IN Mike Watson’s letter (HAS, Feb 9) he tells how he and a colleague were not allowed to ask questions at a council meeting about the proposal to fluoridate Darlington’s drinking water.

I was that colleague, and this is what I was prevented from saying.

Ongoing studies from 1992 of children from birth through to teenage years revealed that swallowing fluoridated water makes no significant difference to tooth decay, but the more a child swallows, the higher the risk of dental fluorosis and damage to bones, tissue and even IQ.

The scientific research (by M J Coplan et al) indicates how silico-fluorides (used in water fluoridation) can form cholinesterase inhibitors that block normal function of nerve synapses, and damage or destroy enzymes. Darlington Borough Council’s Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee reported in September that tooth decay in Darlington’s five-year olds has decreased dramatically down to the national average.

This was achieved without fluoridating our water supplies. The question I was not allowed to ask is: “Why is this costly, risky and unnecessary proposal still being pursued?” Any answers, council?

A Hall, Darlington