WHAT a tired and tiresome argument Linda Forrest presents (Letters, September 7).

Fundamentally, no supporting evidence or sources are quoted on the adverse effects of fluoridation.

In my 40 years, no dentist or dental hygienist has ever warned me on the 'adverse' effects of what she expresses.

Indeed, she contradicts herself by comparing the Ribble Valley (affluent?) with Blackburn and Hyndburn (the deprived?) in that this is both an insult to the people of both areas as it assumes 'social class' dictates their oral hygiene and gives no evidence to suggest that in non-fluoride water areas the results are any better.

Her principle "the freedom to choose the medication we take" is of the annoyingly PC/woolly liberalism that seems to seep into our presence and takes control if we let it, as well as giving the genuinely well-informed eco-friendly campaigner/listener a bad name.

By taking her version of "freedom to choose' we could end up with segregated swimming pools for those who choose to swim in chlorine-treated and non-chlorine treated water.

Furthermore, my "freedom to choose" could be twisted into the absurd 'argument' that the street lighting the council provide for my safety infringes my right to view the heavens because of the light polluting my night sky.

Yes, where does this folly end?

I would like an open debate on the subject and welcome her to put forward this "worldwide research" and provide me with the quotations from her "numerous doctors and scientists throughout the world who are opposed to fluoridation and all state that far from being beneficial, it is a serious health hazard."

This is indeed powerful stuff, so she will be able to publish this by way of a reply and state categorically that none of these sources has any political, religious or business interest.

After all, as she herself concludes "when we are dictate to on these matters, democracy has ceased."

Finally, fluoride tablets -- how much do they cost by comparison to a regular change of tooth brush?

And, you would expect me to turn her argument on itself by pointing out that those who want the right to choose what water they use can buy a filter to remove the fluoride.

There are bigger issues in the world today and I would suggest Mrs Forrest's efforts would be better directed to adequate eco-friendly waste removal/recycling as the water table is infiltrated by the many thousands of tons of toxic waste we all dump into the land and sea, when we could be encouraged to do more to avoid this waste of 'scarce money.'

JOHN WINSTANLEY, Thirlmere Drive, Withnell, Chorley.