IT was interesting to read the two letters (September 9) on the subject of fluoride.

Dr Mark Diesendorf's name is familiar to me as it has cropped up from time to time in the research that I have done. Like him, I am amazed that people who should know better, and can summon help from advisers, can endorse the use of fluoride in drinking water.

He studied the incidence of decay in eight developed countries, in both fluoridated and non fluoridated areas over a 30-year period and found large reductions in tooth decay in both areas, so it can be assumed that fluoride had no bearing on the matter.

Also the letter from C Cave from New Zealand also underlines what I have written about in the past. These two people come from countries that had fluoride thrust upon them, and know from experience the damage that this poison can do.

What lay people don't understand, probably because the people who want to push this stuff down our necks, have not told them, is that their so called target area, (children) will only drink approximately 0.04 per cent of the public water supply, so the remaining 99.96 per cent will have nothing to recommend it or even justify it.

No doubt that if the Government overrides all the opposition, we can look forward to another rise in our council tax, and someone else will be laughing all the way to the bank. Make no mistake about it, there is big money at stake here.

There are other issues at stake. Fluoride and calcium are known to make bones brittle.

It is on record that children living in areas of high fluoridation are at risk of becoming less intelligent. Fluoride can accumulate in brain tissue and affect behaviour, IQ and/or learning abilities. It can also affect the central nervous system.

No one wishes children to have to suffer from dental caries, but the buck should stop with the children's parents who should educate them into what is and what isn't good for their teeth.

Jack Sinclair

Rawson Road

Bolton