SO the bosses at Bury Town Hall are in favour of adding fluoride to our drinking water (Bury Times, June 29). Why?

Tooth decay is mainly caused by the high amounts of sugar in our diet, so they should be pressing the companies responsible to reduce the sugar content in their products, not talking about adding a toxic chemical to our water. Fluoride does reduce dental decay, but only in young people. Once a person reaches their early 20s it is not effective, which means for the next 50 years our grandchildren would be unnecessarily consuming a toxic poison.

Anyone wanting to take fluoride can do so in tablet form; mass medication is not the answer. There are known side effects, such as possible tooth discoloration, and probably others we are not being told about. Fluoride is a waste product of the chemical industry and they have been trying to foist it off onto an apathetic public for years. Who is going to pay for the installation of the equipment necessary to monitor the addition of the fluoride to our water, and who is going to pay for the fluoride?

The National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health is a very grand sounding title, but is this organisation not just a front for the chemical industry? Do they receive funding from them?

It is claimed that the council's executive committee will only take action following public consultation, and we all know what that means. The public say no, but the committee say "we know what is best" and go ahead.

Anyone doubting this should read Nicole Ivanoff's letter in the Bury Times of June 29. The trend these days is for both government and councils to go through the motions of consultation then do as they wish. That is today's modern democracy.

NUMEN LUMEN