This week Byron Shire’s deputy mayor Cr Diane Woods will be preparing a report to revisit that old skeleton in the closet: water fluoridation. According to the Sydney Morning Herald (September 5) Cr Woods would like to consult pro-fluoride ‘experts’ who are ‘more than willing’ to work with her as she feels that Council’s decision to reject fluoridation was biased.
I would like the people of Byron Shire to read one very important essay from Dr Paul Connett, professor of chemistry, a leading world expert on the subject of fluoridation. The entire writing can be found in the link provided below. Quote is as follows:
‘When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested [sic] interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a 50-year delay.
‘Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political pressure. They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the precautionary principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.
‘It is like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above to override a benefit, which, when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth?
‘For those who would call for further studies, we say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end without further delay.’
The rest of the essay is equally informative referenced and well grounded in medicine and science.
Here in Australia we are a portion of less than four per cent of the world to fluoridate its communities. The World Health Organization has released data on dental research done around the world and found little to no difference in young people’s teeth from non-fluoridated countries compared with fluoridated countries, yet here in Australia the pro parties are saying there are significant differences.
Most countries can’t justify mass medication as it goes against human rights. Most countries simply don’t buy the notion that swallowing fluoride is beneficial.
Proponents of fluoride in Australia claim this will save people money on dentistry, but what is the real cost we are paying to have this toxic waste distributed into out domestic waterways, and who are we paying to do so? What is the long-term environmental impact of putting these elements into the water? I am not convinced, along with thousands of anti-fluoride people, that these questions can and have been answered.
If the government is really concerned about our children’s teeth then where are the dental nurses visiting schools? It must be costing a fortune to truck and distribute this stuff around the nation.
No, something here is not right; I personally don’t want to be medicated for a condition I don’t even have. Say goodbye to your fresh organic produce from our much-loved farmers markets. If fluoride goes in we will be drinking, eating and bathing in the watered-down waste of the super-phosphate and aluminium industries – which is ironic as that is precisely the product that organic growers and producers (which are plentiful in our region) are avoiding. Once it goes in it gets into everything, our bodies, food our produce, skin, waterways soils etc.
There are hundreds of scientific reviews worldwide highlighting the dangers of fluoridation, yet in Australia we look to corporate organisations that dismiss these studies and keep telling us it’s some kind of oral-health elixir!
It’s like saying Nature got it wrong and we have come up with the solution. Anti-fluoride advocates have worked unpaid and long and hard across Australia since it was first introduced to Tasmania in the 1950s. We have been subject to ridicule and ignored. The history of fluoridation has been shadowy from the start. I believe we have some valid reasons to be very concerned by this practice of forced medication.
Professor Paul Connet offers 50 reasons in his essay. On this webpage he also cites reasons why most countries find it inappropriate to force-medicate their citizens. http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html
Matthew Sansom, Byron Bay