21.3 C
Byron Shire
December 2, 2021

Rous Water threatens fluoride activist with legal action

Latest News

A disappointed dog

It’s taken a whole week for my dog to read to page 21 in last week’s Echo. She’s been...

Other News

Response to Ian Cohen and Paul Jones

I am proud to be running as Labor’s mayoral candidate for Byron Shire, with a great team that comes...

Kingscliff Public School gets long-awaited upgrade

If you were wondering what is happening at Kingscliff Public School, construction is well underway on an upgrade.

Water security needed and that means we need to think beyond the traditional dam

As two professional engineers, each with over 40 years of experience in the water industry, we support Rous County Council’s decision to start tapping into underground water resources to meet the growing water supply needs of our region.

Vote for community

From 2007 to 2020, I lived in Byron Bay. I worked as a community-based coastal and marine researcher and...

Entertainment in the Byron shire for the week beginning 1 December, 2021

All your entertainment news in one brilliant place

Shovel ready project

Ready-to-go 100 per cent green community power at a solar farm will be over 30 per cent more efficient...

Protesters outside Rous Water in Lismore this week. (picture: Omega Flux)
Protesters outside Rous Water in Lismore this week. (picture: Omega Flux)

Darren Coyne

Rous Water has threatened anti-fluoride critic Al Oshlack with legal sanctions if he continues to speak against the the fluoridation of the region’s water supply.

The threat comes as Ballna shire councillor Jeff Johnson has announced he will lodge a notice of motion at next week’s council meeting calling for a community poll on fluoridation.

Lismore resident Al Oshlack, who took unsuccessful legal action against Rous Water, received an email from international legal firm Asher on behalf of Rous Water, asserting that he had breached a costs agreement that prevented him from ‘commencing, advocating or advising’ any person or group from commencing legal action against Rous.

Anti fluoride campaigner Al Oshlack.  (Darren Coyne)
Anti fluoride campaigner Al Oshlack. (Darren Coyne)

A defiant Mr Oshlack said he would not curtail his role in the growing community disquiet over the imminent commencement of fluoride dosing in the Lismore water supply.

‘There is no way I have been in breach of the costs agreement and this email to me is an example of Rous Water and its legal team squandering the ratepayers money to silence critics of fluoridation.

‘This is the same legal team who gave the false advice that led to Cr David Yarnell changing his vote to give the three non Lismore Council delegates on Rous Water the majority to bring in fluoride.

‘It disgusts me that these lawyers have not been sacked but instead are given further rate payer funded work to harass me.

‘This legal firm Asher are truly one of the most expensive in the country with a pedigree of high flying corporate, developer and mining clients.

‘As far as I am concerned this fluoride caper is a con and a scam and I’ll keep going to stop Lismore being fluoridated, even if it means to shut down if necessary the whole NSW fluoride industry.

‘The views on fluoridation as expressed by our so called local government leaders Mayor Jenny Dowell and Councillor Sue Meahen are pitiful, anti democratic and lack intellectual vigour.

‘I have challenged them to debate me anyhow, anytime or anywhere but I am greeted with silence.

‘These two councillors without a mandate, are happy to steamroll the decisions on fluoride yet are too cowardly to allow the community any say in the matter.’

Jeff Johnson, Independent candidate for Ballina
Jeff Johnson, Independent candidate for Ballina

Meanwhile, Cr Jeff Johnson said the fluoridation of Ballina’s water supply would cost $100,000 a year, despite less than 1 per cent of the water actually being used for drinking.

‘At this week’s council meeting I’m again asking the councillors to support a community poll at the next local government election to determine whether the majority of residents are in favour of adding fluoride to the water,’ he said.

‘The cost of such a poll would be approximately $15,000. For a small increase to this cost council could ask other important questions.

‘What better way to conduct a comprehensive survey of local residents?

‘Surely the results would be more accurate than the last poll Council conducted to support the recent rate increase (Micromex survey of 500 people which had a similar cost)

‘If the outcome of the poll is that the majority of residents don’t want fluoride added to the water supply, then the next council should take all necessary actions to remove it.

‘While I’m personally against the fluoridation of Ballina’s water supply I feel that for controversial issues such as this, it is important that residents have an opportunity to decide whether they want fluoride added to the drinking water or not, rather than a handful of councillors.’

