Fluoridation, for the second time, went down to defeat in two of Alberta's largest municipalities — Edmonton and Calgary. This same plebiscite was likewise held in a number of other Alberta communities. In only one did it receive the necessary majority approval; that was in the town of Athabasca, population: 1,300 people.
The Montreal Star, which supports fluoridation, tried to draw some comfort from the fact that while fluoridation received the necessary two-thirds majority in only one locality, "elsewhere... simple majorities were in favor",. The Star did not elaborate on the "elsewhere", nor do we have any statistics, at hand. However, it should be pointed out that wheresoever a drive for fluoridation is undertaken, the whole weight of public authority, represented as a rule by the officials of the local health department, backed up by business interests, is thrown behind the move. Radio and press give much favorable publicity to the fluoridation group. The anti-fluoridationists are left to struggle along as best they can with only the weight of the truth (and the zeal of those fighting for the truth) to make their cause prevail. Thus any triumph for the anti-fluoridation movement represents a great deal more than is indicated in cold percentages and fractions.
Let it also be noted that while the democratic process, as exemplified in the plebiscites mentioned above, may be right in principle, they do not always express the truth in particular cases. In other words, a majority is not always necessarily right. The fact that 80% of the 1,300 people in Athabaska voted for fluoridation does not prove the acceptability of fluoridation. It might only be testimony to the amount of money and vested influence thrown behind the pro-fluoridation group.
The Star's editorial (October, 20) then goes on to express intense amazement; "Why fluoridation drives its opponents to such extremes of illogic is difficult to understand". Then it goes on to point out the case of chlorine in the water. No one would object to chlorine! Of course the Star doesn't bother to consider here the fact that chlorine is employed to purify the water. It must be used if water is to be made fit to drink. Sodium fluoride, on the other hand, is added to the water in order to get it, willy-nitty, into the largest number of people possible. Furthermore, if there were some other less drastic way of purifying water, some method just as feasible as the present, it would certainly be advisable to drop chlorination in favour of it.
The Star points out the present day popularity of mass immunization; this, it says is mass medication, so why do the opponents of fluoridation fight it on the grounds of it being mass medication. The key word here, dear Star, is compulsory mass medication. Quite true, large masses of people have voluntarily come forward to be injected with various substances which are supposed to protect the individual against, say polio. But this is done on a voluntary basis. Fluoridation of public water supplies is compulsory mass medication and as such violates the basic right of the individual to choose, under normal conditions, that method of health care which he decides upon.