Council decides on fluoride for city water

December 18, 1957

Last updated 05:00 14/12/2012

Relevant offers

150 stories in 150 days

City offers parade of honour for Olympic heroes Teenager target of identity theft Last stand at McNab Demand hots up... Residents set to 'fight' if board abolished Grieving family questions army's judgement High court throws out Bounty suit Wind damage insurance claims top $2m Ann cramming 10 years’ missed experiences into a year Crowd got what it wanted

Start when materials and gear arrive

A firm decision to fluoridate Invercargill's water supply was made yesterday by the city council.

No date has been set from which fluoridation will be carried out.

It will depend on the arrival of materials and equipment.

It was a unanimous decision of the council.

At its last meeting, the council gave notice of its intention to pass the resolution, and called for objections.

Objections to the fluoridation proposals were received from 10 city residents, including two doctors, two dentists and a chemist.

One resident wrote to support the proposal.

The doctors, dentists and the chemist, who wish to remain anonymous because of ethical reasons, suggested that before going any further, the council should investigate the reason for the rejection of fluoridation in New York.

They said: "As residents of this city who are concerned about the fluoridation of our water supply we wish to submit one valid reason why further consideration should be given to this measure.

Authorities throughout the world are not unanimous about the advisability of such water treatment and we take as one example, the City of New York.

"On March 6, 1957, a hearing on the proposal to fluoridate New York City's water supply was held before the mayor and the Board of Estimate.

We understand that, as the result of a vote on the issue, the proposal was rejected.

Mr W. E. McLees protested "in the strongest terms", and added "You have no right to make a decision for the people."

Mr M.J. Poole suggested that "a more thorough investigation be undertaken before this scheme is forced, in many cases on a reluctant community."

Mr M. J. Jordan felt strongly that it was "a premature step", and would like to see it delayed until more proof was obtained about its safety and value.

Ad Feedback

- The Southland Times

Comments

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content