Letter: Water chemicals

Richard Hill
Thursday 21 January 1999 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Dr Adrian Padfield (letter, 16 January) shows admirable concern for his patients but he is sadly mistaken when he refers to dental caries being "easily prevented by simple water management, as with the reduction of bacterial disease".

I have been involved, as an engineer, with the treatment of water for public supply for thirty years and know only too well the range of quite unpleasant chemicals which are used in that process, including chlorine to kill bacteria, ozone to destroy potential carcinogens and phosphoric acid to prevent dissolution of lead.

These chemicals are used to render the final product safe to drink. Fluoride is the only chemical currently added to water supplies for the sole purpose of medication or prophylaxis. This is a most important distinction. Worthy though it may be to reduce dental caries, compulsory mass medication via water supply is the thin end of a very dangerous political wedge and should, I believe, be strenuously resisted.

Millions of tons of water are treated every day, only a tiny fraction of which is ingested. If, as Dr Padfield clearly believes, there should be some form of compulsory mass medication, then let it be by the compulsory addition of fluoride to all toothpastes. This would not only be more efficient in treating the disease but would, I suspect, be rather more cost-effective.

RICHARD HILL

Penn, Buckinghamshire

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in