 


Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.

13 COMMENTS

  1. Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation. This shows how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.

    The fluoride added to our water, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is a form that does not occur in nature. It is a waste product of the metal-processing industries, and, because of its toxicity, would cost a huge amount for those companies to dispose of safely. So, they’re allowed to earn a great profit and dump this poison into our water supplies. As usual, follow the money to learn the truth.

    • Jwillie

      1. The cause and preventive factors involved in dental decay are myriad. Attempts to assess but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on a snapshot of WHO data which controls for no other variables, is ludicrous, and indicative of a profound lack of understanding of science and healthcare.

      2. Flioride is the cation of the element fluorine. A cation is a negatively charged atom. There are no different forms of a negatively charged atom. Hydrofluorosilic acid is a compound, not a different form of a negatively charged atom.

      Given that you don’t even understand elementary chemistry, do you seriously expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to accord credence to any of your ridiculous copy/paste nonsense?

      3. Your conspiracy nonsense is meaningless and irrelevant.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  2. Go Al !
    Who are these scum who presume to silence any dissenting voice ?
    Oh yeah , the Abbott government !
    I keep forgetting ,’they’re open FOR business”
    G”)

  3. Go Al!

    Your a legend mate!!!
    Just shows how ignorant and slimy our political system has become.
    It IS unethical and against our basic human rights to force medicate us without consent and without dosage monitoring in any way!!!
    It IS negligent, bordering on criminal behaviour…

    GIVE THE BASTARDS HEAPS!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. There are many articles that cover the dangers of fluoridating drinking water supplies. Here is one for the sceptics.

    Fluoridated Water Can Calcify Arteries

    By Sayer Ji
    WAKE-UP WORLD contributing writer.

    Fluoride is put in your drinking water ‘for your teeth’ without your

    consent, but did you know that it could also be calcifying your

    arteries?

    A few years ago, we reported on a study evaluating a new

    diagnostic technology that inadvertently revealed a link between

    fluoride exposure and coronary artery disease. Our report stirred

    up quite a lot of controversy and criticism, even leading one of the

    most respected figures in alternative medicine (deservedly so) – Dr.

    Russell Blaylock — to call us out on Infowars for our allegedly

    sophomoric interpretation of the following article: “Association of

    vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary

    artery following article disease.”

    As one can see, the study’s results revealed a hitherto largely

    unknown connection between fluoride exposure, coronary artery

    disease and cardiovascular events (e.g. heart attack).

    “There was significant correlation between history of

    cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary

    arteries. The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with

    cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients

    without cardiovascular events.”

    The argument, at the time, was the study was simply about a new

    diagnostic technique and shouldn’t be ‘read into,’ and that,

    presumably, the increased fluoride uptake value observed in

    patients with a higher frequency of cardiovascular events was a an

    ‘effect’ of the heart disease itself and not in any way indicative of

    fluoride’s causative role as a cardiotoxic agent — despite the fact

    that fluoride’s cardiotoxicity has already been consistently

    demonstrated in the biomedical literature.

    Now, a provocative study published in the journal Toxicology not

    only provides some vindication for our previous interpretations, but

    also raises serious concern over the cardiovascular complications

    associated with water fluoridation practices, showing for the first

    time that despite exhibiting an anti-calcification effect in vitro (cell

    model) fluoride exposure at levels found in people who drink

    fluoridated water exhibits artery-calcifying effects in the more

    important in vivo (animal) model.

    Titled, “Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial

    vascular calcification in uremic rats” the study opens with a

    description of the common medical justification for public water

    fluoridation:

    “In order to improve dental health in the population, fluoride is

    included in tooth pastes and mouthwash solutions or is added to

    public water supplies at 0.5–1.5 mg/L (WHO, 2008), which has been a

    common practice in some countries since 1945.”

    And yet, the study acknowledges that fluoride is a well-established

    toxicant that our body has to either incorporate into its tissues or

    excrete through the kidney’s to sequester or eliminate:

    “More than 90% of ingested fluoride is absorbed through the

    intestine and quickly distributed between plasma/soft tissues and

    calcified structures, where it can be sequestered for years (Buzalaf

    and Whitford, 2011). When water is fluoridated at the WHO-

    recommended levels, the range of plasma fluoride concentration is

    usually 1–6 uM (Husdan et al., 1976; Singer and Ophaug, 1979).

