View report page

Reproduced from The Surrey Advertiser of December 3rd, 1971
Doctor rebute dentist's views
on fluoridation
Sir,—The letter from Mr. J. P. Neville, on behalf of the West Surrey Section of the British Dental
Association, supporting the decision of the Guildford Rural Council in favour of fluoridation calls
for a reply. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to make gross mis-statements of fact.
It is natural that dentists should be primarily interested in the health of teeth. As a medical man, I
am far more interested in the health of the rest of the body. The amount of tooth decay in children at
present is, of course, disgraceful, but it is so easily prevented by a sound diet, and cutting out the sweets.
There was far less tooth decay in the war, when sweets were hard to come by, and this had nothing to
do with fluoride. In any case, distressing as dental caries is, it is not a lethal complaint. It has no death
rate and nearly half the people of the country find it possible to live, with the aid of the dental profession,
without any teeth at all.
Mr. Neville's statement that "meticulous studies and investigations have repeatedly shown no systematic
aberration in health of any kind that could be attributed to the fluoride consumed" is so grossly
untrue that it makes one gasp. Many well-authenticated cases of fluoride poisoning have been reported.
Only last Saturday, at the Addlestone meeting, Dr. Hugh Sinclair (D.M., D.Sc., F.R.c.P.), the well-known
authority on nutrition, described such a case. Bone from the spine had to be removed at operation to
relieve paralysis of the leg, and when analysed subsequently was found to contain a large percentage of
fluoride. The interesting thing about this case is that the man had never lived in an area of fluoridated
water. He had got his fluoride poisoning from the excessive consumption of tea. Had he been having
fluoridated water as well he would, of course, have got his fluoride poisoning earlier. Many lesser cases go
undiagnosed because most doctors are not familiar with the symptoms of fluoride poisoning. Dr. Sinclair
also pointed out that it has never been shown that fluoride is in any way necessary for the proper working
of the body, or for healthy teeth. It is just the most deadly protoplasmic and enzyme poison known.
It is true that fluoride is a contaminant of many water supplies, and occurs in a number of foods,
particularly tea, and that we all eat some of it every day. It is also true that most reasonably fit people
can take small amounts of this poison with apparent impunity, and excrete it through the kidneys. But
quite a number whose intake of fluoride is above average (e.g. heavy tea drinkers) and whose kidneys
are not 100 per cent efficient, are on the border line of fluoride poisoning now, and the extra they will get
from fluoridated water, will probably tip them over the border, especially if they also drink a lot of
water. They are a small percentage of the population, but they do exist.
The important thing is not how much fluoride is in the water, but what is the total fluoride intake
of the individual from all sources, and this cannot be known for everyone.
To attempt to medicate a whole population to mitigate a preventable disease in children up to the age
of eight by adding a known poison to the water supply, with no idea how much of this poison an
individual is getting from other sources, or how much water he will drink, is hopelessly unscientific
medicine, and is moreover an act of irresponsible folly.—Yours, etc.
RONALD KERR (Dr.), l.r.c.s., m.r.c.p.
Withyfold,
Wonham Way, Peaslake,
Nr. Guildford, Surrey.
MORE EVIDENCE OF FLUORIDE TOXICITY
In a letter in The Lancet, September 25 1971, T. K. Day and P. Powell-Jackson of Guy's Hospital, London,
state they have found confirmation of the contention that the use of fluoride-containing water can be a cause of goitre.
They found a highly significant correlation between the incidence of goitre and the concentration of fluoride in the
water supply. This was at concentrations of fluoride not exceeding 0.4 ppm, this is only four-tenths of the amount
proposed to be added for fluoridating public water supplies.
This confirms the observation made in Japan by Dr Hidehiko Takata in 1958 in a district where the fluoride in
the water supply did not exceed 0.3 ppm.
Published by the National Pure Water Association
Extra copies of this leaflet can be obtained from
The Hon. Secretary: R. Maitland Earl, Holcombe House, Oakley, Hampshire. Tel: Oakley 361
February, 1972
Price lp each.
© National Pure Water Association 2/72. Permission to reproduce in whole or in part to be obtained from the
National Pure Water Association