Anti-fluoride argument badly flawed

RECENTLY a colleague asked why I bother to respond to correspondence which I know to be untrue. Decades ago I read a truism which I fully believe in and history has proven correct. "Evil will triumph when good men stay silent and do nothing".

While this adage is somewhat extreme for most circumstances, a milder analogy such as "Disinformation and downright lies will be believed by the unthinking populace unless rebuffed".

A constant thorn in my side are the two hysterical claims put forward by the anti-fluoridation lobby. Firstly they say "Fluorine compounds are poisonous". Fluorine is indeed a poison and in the 19th century as many research chemists died from testing fluorine and its many compounds as died from testing radioactive materials. But it is never, repeat never, toxic in the minute quantities dosed into potable water.

The second argument used is "fluoridation is compulsory medication, infringing the individual’s freedom". What blatant hypocrisy! There are two other poisonous halogens long added to the human food chain which the anti-fluoride lobby never object to.

Without iodine added to foodstuffs 20 per cent of the population would be walking around with goitre and without chlorination of our household waters 50 per cent of the population would be suffering from intestinal infections.

Recently the AF lobby have added a third argument to their long bow. "If fluoridation is so beneficial why do many Western councils not use it?".

The reason is of course that many of these local government bodies, especially in Europe, are presided over by persons with a green tinge who oppose fluoridation, not from a scientific position but from a philosophical viewpoint.

It is interesting that throughout the First World most local government councils have a strong leader who gets elected mayor, supported by a sycophantic majority group who hope that the mayor will occasionally pat them on the head and opposed by a minority group, most of whom stood for election on the forlorn grounds that they could "make a difference". 

Pliny the Younger once said "there are three reasons citizens run for public office. Power, sex or money". Hmmm! Makes one wonder if one should rethink his anti-political position.

Ross Holborow


This story Debunking the fluoride debate first appeared on The Macleay Argus.