cheap and easy way for the producers of this toxic substance to dispose of it.
What does research into the effects on fish, plants and wild animals, etc. show? Of course, one would assume that this research has been undertaken, or has it been conveniently overlooked?
L LAWES, Bold Street, Blackburn.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article