THE writers of the recent letter supporting fluoridation (Letters, June 9) seem to want to help promote something that the people of Bolton have overwhelmingly and consistently rejected.

They claim that the effects of fluoride are "anecdotal and undocumented". Maybe these people should have kept themselves up to date with the latest findings.

Fluoride has now been discovered as a mutagen, it has the ability to change the body's cell structure and attacks the body's enzyme systems therefore changing our internal chemistry.

The effects of fluoridation on the cell structure of the human body have indeed been documented but largely ignored. They only need seek the advice of Dr Vyvyan Howard, a British qualified toxico-pathologist or perhaps take a look through the vast libraries of Harvard medical Phd research documents.

Or maybe the writers should consider the evidence of the World Health Organisation's study in China, which discovered that out of a population of 100 million, 43 million have this toxic poisoning of the enzyme system (Dental Fluorosis) and 2.4 million of those had skeletal fluorosis. This was also supported by an increase in hip fractures in the same population.

I personally would find it too difficult to smile and show off lovely white teeth while suffering so much pain and discomfort.

It wasn't so long ago that Brian Iddon MP was telling us "Fluoridation wasn't mass medication". If indeed fluoridation isn't intended as a medical treatment, as Brian Iddon MP promotes, then why do the politicians, dental association and the Primary Care Trust always harp on about its "health benefits"?

The cost of the unknown future health implications for ourselves and the NHS are only one of the issues though, freedom of choice is by far the most important that which we will be denied if fluoridation goes ahead.

Is it correct that a government body and those supporting fluoridation should be able to decide what chemicals the majority of the public should have in their drinking water without the permission of those who consume it? NO because it is mass medication on a grand scale and we think it should be down to a referendum of the public who are going to be "medically treated" to be able to stop it. When the public says NO it doesn't mean maybe or we will think about it, it must mean NO.

Ian Upton

Chairman Bolton Against Fluoridation Group