    Fluoride is not under homeostatic control, and it is cleared from the

    plasma within few hours by the complementary action of calcified

    tissues and the kidneys.”

    Those with chronic kidney disease have a harder time clearing the

    fluoride, which results in increased blood plasma levels, especially

    as the length of exposure increases.

    The study noted that in healthy people, almost without exception,

    fluoride accumulates in the aorta, and in the elderly can exceed 100

    ug/g [microgram/gram] tissue. Since atherosclerosis involves the

    gradual hardening and final calcification of the arteries with a form

    of calcium known as hydroxylapatite, fluoride’s role in replacing

    hydroxyls within hydroxylapatite crystals to form fluorapatite can be

    considered enhancing the cardiotoxicity of these calcium deposits

    due to the fact that fluorapatite is less soluble than hydroxylapatite

    and therefore more resistant to the body’s demineralization

    mechanisms (or de-calcification with natural substances such as

    magnesium, hawthorn or vitamin K2). The authors address this

    point:

    “From a therapeutic point of view, this incorporation [of fluoride into

    hydroxylapatite as fluorapatite] may involve an additional problem,

    because these calcifications will be more difficult to eliminate, if at

    all possible.”

    The report discussed how despite the observation that fluoride

    accumulates in the main arteries, “the effects on the vascular wall

    are not clear.” A brief review of the literature shows highly

    contradictory results, with some studies implying fluoride exposure

    actually reduces aortic calcification and others showing (as would

    be expected) deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system.

    This uncertainty was one of the main reasons they designed their

    study:

    “The aforementioned divergent findings can be explained by the

    use of different procedures, including very high doses of fluoride,

    the duration of treatment, and the animal species, in addition to

    either an experimental or epidemiological setup. In this work, our

    objective was to clarify the effect of fluoride, if any, on the

    development and course of medial vascular calcification (MVC,

    Mönckeberg’s sclerosis) in uremic rats, using low, recommended

    concentrations in drinking water. Our rationale was that de novo

    calcified tissue in aorta should incorporate fluoride when exposure

    to this halogen is concomitant with the course of calcification, and

    subsequently the rate of calcium phosphate crystallization and/or

    mineralization should be altered, similar to the effects in tooth

    enamel or bone. We used two established experimental models of

    calcification, rat aortic smooth muscle cells incubated with 2 mM Pi,

    and rats with 5/6-nephrectomy [5/6th of their kidneys removed to

    model chronic kidney disease] and fed a Pi-enriched diet [Pi =

    Inorganic phosphate], in combination with low concentrations of

    fluoride (similar to that of public water fluoridation). Our findings

    have shown that the results are inverse depending on the

    experimental model, which highlights the need to carry out in vivo

    approaches when studying complex multifactorial processes, such

    as Mönckeberg’s sclerosis [a type of arterial calcification].”

    The study found a striking contrast between the in vitro (cell model)

    and in vivo (animal model) results: within the former, fluoride

    prevented calcification, within the later, it enhanced medial [middle

    portion of the artery] vascular calcification in the arteries of animals

    whose kidneys were weakened. Keep in mind that they did not use

    ‘mega doses’ of fluoride in the animal study, opting for the

    administration of the World Health Organization’s recommended

    concentration of fluoride in public drinking water to ‘prevent

    cavities.’

    The researchers determined that fluoride’s adverse effects on

    vascular function in the animal model were mediated by the inherent

    kidney-damaging properties of fluoride (nephrotoxicity). Whereas

    healthy individuals are not prone to significant or at least acutely

    discernible damage from low level fluoride exposure (though some

    functional damage and proteomic changes are observed at 5-8

    ppm), those with chronic kidney disease (CKD), have impaired

    fluoride clearance, subsequent elevated plasma fluoride levels,

    which creates a vicious self-perpetuating cycle of fluoride-induced

    aggravation of their decline in kidney function.

