Editorials, Letters: Fluoridation View Criticized

Editor: Even though I know the pressures to which newspaper editors must be subjected by fluoridation proponents, I was greatly disappointed to have the Evening Outlook come out in support of Proposition F before the recent election. Fortunately, enough Los Angeles citizens heard information which made them question the wisdom of voting mass medication of themselves through the water supply. Your editorial support for Proposition F was particularly surprising since the Santa Monica City Council about 2½ years ago, after one evening of hearings, soundly defeated an attempt to fluoridate our water supply.

The recent letter to the editor by Supervisor Edelman was typical of the arrogance shown by those who would do away with the citizen’s freedom of choice. In this letter, he stated, “Unfortunately, the council later retreated after unfounded and irrational attacks on fluoridation by a few misguided and uninformed opponents and decided to place the issue before the voters.” This is known as argumentum ad hominem, or in plain English, “if you have no satisfactory answers, attack the speaker.” It might further be characterized by a common saying, “My mind’s already made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”

Artificial fluoridation of community water supplies is completely unscientific. It is a violation of free choice. It is totalitarian. It shows no regard whatsoever for the allergic and chronically ill individuals who are bound to be made ill from it and this amounts to at least 1 per cent of the population.

It shows no concern for the fact that our environment is becoming increasingly contaminated by fluorides in the air, water and food. It scarcely seems to be scare tactics to try and tell the public that in cities that have been fluoridated for 30 years, the instance of stroke and heart disease is mounting rapidly over that of the average community and that the number of cancer cases in these cities are also increasing disproportionately.

It has been my experience that when given the facts, the people have enough common sense to protect themselves. When scientists disagree, it is better to go slow.