Whilst being aware of Mr Osiecki's opposition to community water fluoridation for quite some time, I was quite taken aback at his complete misrepresentation of the findings of a scientific "study" in his letter to the Editor (WDN 17/01).

I have known Mr Osiecki for many years and have great respect for his service to the community, especially through his contribution to the arts, as well as his success as a businessman.

However as a scientist, dietary supplement producer and the author of many books on nutrition, Mr Osiecki would be fully cognisant of Paracelcus' adage of "the dose makes the poison".

This is essentially saying that any substance, even water (with or without fluoride), is toxic if enough is consumed at one time.

The "Harvard study" (really a meta-analysis of previous studies) clearly suggests that there appears to be a correlation/causation link between high levels of fluoride in water and cognitive development difficulties (lower IQ if you will) in children. Mr Osiecki is correct in that.

However, what he did not say was that the "Harvard Study" recommended further good quality research into the subject be undertaken - not that fluoride should be completely removed.

The studies reviewed in the meta-analysis were primarily conducted in China, across a number of communities with varying levels of naturally occurring fluoride in their water supplies. Natural water supplies, not artificially fluoridated ones.

All natural water supplies, apart from rainwater, contain some level of fluoride. Some have extremely high levels, and the analysis was looking for differences in children at varying levels. The control (or "normal" group) had a natural water supply with the same levels of fluoride in it as is achieved in Australia by artificial fluoridation.

In other words, children who drink water with the same amount of fluoride in it as the kids of Warwick and Stanthorpe are seen as the "normal" ones. Mr Osiecki is entitled to his opinions.

What he is not entitled to do however is misrepresent facts and scientific studies to push a particular barrow. Sadly though, this is a tried and true tactic adopted by those with philosophical opposition to public health practices, such as fluoridation or vaccination.

The sole purpose of the tactic? To create fear and uncertainty in the general population as to the value of the practice. Sadly, they are somewhat effective.

The rise in the incidence of measles, a disease that was thought almost eradicated, is unfortunate testament to that.

Mr Osiecki may say, as do many opponents, that the cumulative effect of drinking fluoridated water are potentially deadly. I am therefore somewhat bemused that the incidence of the long list of deadly conditions supposedly brought on by the practice have failed to appear; despite the practice being in place for over 65 years in some areas.

You would expect the incidence of these ailments to be significantly higher in those areas than in localities that do not have fluoridated water. Interestingly, the only statistical health difference between such populations is the lower rate of tooth decay in the fluoridated sites. That's it.

Sean Hegarty

Warwick