    The researchers summarized their main finding as follows:

    “The main conclusion of our study is that CKD is aggravated even

    by low concentrations of fluoride, which in turn accelerates medial

    vascular calcification (MVC), thereby confirming and extending

    previous reports on fluorosis in CKD patients exposed to WHO-

    recommended fluoride concentrations in drinking water (Greenberg

    et al., 1974; Lyaruu et al., 2008).”

    Their final comments are to call for a reappraisal of the

    risks/benefits associated with fluoridation of municipal drinking

    water:

    “In summary, the effects of fluoride on renal function and vascular

    health are more complicated than expected. Our findings could help

    to decide whether the use of fluoride to improve the dental health of

    the population through indiscriminate practices, such as adding it

    to municipal drinking water, should be reconsidered and should be

    replaced by a fluoridation policy based on the health status of

    individuals.”

    It should be noted that fluoride’s association with soft tissue

    calcification also extends to brain structures,
    including the pineal gland, which we documented in a previous

    article: Fluoride: Calcifier of the Soul, and that its neurotoxicity —

    especially as evidenced by lowered I.Q. — is well documented.

    END article on FLUORIDE.

  5. jwillie6 says:

    “It is a waste product of the metal-processing industries, and, because of its toxicity, would cost a huge amount for those companies to dispose of safely.”

    Where’s your evidence for this. Sounds like rubbish! Believe industry had been dumping into oceans or rivers but to go through the effort of processing it to a form suitable for water fluoridation… Nah!

    Education doesn’t ever hurt you. Try it sometime!

  6. The fluoridation study (Slade et al, 1995) on which Anna Bligh’s ALP Government based its claim of effectiveness for water fluoridation found an overall difference – fluoridated Townsville vs non-fluoridated Mackay – of less than one-quarter of one tooth in children aged 6 to 12 years of age.

    Armfield & Spencer (Australia), 2004, found ‘no significant difference between children with a 100% exposure to fluoridated water and children with a 100% non-exposure to fluoridated water.’ Armfield then went on to advocate that fluoride be added to bottled water.

    The largest fluoridated vs non-fluoridated oral health survey conducted in the USA, of more than 37,000 children – aged 5 to 17 years – found an overall average difference of exactly 0.6 of one tooth SURFACE.

    When Bligh’s Government forced fluoridation on Mackay, Queensland, 12-year-olds in the then non-fluoridated Mackay Health Zone had better oral health than their peers in fluoridated Townsville.

    The above results, coupled with forced water fluoridation, carry the stench of corruption.

  7. Fluoride even if you follow the original research it was pretty tenuous, and it only has a possible hardening effect on young children’s tooth enamel – the rest of the population then has to drink this stuff for their lives. It seems obvious that if people are so convinced about the efficacy of poisoning the water supplies with fluoride just subsidize tablets for families with young kids for the same cost-the damned stuff is in all the commercial toothpastes anyway (and read what it says, do not swallow, if swallowed seek medical attention!)
    This is a complete scam, very bad science -we need pure water, no fluoride thanks!

  8. The people of Lismore region are lucky to have Al Oshlack and others who are willing to devote their personal time to trying to keep their water supply free from chemical fluoride.
    I have seen communities across Victoria and NSW have fluoridation forced upon them, one after another over the last ten years. Most communities had a majority of citizens opposing dosing the water supply with the unnecessary chemical. But once it was forced upon each community people by and large gave up actively protesting it. Very understandable – you have a life to get on with.
    But the local councillors of Lismore should be very proud of the protesters continuing to devote their precious time to this cause. The mayor and councillors should do everything in their power to support the cause of stopping the foolish and unwanted fluoridation.
    Fluoridation achieves no useful result (look at all of the countries around the world with low tooth decay rates and no fluoridation) and it can have a nasty impact upon the health of those citizens who are sensitive to the chemical. And that can include many of us.

  9. jwillie seems to be a member of the anti-fluoride rapid response team which bombards news sites with anti-fluoride propaganda often completely unconnected to the new article.

    His claims on the WHO data are easily shown to be completely wrong as described in https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/fluoridation-connetts-naive-used-of-who-data-debunked/

    Simple consideration of the WHO data for Ireland and New Zealand, where data was presented for both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas shows that community water fluoridation is in fact effective.

