Bad practice
My feeling is that each individual should decide what "medication" they take. I do not want to take fluoride! However, those who do, have a huge array of fluoridated toothpastes to choose from.
The scientific case against fluoridating public water supplies is comprehensively stated and meticulously referenced in Professor Paul Connett's book (written with co-authors),The Case Against Fluoride, and he has written an article in the third edition of the magazine Fluoride Free New Zealand. (www.fluoridefree.org.nz)
The fluorosilicic acid used in water supplies is a waste by-product of the phosphate fertiliser industry and is, I understand, not allowed to be dumped on land, air or sea — but can be added to drinking water!
Adding fluoride to drinking water to treat people is, to me, a bad medical practice. There is no control as to how much an individual "takes". Apparently, fluoridated drinking water contains up to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk, so bottle-fed infants receive a huge concentration of fluoride. (See FFNZ magazine page 66 for details).
Studies referred to in literature include examples of fluoride affecting brain and thyroid function and possibly contributing to depression and weight gain.
Dr John Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, was a fluoridation advocate but began to doubt his judgment after seeing studies that there were fewer fillings required in non-fluoridated parts of his region than in the fluoridated parts. (http://fluoridefree.org.nz/dr-colquhoun/)
Money should be spent on projects like the Child-Smile Dental Scheme focusing on prevention of tooth decay in non-fluoridated Scotland, which is saving the National Health Service millions of pounds sterling a year.
JUDITH ROBINSON
Whanganui
How the NRA works
Your editorial, titled "Hit the gun lobby where it hurts" (February 21) shows a rather stunning lack of understanding of how the NRA, or any lobby group in the United States, works.
The NRA spends millions of dollars funding the campaigns of elected officials all across the United States. This includes local bodies similar to our district councils, State Legislatures, like the one in Florida that disallowed a vote on an assault weapons ban just days after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
They are joined in this effort by other large benefactors, such as the Koch (pronounced Coke) Industries. These corporate donors are only interested in the bottom line. For the NRA, it is all about gun sales. If you restrict the sale of some of the most popular guns in America, you will hurt the bottom line of the manufacturers, for whom the NRA serves as a mouthpiece. It is true that Al Hoffman Jr has declared that he will no longer donate to any candidate who takes money from the NRA; he does not have the deep pockets that the NRA and the Koch brothers possess.
There is a grass-roots movement, started by Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont) to not take corporate donations of any kind. Kirsten Gillibrand (Democrat, New York) and Corey Booker (Democrat, New Jersey) have signed on, and more will probably follow.
There is also the movement started by the survivors of the shooting in Parkland, who have become activists for gun regulation. Many of them will be able to vote in the upcoming mid-term election in November, and will be working to galvanise fellow victims to push for change.
Unfortunately, until a reversal of the Citizens United decision, wherein corporations were given the rights of individual citizens to give as much money to political campaigns, we will not see any real change.
RICK BAUM
Whanganui
Send your letters to: The Editor, Wanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Wanganui 4500; or email editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz
