LETTERS Evidence is clear on fluoride cost, benefits

I returned to New Zealand from Brisbane, where I saw first hand at public meetings the ignorance of the anti-fluoride lobby. Just like the Wellington Covid protesters, they were pushy and anti-democratic, shouting down those who didn’t agree. Now back in Whangārei, I find that side has won. Our mayor, Sheryl Mai, says fluoride is compulsory medication and the council’s opposition is democracy at work.

Fluoride is a public health issue and an economic issue, and the evidence is clear on both. New Zealand has excellent research, for example, “Association Between Community Water Fluoridation and Severe Dental Caries” (JAMA Paedicatrics 2020) found “4-year-old children living without community water fluoridation had significantly higher odds of severe caries”, and the costs and benefits of water fluoridation in NZ (BMC Oral Health, 2017), which concludes “Over 20 years the net discounted saving adding fluoride to water for popul ations over 500 would be $1401 million”, nine times the cost. Those who oppose fluoride are simply saying they don’t want to spend a little to help a lot.

Greg Waite Whangārei Effect on marine life I have concerns about the efficiency and side effects of fluoridating our water supply. We drink less than 2 per cent of the water coming from our taps. We use the rest for bathing, doing the washing, watering the garden and washing the car/ house etc.

That water either goes down the drain or i nto the groundwater. Fluoride in our wastewater is not removed at wastewater treatment plants so the vast major

GUIDELINES

The Northern Advocate welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following:

■ Letters should not exceed 200 words.

■ They should be opinion based on facts or current events.

■ If possible, please email.

■ No noms de plume.

■ Letters will be published with names and suburb/city.

■ Include full name, address and contact details for our records only.

■ Local letter writers given preference.

■ Rejected letters are not acknowledged.

■ Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor’s discretion.

■ The Editor’s decision on publication is final.

Email editor@northernadvocate.co.nz or write to the Editor, Northern Advocate, 88 Robert St, Whangarei 0110

ity of fluoride in our water supply eventually goes into the harbour, bathing our marine life in it. The rest goes into our soil. Do we know the cumulative effects of this fluoride on our marine life and our soil organisms?

In order to get the benefit of fluoridated water you need to drink it. If you drink tooth-decayinducing soft drinks instead of water, you get no benefit from fluoridated water. Thus, people who are most likely to benefit from drinking fluoridated water are least likely to drink it.

I have often wondered why we don’t just put fluoride in sugary drinks. Then the target group of those people most likely to benefit from fluoride would be the ones getting it. The soft drink manufacturers would, however, likely have to put a warning on the soft drinks not to drink more than a certain volume to avoid fluoride toxicity/ fluorosis.

Fluoridating our water supply is an issue that needs careful consideration and consultation rather than submitting all of us plus our marine life and soil organisms to involuntary mass long-term medication.

Murray Pachal

Whangārei