I HAVE been dismayed to read the many letters expressing concern over fluoridation of the water supply which appear to me to be expressions of fear (of the unknown?) rather than fact.

And there has been a remarkable lack of evidence presented to substantiate the opinions expressed.

I first read of fluoridation in the 1950s and was impressed by the studies of that period demonstrating the effect of fluoride on dental caries.

My initial interest has been maintained, and I researched the subject in some depth when I was a member of Bolton Community Health Council and became aware of the vociferous anti-fluoridation lobby which quoted the results of the referendum that had been held some years previously, but again presented little, if any, evidence.

Most of Europe does not fluoridate water supplies, but 10 per cent of UK citizens receive fluoridated water.

For those who are afraid, consider this thought. Hundreds of millions across the globe now consume fluoridated water, so if this is as harmful as you fear, would you not expect to have heard of claims for damages, especially in the litigious USA? I haven't, have you?

I concede that overdosing is a risk, as it is with any water treatment such as chlorination, with which you ingest chlorine, a halogen of the same family as fluorine, whether you want to or not, whenever you drink the tap water so praised by many objectors.

As to the objection to "mass medication", I don't hear objections to mass medication of flour and bread to which calcium, iron, thiamine and niacin are added by law. Is this because we call it fortification?

It is undertaken for the same reason as fluoridation - to add what is lacking for the public good.

Perhaps "Fluoride Fortification" should be adopted as being less frightening than fluoridation. But, by whatever name we know it, I truly believe that it is for the public good.

Michael S Marsh Green Lane, Bolton