Lead and arsenic both occur naturally in drinking water. The fact they occur naturally doesn’t negate their toxicity and are therefore limited to 25 and ten parts per billion respectively in the 1998 Drinking Water Directive (lead comes down to 10 ppb in 2013). Fluoride has never been proven essential for human health. Fluoride compounds, in general, have a toxicity between lead and arsenic (Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5 Ed., Gosselin el al, 1984) and fluoridation would see fluoride added at 1,000 ppb! (1,000ppb = 1 part per million).

As far as tea is concerned you should look up – “Endemic fluorosis in Hampshire man”, Jnl of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 1966 (29) 577-583, to read about fluorosis caused by excessive consumption of this fluoride-rich beverage.

As far as the evidence for fluoridated water is concerned, the York Review (2000) was unable to identify one high-quality scientific study to support the efficacy or safety of fluoridated water. On the basis of poor to moderate quality evidence water companies in England are doing to their customers what a doctor cannot do to an individual patient – medicate without consent.

If you have lived in fluoridated areas all your life (from birth) you should consider yourself fortunate not to have suffered dental fluorosis, about which Baroness Hayman said: “We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity…” (Lords Hansard, 20 April 1999). Tea drinking and the use of a fluoride toothpaste would have added to your overall daily fluoride burden.

You would choose fluoridated water for your children. As long as it is an informed choice I can respect that. Those who reject fluoridation are not denying you or your children fluoride as it can easily be obtained from toothpastes, mouthwashes, tablets, dental floss and the good old British cuppa. If someone wants fluoridated water instead of or on top of that they can make up their own by adding one x 1 mg tablet of sodium fluoride to 1 litre of unfluoridated water.

All I and many others would ask for is that you respect the informed choice of those who say NO to fluoride.

but also ‘fluoride’ is defined as:
fluoride [( floor -eyed, flawr -eyed)]

Any of a number of naturally occurring compounds of the element fluorine.

So how can fluoride be a ‘toxic chemical’ if it is naturally occurring?
And as it is also found in tea, are we going to be accusing India and China of poisoning us all?

Yes, there has been extensive research into the effects of fluoride and as with any large scale investigation some studies show negative things and some show positive things. At the moment the positives far, far outweigh the negatives.

I’ve lived in fluoridated areas all my life, I wasn’t my choice, but have never had any ill effects from it, have never known of anyone having ill effects of it and have never had to have a filling.

I would rather my children drink fluoridated water than put them through the trauma of a general anaesthetic to have teeth taken out, a far more dangerous option.

Definition of a medicine
“Any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings”
(EU Directive 2004/27EC)

I am sure, the thought of treating another dentist as your patient, must fill you with dread! They would whinge & whine about every little thing and their treatment would take double the normal time.

BTW, Uchenna, do you really expect patients to pay you those expensive fees & give you gifts!!!

It should be the other way round, the dentists should give the patient a gift, for giving them thousands of pounds!