The 'fluoride in drinking water' debate is heating up again in Hamilton. A letter in one of our local free newspapers begins
Sodium fluoride is the main ingredient in rat poison
and then informs us that the Nazis used it to keep their prisoners docile. And what I want to know is this: why, if the writer's case against fluoridation is so strong, do they feel the need to use such scare tactics & to invoke Godwin's Law? (Godwin's Law is applied "especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis": there does not appear to be any evidence that NaF was used in the way the writer describes, but it sounds scary & helps to demonise those with a different point of view.)
As for the 'sodium fluoride/rat poison' claim, even a quick search suggests otherwise (here, & here, for example). But it's probably quite effective in promoting the 'fluoride = poison' idea in the public mind. However, as I (& others) have said before: the dose makes the poison.
I would have more respect for the writer's point of view, were it not 'bolstered' with inaccuracies and scare tactics. But some things never change...