Daily Echo Lettters

Unkind to dump muck in our water
JOHN Oliver (Letters, March 26), may well believe the fluoride-sponsored experts who say fluoride is good for the teeth.
However, just what's the use of fluoride-strengthened teeth if they are made brown and mottled by the same substance? I attended a fluoride consultation and a woman from the SHA informed me that in a water fluorinated area, it would take six years, from conception, for a child to develop fluoride poisoning,manifesting as dental fluorisis. It's unbelievably unkind of the SHA to dump this muck into our drinking water knowing it will adversely affect the teeth, growing in the mouths of babies and toddlers and knowing that the majority of us can never afford costly corrective dental treatment.
Dentists will tell you this correptive treatment will cause further damage to the teeth.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.

Warning to ignore?
WRITERS of a number of letters about fluoridation have commented on its responsibility for fluorosis, which, if more than slight, causes concern.
We are constantly being advised to be wary of blemishes in the skin or unidentified swellings, since they might indicate serious problems which merit early attention.
Is it not a very curious thing, therefore, that in the case of a chemical in the water which can cause discoloration of teeth and so presumably has an effect on other unseen parts of the body, that we are told to ignore it?
G PAYNE, Southampton.

Is SHA protected?
IS it a case that the SHA is simply following the precedent set by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer, to sign up for a deal knowing they will not be in office when/should "the pigeons come home to roost"?
Although the Chancellor was part of a 'Sovereign Body' and therefore safe from action, is the SHA considered to be the same?
If not, are the members open to legal action should their decision be found to be detrimental to the community, not based upon best knowledge?

Barry Burton. Fareham