If there had been more time available, the question I wanted to ask at the fluoridation panel discussion last Wednesday was: how can it be considered a cost-effective use of taxpayers’ money to administer fluoride via tap water when this means there is no control over the dosage levels?
Everybody drinks different amounts. Many of the target group, being children and early teenagers, may drink little or no tap water, some preferring cola or other soft-drinks or juices. Many families may intentionally avoid tap water because of the chlorine content, which has been demonstrated to be a cause of heart disease, and instead drink bottled water.
Another group uses rainwater catchment and many people, again in the target group, won’t even get much if any via cooking with water, eg those who eat a lot of fast/takeaway foods and other processed food that does not use water in cooking.
There is also no way of demonstrating accuracy of the studies that claim evidence of benefits from comparing results of before and after introduction of fluoride into water supplies because of this lack of measurement of who got what doses and what other factors may have occurred over this time frame.
In terms of cost-effective treatment, why would you go to such a great expense to fluoridate the megalitres of all water supplies when only a tiny amount of that water will end up as drinking water for the target group; most of it ending up in the environment or drunk by older people for whom there can be no benefit but instead possibly harm?
Isn’t direct supply to those who are the target group with readily available pills going to be far more cost effective and measurable regarding assessment of effects? This method also has the benefit of allowing freedom of choice as to what chemicals are ingested into our bodies. Supply of pills is clearly a more cost-effective and ethical option.
Dudley Leggett, Suffolk Park