To: The Editor, Pretoria News
14 March 2007
Before wondering at the recurring insistence of the ( South African) Health Dept. to add fluoride to the public water supply in the face of the ever accruing volume of evidence of negative effects of such policies, perhaps one should contemplate the following: that pressures from mining companies and fluoride manufacturers in South Africa would be greatly eased by giving them an outlet for their waste products (hydrofluosilicic acid - the usual fluoridating agent) which is not just a free toxic waste dump, but also a source of revenue from those whose kidneys are being used to filter this chemical hodge-podge!
Among other elements it contains arsenic, mercury, aluminium, phosphorus, chromium, lead and sulphur in high volumes. Contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org for a chemical analysis of this substance.
An attempt at irony in rebuffing the Florida, USA TC Palm Newspaper editorial which was vehemently pro-fluoridation. Not sure it worked, though, as it stopped the debate cold! lol
Sir, I fully agree with TCPalm. We are not entitled to both sides of the story. The assurances of vested interests such as the ADA should be enough for us! I mean, who in their right minds would want to make an opinion balanced on conflicting points of view? If we only get the one side of the story then it will be easy to make a decision and we wont have to worry about spending vast amounts of money on bottled water because there are added chemicals - toxic, schmoxic - in what comes out of our taps. I mean, poorer people cant spend that much to avoid it, can they? I say let those older wiser heads sponsored by the phosphate industry tell us what we can and cannot drink! They, after all, doubtless have our best interests at heart. And, good on ye, TCP, ban those dirty anti-fluoride people with their twisted lies from expressing THEIR viewpoint! Just because the last 30 years of research is coming out with all the negatives to fluoridation, doesn't mean you can't go on supporting that old guff, now does it?5:54:06 a.m. on March 1, 2007