Reader Displeased With Fluoride Article

Dear Watchers:

One of the good things about Whatcom is the Whatcom Watch. A reasonably objective, detailed source of information about the political, especially, life of our community. I’m pleased to have been a subscriber and show it to visitors from other places.

However, the space given, ex post facto, to one side of the recently past fluoridation issue seems very out of character. Perhaps you plan to provide space for the alternative view, but I did not see any mention of such an intent.

Additionally, the concept that this is worth several more articles, virtually monopolizing the content for some months ahead seems excessive.

Finally, the tone of the first article is troublesome; there is very much pejorative content and lots of adverse hypotheses. The matter of fluoridation is one of differences of opinion and emphasis on a body of information. It demeans the demeanor and Whatcom Watch to make this into a name-calling harangue full of insinuations about ulterior motives, deviousness and so on.

Your publication has presented the facts about activities in our community and these are valuable to us in decision making. This current over-hyped title and presentation departs massively and unfortunately from your previous material.

Editor’s Note: Whatcom Watch is a community forum and we welcome contributions on various sides of an issue. Dr. Thomas Hall will write an article for our May issue.