It’s truly tragic that the small majority of Rous Water councillors and the state health department are so determined to push fluoridation, when evidence has been gathered over many decades about fluoridation, which is considered ‘an outdated practice that most of the world countries don’t even do’.
Even the original research back in the 1950s is now known to be flawed. It has been already stated over and over again that fluoride may work topically, but that its accumulative effects in our bodies cannot even be measured, causing the most alarming consequences for the wider population.
The quality of one’s drinking water is known to be the foundation for one’s good health. Tap water is considered unhealthy to drink with its overload of chemicals causing an over-acidic body prone to all chronic diseases.
Why would one want to add another toxic poison to that toxic mix and expect people to drink it? Are there people who still even drink tap water?
If children prefer to drink fizzy drinks and fruit juices loaded with sugar and will not suddenly stop eating sugar causing dental caries, why not spend the millions for fluoridation on a thoroughly up-to-date, integrative health campaign for the community, which would have long-term positive effects addressing all of today’s epidemic mind-body health issues?
Most interesting would be to know the real story behind this evangelistic push for fluoridation?
Studying research methods to conduct research one is taught academically that the most important question to ask is, ‘In whose interest is this, really?’ That is what we don’t know.
Carmel Liertz, Lennox Head
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, October 2005
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
The basic thing to know about scientific research is that no amount of it can ever prove that fluoride or any other therapeutic substance or procedure is safe for everybody.. Scientific studies can only show absence of harm in the particular instances that were tested.
That fact is why putting a treatment in the water supply that everyone depends on is a violation of public health ethics and human rights. In the case of fluoride, everyone agrees that what fluoridationists call “optimally” fluoridated water increases the incidence of dental fluorosis, an undesirable condition.
A large body of additional research shows a long list of other unhealthy effects of fluoridation. The precautionary principle requires that this science and the human rights of water consumers be respected.
What extreme exigency would require water suppliers to knowingly inflict injury on water consumers and thereby violate the fundamental human rights that underpin our society?
Tooth decay? How is that sufficient cause when regular tooth brushing is clearly more effective, ethical, safer and less costly? Citizens are entrusted with responsibility for diet, exercise and every other health maintenance practice. Why would a dental treatment be imposed on them? Because it can be?
“Tap water is considered unhealthy to drink with its overload of chemicals causing an over-acidic body prone to all chronic diseases”. A bold statement indeed! Considered by who exactly? By mis-informed Nexus readers? …what bollocks! Talk about first world problems! Here we are lucky enough to have clean, hygenic drinking water – a product a quarter of the world still doesn’t have – and you complain about it?! Better go over to africa & shut down all those wells those pesky NGOs are installing – wouldn’t want to kill the populace! (see also hysterical anti-vaaacination logic).