Last updated 13:33, Wednesday, 01 October 2008

THANK you for the debate article on water fluoridation, but Eric Rooney’s contribution on behalf of the Primary Care Trust was both confusing and misleading.

He confidently states: “From a scientific point of view the evidence suggests that water fluoridation will provide health benefit with minimal risk.”

He makes many references to the only comprehensive review of the scientific studies carried out at York University in 2000.

What he fails to make clear is that the scientists who conducted that review have, on three occasions, condemned the misrepresentation of their findings by the Department of Health and those, like Mr Rooney, who seem desperate to force fluoride into the nation’s drinking water.

In their first letter in 2001 they wrote: “The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.”

For the review results and the letter of concern see www.york.ac. uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm or www. cumbrians-against-fluoridation. org.uk
Since 2001 no research has been undertaken. Invitations to establish even basic information such as the levels of fluoride in West Cumbrian people have been ignored.

Mr Rooney: “It is vitally important that those affected are consulted about the proposals.”

Mr Rooney knows that the West Cumbrian communities have never been consulted and will never be under current legislation.

Whilst other areas of the county and the country are entitled to a flawed and inadequate consultation process West Cumbria will have no voice.

This article in the Times & Star is welcome. It offers the only opportunity to let health authorities and MPs know how local people feel about the introduction of a cocktail of un-researched chemicals in their water supply.

DIANNE STANDEN
Cumbrians Against
Fluoridation, Maryport

I WAS really pleased to read your piece on fluoridation of water.

As far as I’m concerned there is no argument whatsoever for adding an unnecessary chemical to our water.

Our bodies have been inundated with chemicals over the years with no benefit to anyone except the chemical industry.

Fluoridated toothpaste in minute quantities is fine for those who are at risk from tooth decay, and even then I question the need for it if regular brushing and good eating is a daily routine.

I fully support the need for debate but will continue to filter my drinking and cooking water.

I am concerned that we do not have an option in the fluoridation of our daily water.

ANNETTE GIBBONS
Mawbray

I ADMIRE Dianne Standen’s tenacity in her fight against the adding of fluoride to our water (Times & Star, September 19) and have, in the past, followed up her advice and written to our MP, etc to express my concerns.

Polite replies followed but all went on as before. I had thought that people should have been consulted before such a pervasive step was taken.

It might be good for dental health but it can be added, in various ways, for those who choose to do it. There is no choice for those who don’t, as we all need tap water.

I have an uneasy feeling that something sinister will emerge from the adding of fluoride to our water (plenty of precedents where wonders have become horrors) and that we’ll say: ‘Lovely teeth, but pity about the intestines!’

ALINE ELLIOTT
Riverside Terrace
Derwent Mills
Cockermouth