Daily Echo

Will fluoridation failsafe safely checks really work?
THE Echo reported (Fluoride fear after chemical blunder, May 21) that a Southern Water spokeswoman said stringent safety checks will be put in place to ensure dosing errors cannot happen, this was to assure us that the overdose of fluoride in Australia could not happen here. "Systems will be designed to be failsafe," she added.
The same assurance was given by the Water Industry Operators Association of Australia. They assured Australians that fluoridation installations have multiple failsafe devices including day tanks, dual flow sensing switches, online monitoring, automatic shut downs, and other protections in place.
The above did not save parts of Brisbane being overdosed and unless informed not to drink it there is no way of knowing that the water was poisoned. If it was chlorine or aluminium you would detect it and could filter it out but not fluoride.
How can we stop this madness brought about by 12 quango members of the Strategic Health Authority when 72 per cent of the people said NO to fluoridation?
BILL EDMUNDS, Hampshire Against Fluoridation.

Don't run the Risk
There have been well over 10,000 signatures against fluoride going into our water supply, so why doesn't the health authority get the message that we don't want it.
If we were the democratic country we profess to be, then fluoride would (Missing not) be being added to tap water.
We have already had things go wrong in Australia with their monitoring system which was supposed to have been safe.
We don't want the risk of overdose, we want our water left alone. I want to know I can drink water to help wash toxins from my body not put them in.
I am very angry that they think that they can mess with our water. They are supposed to be the health authorities, but they are making people ill with the stress.
I always thought that a lot of things going on are completely mad, but to mess with our water is a crime in itself. Can't man just leave some things alone.
MRS KINCH.

Read this book
I STRONGLY object to fluoride being added to our water supply. I suggest that the people in the NHS read a book called Fluoride by Barry Groves.
In this book which I am still wading through it tells us that 1) fluoride can actually kill. It can cause genetic and chromosomal damage to our body cells, 2) it can cause bone cancer and prostrate cancer in men, 3) fluoride can damage the central nervous system, 4) has links to Alzheimer's disease and low IQ. These are just a few instances. There are many more. We should be allowed a vote on this issue. Why should a few officials be able to tell us what we have to have in our drinking water?
MRS TM TANCOCK, Southampton

Accidents can-and will-happen
I READ your article "Fluoride fear after chemical blunder" on May 21, about people near Brisbane in Australia, accidentally being given 30 times the "safe" level of artificial fluoride in their tap water.
There have been several fluoride overfeeds in USA water supplies in recent years. In Hooper Bay, Alaska, a man died and 260 people were ill after a fluoride overdose in tap water. Dublin suffered a fluoridated overdose in June 2002 when 23 people were made ill.
It is not always possible to ensure that one part per million of this chemical stays the same for all
houses. Tests by government laboratories showed that fluoride can accumulate in sediment in pipe bends and valves. For details of overdoses visit: fluoridealert.org/ health/accidents/fluoridation or Google the words "fluoride deaths"
Sooner or later it is probable that there will be a human or mechanical failure. This happened in Camelford in Cornwall when many residents received an overdose of toxic aluminium from their tap water. This could have been even more serious if the chemical involved was fluorosili-cic acid (fluoride).
A. WILLS, Ruislip.

Real poll needed
THE issue of fluoridation does not affect me very much as I hardly ever drink tap water.
However, I believe that individuals are better placed to listen to their bodies, than people detached from the environment in which the individual lives.
I can think of several things which other people say are good for you which my body rejects and I can well understand that some people might have an allergy to fluoride, a strong chemical.
I am pleased that Hampshire County Council and Eastleigh Council, the two local authorities I have most dealings with, voted against fluoridation, and I respect their ability to represent the views of local people.
There are three points I would like to make
• If fluoridation is introduced and the number of dentists is increased as a result, then it would be easy to attribute improvements in dental health to fluoridation, when in fact the reason is the increase in the number of dentists.
• The Strategic Health Authority places great emphasis on its telephone poll, but I have usually found telephone surveys unreliable.
• There can be no margin for error if the scheme goes ahead. If people are affected by an accident similar to what occurred in Australia only once in their entire lifetime, they will certainly remember it for the rest of their life.
I would like to have a further ballot, with people being able to cast votes, in an similar way to an election.
MALCOLM CLARKE,