-THE CASE AGAINST FLUORID ATION-
Recently the secret official addition
of sodium fluoride to public drinking-
water supplies was disclosed by the
Municipal Council of Yass, a small upstate city in New South Wales, Australia. This, the first attempt in an
Australian mainland state to force
fluoridated drinking water on citizens
without their prior consent, has
brought the matter to public attention. While the question has not been
legally tested under the Australian
constitution, which is modeled on that
of the United States, one Australian
newspaper has commented: "Many
feel strongly that it is an interference
with human rights both to allow experimentation by authority on the individual ancl to compel the consumption of a chemical which many might
not wish to take."27
When the tumult and the shouting
dies, and the anti's and the pro's depart, there still remains the basic question: Is compulsory medication
through the addition of fluorides to
public water supplies compatible with
the American system of government?
Our Own Votes Can Cnd
American Dream of Liberty
As Admiral Ben Moreell, Chairman
of the Board of Jones and Laughlin
Steel Corporation, has so aptly put it
in discussing all phases of paternal
legislation: "All these measures — and
others of a similar nature — could be
enacted legally and democratically
under the concept of majority rule.
But would any person be so foolish as
to say that they should be enacted!
Will any thinking person say that I
law is "right" merely because a majority has voted for it? We must always remember that our Constitutiol
was designed to protect the freedon
of the smallest possible minority
one person — against the demands H
the greatest possible majority — o&
other persons combined. That singl'
idea of inalienable rights of the indf
vidual person is — or, at least, was -
the fundamental spirit of the American tradition of government. And i
we lose that concept of government,
by force or by our own votes, th*
American dream of liberty will k*
ended. And we will not be any the U£
Communist merely because the majot'
ity favors it." -s
THE CASE FOR FLUORIDATION
particular importance to those who
are concerned about the safety of
fluoridation that nature provided an
abundant laboratory in which to determine its effects on man.3"'
While fluoridation importantly reduces the incidence of caries, it is not
a treatment or cure. Dental caries is a
nonhealing lesion; dental enamel once
injured never repairs itself with or
without medication. Therefore the application of the term "mass medication" is not applicable. Fluoridation
simply prevents the decay from developing. In short, fluoridation of public water supplies simulates a purely
natural phenomenon — a protective
condition set up by nature itself in
those communities that are fortunate
enough to have about one part per
million of fluoride naturally present in
the public water supply, such as, for
example, Denver, Colorado, Aurora,
Illinois, and others.
Recommendations of Health
Public health authorities recommend, therefore, that where the fluoride concentration is below the levels
for optimal dental health, the concentration be adjusted to about one part
per million for the partial control of
dental caries. They recommend that
(Continued from page 13)
since only 63 to 64 per cent of our
population use public water supplies,
continuing efforts in basic and applied
research must be expanded in order
that dental caries, as well as dental
conditions other than tooth decay, may
be brought under a larger measure of
It is pointed out, however, that
fluoridation does not diminish the
need for adequate diet, mouth hygiene, ancl dental inspection at proper
Since the increased resistance to
caries extends at least into middle life,
it is incorrect to assert that onlv children are benefited by such a program;
however, the maximum benefit is seen
in those persons using fluoridated
water from birth, and fluoridation begins to show its effects in a year or two
in school children.37
The provision of fluorine intake
through tablets, milk, salt, or other
means has profound disadvantages
peculiar to each one. Topical fluoride
application directly to the teeth by
skilled personnel cannot be applied
universally as a public health measure
for the prevention of dental caries,
insofar as it is effective, due to lack of
personnel and funds. While somewhat
less effective than fluoridation of the
water supply, it has merit as an alternative public health measure in small
communities without such a comm011
source of water."
Typical of the excellent results i*
ported from various community
throughout the nation is the recci*
announcement by the Texas Ileal''
Department that fluoridation of wat"
supplies for the city of Marshall, statf
ed ten years ago, have reduced too1
decay in school-age children bv mO1-
than half. Tests conducted annual!
have shown Marshall children suffer
ing fewer and fewer attacks of decaf'
Cchoes USPHS Approval
Dr. Frank P. Bertram, dental dirt*
tor of this State Health Dcpartm''-1'.
who conducted the tests, has state*
that the use of fluorides in citv Wil**;
supplies is "definitely past the expe-1"
mental stage."' Eleven Texas to***
now add fluoride to water, the large*
being Corpus Christi.M
While it is true that people dd'1
only about a half-gallon of water P*
day ol an average of 140 gallons p'J
duced per person per clay, it slioi1'
be remembered that the water c""
siimed for drinking, cooking, laiin''-1
"Buckley, op. eit. ^
■Moreen, Adm. Ben, io Communism . . ■
Kriulson, op. cit.
-Dean, op. ill
u7St. Louis Medical Society, op. cit.
'-Dallas Morning Newt, April 25, 1956.
Facts Forum News, September,