Letter to the Editor (lets see if it gets printed) - I have a clear straightforward question to which I would like a clear straightforward answer. Following the 2013 Fluoride Tribunal, Hamilton City Council gave the public six main reasons why the Councillors voted to stop putting fluoride in the water supply. The 6th reason was particularly startling, “Statistical evidence that fluoridation potentially causes harm.” At 3pm on 3rd July 2014, just 378 days later, Hamilton City Council commenced fluoridating the water supply again. If a decision of significance like this is reversed, the Council is obligated to explain its reasons to its residents. As a Hamilton resident I am waiting to hear from the Council what kind of plausible reason it had for its change of mind. Considering the seriousness of that previously quoted reason, I would be expecting to hear that the Council has now received new information that invalidates their previous finding of potential harm. Nothing less would suffice. If new information exists, it needs to be produced for all to see. Where is it? So my question is: “How can the Council justify putting fluoride back into the water supply, despite admitting publicly twelve months ago that they knew there was statistical evidence that it potentially caused harm?” Pat McNair Hamilton
Posted on: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 07:33:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015