    His comments on fluorosilicic acid are similarly misleading as water treatment chemicals are well regulated to control for contamination. AS for disposal of this chemical – it commands a higher price on the market for use as a chemical in other industries than it does for the water treatment industry.

  10. It seems my quote from the WHO website has not been ‘Cherrypicked’

     Most recently, efforts have been made to summarize the extensive database through systematic reviews. Such reviews concluded that water fluoridation and use of fluoride toothpastes and mouthrinses significantly reduce the prevalence of dental caries. WHO recommends for public health that every effort must be made to develop affordable fluoridated toothpastes for use in developing countries. Water fluoridation, where technically feasible and culturally acceptable, has substantial advantages in public health; alternatively, fluoridation of salt and milk fluoridation schemes may be considered for prevention of dental caries.

    Now the old acid lie

    Hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation and it has been claimed that incomplete dissociation of these agents in drinking water may result in human exposure to these chemicals. The toxicology of these compounds is incompletely investigated. Recent studies have addressed the equilibrium of the free fluoride ion and fluorosilicate species in aqueous solutions over a wide concentration and pH range. In the pH-range and at the concentrations of hexafluorosilicates/fluoride relevant for drinking water, hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicates to fluoride was rapid and the release of the fluoride ion was essentially complete. Residual fluorosilicate intermediates were not observed by sensitive 19F-NMR.
    Other hydrolysis products of hexafluorosilicate such as Si(OH)4 are rapidly transformed to colloidal silica. Si(OH)4 is present naturally in drinking water in large quantities and is not considered a risk. In summary, these observations suggest that human exposure to fluorosilicates due to the use of hexafluorosilicic acid or hexafluorosilicate for drinking water fluoridation, if any, is very low as fluorosilicates in water are rapidly hydrolyzed to fluoride.”

    Now shall we follow the money

    If you would like to support Fluoride Free NZ and buy a water filter now is your chance.
    $50 from this sale will be going towards Fluoride Free NZ.
    Note: you will need to complete your own due diligence as FFNZ does not endorse any one supplier.
    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1174260539257645&id=128729960477380

    So here we see absolute proof that the Fluoride Action Network is in partnership with the water filter industry They talk the local communities into stopping fluoride [for their own financial gain} and they get a back hander from the pure water filter company
    So its easy to ‘Follow the money’

  11. As for the Hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates commonly used to fluoridate water there are many of us who logically dissent against a non-pharmaceutical grade product being added to the water supply for a therapeutic dental treatment, without having being tested for human consumption and at dosages determined by the amount that we drink.
    When you look at the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and Codes of Practice for water fluoridation and see the allowable levels of poisonous contaminants and heavy metals permitted in these products, there is certainly cause for concern amongst those who do the research.
    That pro-fluoridationists and government bodies refer to ‘fluoride’ in the same context as the naturally occurring form, is misleading the public.
    This disquiet could easily be resolved if the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) followed their own Act and regulations in assessing such products for human ingestion…any product that advertises a therapeutic use, including for ‘the prevention of tooth decay’ is required to be assessed.
    However, whilst they remain in their “don’t seek and you won’t find” mode, it leaves the door wide open for controversy.

  12. Keep up the protests about adding poison to our water and write to your local council and politicians to object. Many countries (including European) have ban fluoridation of water, and many local governments in USA and Australia have stopped the practice. Do your research!!!
    There is a good documentary to watch about Fluoride called “The great culling”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Realistic, local agendas!

On Saturday 4 December we need to vote for people who focus on issues that can be controlled by Council. Candidates claiming they can,...

Coal shame for Queensland and Australian

Local Whitsundays resident Paul Jukes took action this morning against the continued development of the Adani Carmichael Coal Mine.

Wilsons River flood peak and flooding not expected for Tweed, Rouse, Brunswick River catchments

The prediction provided by the Bureau of Meteorology expects that locals around the Wilsons River at Lismore will see the river peak this afternoon at 4.20m. However, ‘Flooding is no longer expected in the Tweed, Rouse, Brunswick River catchments.

Vote for community

From 2007 to 2020, I lived in Byron Bay. I worked as a community-based coastal and marine researcher and writer. I wrote about this...