It is a pity, with the constant reappearance of handwringing over dental fluoride, that nobody ever recounts the discovery of its actions, consequently blowing many of the anti-fluroide arguments out of the water.

It is a bit like the global warming arguments - none of the doommongers ever quote, or want to hear, the real science involved. Such education of the masses would polish off their eco-industry.

Do the public really believe that, one day in the past, some evil meddler decided to watch the effects of arbitrarily dumping a few thousand tons of agricultural waste toxins into a river?

Of course not. Researchers wondered why the dental health of pairs of otherwise very similar (socio-economically) communities was so vastly different.

They realised the only important difference between the pairs of study groups was their natural sources of water, even though the communities were geographically close.

Their water reached them by flowing over quite different rock formations, and so had different natural chemicals in it.

Over the years, the researchers analysed the trace substances and, by gradually removing and adding the same materials in long-term studies, it was found a tiny amount of natural fluoride (one part per million) was what was making a clear difference to dental decay resistance in people who had been born and bred in such areas.

Those people simply formed a dental enamel which is far more resistant to attack by the acid made by oral bacteria from sugars in food.

It was also noted that in those areas where natural fluoride was present, there were no inexplicable rises in horrible diseases, nor piles of fluoride-poisoned bodies lying around on the pavements.

Certainly, there are areas of the world, in parts of Asia for example, where natural fluoride is excessive, and in these places it is important to take the level down to about one part per million. This is only the same as saying that while a tiny spot of salt in our diet is okay, you wouldn't want to drink seawater.

The fact is that, far from fluoride being an unnatural component of fresh water, it is present in almost every supply but most often not at the correct protective level.

Artificial fluoridation is the adjustment of that level to a useful concentration, which in any case is still negligible.

Please do not confuse this with homeopathy, which is largely the treatment of non-diseases with pure distilled water, accompanied by a substantial lightening of the wallet.

Finally, those who rail against authorities dumping "poisons" in our wonderful water supplies never seem to raise their hands in horror at the concept of chlorination, even though this is never a natural feature of fresh water.

Perhaps they don't mind having the typically British rotten teeth but do object to dying of cholera or something similar.

In her feature on water fluoridation (The Argus April 17), Claire Truscott writes: "But The British Fluoridation Society (BFS) says...the fact it fluoride is a poison is not harmful itself - after all, homeopathy is based on the extreme dilution of poisons".

A curious statement indeed from an organisation made up mostly of doctors and dentists - not people who are generally known to endorse homeopathy.

And surely only a licenced homeopath is qualified to make such a statement - especially regarding the medication of entire populations?

Except that any decent homeopath would respect the idea that the medication of any individual - let alone entire populations - must be based on proper diagnosis and consent.

It is true fluoride is a registered poison. Under the 1972 Poisons Act it is in the same toxicity category as mercury, lead and arsenic - all, coincidentally, present in the hexafluorisilicic acid the BFS wants added to our water, though at lesser levels than that chemical.

In homeopathic terms, this would mean their effects on people drinking fluoridated water would be greater than even the fluoride, as would those of the radionuclides common in hexafluorisilicic acid.

It seems the BFS will clutch at any straw to promote water fluoridation, full as it is of members of the British Medical and Dental Associations, which are paid tens of thousands of pounds for every fluoride product they accredit.

-Gary Kemp, South-East Against Fluoridation, Brighton