THOSE in favour argue that benefits are the prevention of tooth decay in children, and that mottling of teeth due to fluoride (fluorisis) is a worthwhile trade-off.

The concern is that there can be no certainty how much fluoridated water is consumed. Children and bottle-fed babies may consume higher amounts than recommended.

The fluoride added to water is not the natural mineral but an industrial chemical. Some scientists argue its effects build up in the body.

Studies suggest its toxicity in the brain can lower IQ and affect behaviour and implicate it in Alzheimer's and dementia.

There are also concerns for its implication in some cancers, in weakening of the bones and immune systems and some birth problems.

Some people are allergic to fluoride. In American a poison warning is required on fluoride toothpaste, whilst in Canada some experts advise against drinking fluoridated water.

Fluorosis itself needs dental treatment. A review of fluoridation conducted for the government said cost effectiveness was inconclusive and fluoridation could not be determined as verifiably safe.

Studies in areas where water is fluoridated and said to have improved dental health have not taken into consideration other factors such as improvements in diet, dental hygiene and access to dentists, whilst a lack of these factors, and poverty, are recognised as factors in poor dental health.

It is interesting that the debate on fluoride has arisen again when there has been concern about the lack of NHs dentists and the poor diet of some children.

Fluoride suppplements can only be dispensed by a health professional who suggested it is the application to the teeth, rather than drinking the water which is most beneficial.

Opponents say it is enforced medication and an infringement of rights, as it removes the ability to refuse and object to paying for something they do not want.

Fluoridation could also contravene article 14 and 25 of the Human Rights Treaty on access to clean water.

Therefore despite the initial promise of the benefits of fluoride for improved dental health, opinions are still divided on its benefit or harm, and the science is not conclusive.

Many earlier supporters of fluoridation have abandoned it.

Additionally is the moral question of if the government or health bosses decide something is good for us, whether they should have the authority to legislate on it?

Eating fruit and having immunisation can be good for us, but are not compulsory, or is this the way we are going?

I strongly urge that objections to fluoridation of the water are made.

PATRICIA COOPER, Waterside Terrace, Waterside, Darwen.