I WOULD like to respond to comments in the Letters pages from The Bolton News (Wednesday, March 14).

Firstly, it seems some people are confused by suggesting that one should write to their MPs. Since the Water Bill, which became an Act of Parliament in 2003, from which a proposal of fluoridation developed, was actually voted through by a majority of MPs in 2003, there is nothing their MP could now do about it now, only support their own voting stance.

I would like to say that, after looking into the issue further, I felt that some MPs' views were based on very selective information.

My own MP, although appearing perfectly knowledgeable, voted against my personal wishes on fluoridation. Whether he consulted his constituents is a matter for him but, as I was one of them, I can say that, although I did put my view forward, he tried to convince me fluoridation was a good idea because of "children's teeth".

He perhaps wasn't aware at the time of my background in chemicals.

Indeed, other MPs who I approached about this matter seemed not to understand on what they had voted on.

One MP said on a radio talk-in show that it was calcium fluoride used as a fluoridation chemical, not hexafluorosilicic acid, and seemed not to understand that this was far more potent, thus proving the point I made about some MPs having a misunderstanding of the issue.

With regards to referenda, it might be interesting for the letter writer to note that the Strategic Health Authority has a legally binding obligation to consider the views of those who live in the immediate area of this proposed mass medication. Whether those views be put through referendum, ballot, petition or poll does not matter.

Referendum is, by its very nature, democratic as it gets and it gives people the chance to register their vote on the issues. So I don't understand people who suggest referenda isn't democratic.

As for claims of "unsubstantiated evidence", one only needs to follow the link from our website to read the ream of documents, studies against fluoridation and scientific reasons not to fluoridate.

If my time in the specialist chemicals industry doesn't qualify me enough to comment on certain toxic chemicals that I am familiar with, then perhaps the critical letter writers, Primary Care Trust, pro-fluoridation lobby and the dental industry would perhaps instead want to consult with Dr C Vyvyan Howard, MB, ChB, PhD, FRCPath, a medically qualified British-based toxic-pathologist, who has frequently qualified and quantified the harmful effects of this chemical on the human body.

Ian Upton Chairman Bolton Against Fluoridation Group www.bafg.org.uk