Fluoride water: most people agree to plan

Was Rushden Council right when it approved a plan to add fluorides to the local water supply? Was council member Mr. J. E. Wills right when he claimed that fluoridation involved a question of principle? This week “Echo” reporters asked a sample hundred people whether they were in favour of fluoridated water.

The result was: 83 for, ten against, three were indifferent, and four said “don’t know.”

Businessmen, shoppers, factory workers were stopped in the street at Rushden and Higham Ferrers and asked: “Do you think fluoride should be added to your local water supply?”

They were reminded that at the latest meeting of Rushden Urban Council Mr. Wills claimed that fluoridation was “a form of mass medication,” and questioned whether it was right for the council to make a decision when it was not in possession of the full facts. The council, he said, should consider what the objections were before making up its mind.

These objections are put forward by the National Pure Water Association, which has an impressive membership.

Experimenting

At Rushden Council’s January meeting the Medical Officer, Dr. P. Bermingham, said there was a definite need for fluorides to be added to water.

Much concern had been expressed in Northamptonshire about the condition of its children’s teeth.

There were no harmful effects from fluoride, he added, when the necessary concentration was only one part per million.

A former dental technician at Higham Ferrers said: “At present there is not enough known about the fluoridation of water. They are still only experimenting.”

Mrs. J. K. Wilson, of Higham Ferrers: “Anything that is beneficial to children’s health should be adopted.”

Mr. Allan Cooper, of Rushden: “If people particularly want fluoride they can buy toothpaste with fluoride in it.”

Mr. John Horace, of Rushden: “In favour – if the chemical was going to improve people’s teeth in any way.”

Fifteen-year-old Keith Ward, of Higham Ferrers: “If fluoride does really do some good, we may as well give it a try. We all want to keep our teeth as long as possible.”

Mr. J. E. B. Horne, of Higham Ferrers: “If we live in a democratic system, then we should have the right to have a say in the matter.”

They object to fluoride

The principal objections to fluoridation by the National Pure Water Association, whose president is Lord Douglas of Barloch, are:

The toxicity of fluorides is attested even by the pre-fluoridationists who insist that a proportion of one part per million should be closely adhered to;

Because of the different amounts of water which people will drink, the dosage of fluoride is haphazard and unpredictable;

The public would be obliged to take fluoridated water from birth to death;

Fluoridation means compulsory mass medication;

Numerous communities exist with excellent teeth although their water supplies contain little or no fluoride;

There are a variety of other substances alleged to protect teeth, and no one has really bothered to test them as a possible substitute for fluorides;

Those who want to take fluorides can take them in special “fluoride pills” or solutions.

Footnote: The MOH, Dr. P. X. Bermingham, told Rushden Urban Council that fluorides, at one-part-per-million, had no harmful effects whatsoever.