Copy of a Letter to All Queensland Parliamentarians
Brisbane 8 February 2005
Dear Member of Parliament,
In January I received a letter from John-Paul Langbroek, dated 20 January, to let me know that the Queensland Liberal Party had released a ‘Private Members’ Bill to fluoridate all of Queensland’s public water supplies.
In this letter he stated that many false claims and mistruths were pedaled by anti-fluoridation advocates. This was followed by a number of these perceived false claims. I shall only respond in so far as they concern my earlier quite extensive submission to the Members of Parliament in August/September last year, which you can now find on the Web under www.rag.org.au
To refresh your memory let my repeat the main claims this anti-fluoridation advocate made.
1 Fluoride is a potent poison
2 Over time fluoride accumulates inside your body
3 This accumulation leads to many adverse health effects
4 Promotional research using anonymous teeth always found those enormous benefits of water fluoridation
5 Genuine research found that there is hardly any evidence of a beneficial effect of fluoridation, as people of comparable socioeconomic background in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas have well near the same rate of dental decay
6 There is also research which shows that more fluoride in water gives more tooth decay, not less
7 Most European countries have tried it, monitored it, found it wanting and have tossed it out
8 In Sweden the reaction of the Parliament was, after been told of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence (around 30 000 studies) showing the benefits of water fluoridation: show us. And it turned out that these studies did not exist.
So, the Queensland Liberal Party which also believes in this overwhelming body of scientific evidence, blah, blah, blah, is not really basing its beliefs on scientific evidence. They are stating a promoted belief and that is all there is to it.
The most astonishing claim made by the Qld Liberals was, that fluoride is not toxic. This claim may well become the Queensland flat earth statement of the year. All my paraphrasing and summarising of the scientific literature was referenced. So, it can be traced and perused. But on what is this loose claim of the Qld Liberals based? Nonetheless I include here a few photocopies of source material showing the toxicity of fluoride. What more do I need to convince you that I did not make things up?
The first one is the Merck Index. Merck, by the way is a major supplier of laboratory chemicals. The Merck Index is not known for pedaling misinformation, on the contrary. It states among others: ‘caution: severe symptoms have occurred of less than 1 gram; death from 5 to 10 gram.’ In other words fluoride is dangerous at low concentrations. And this is characteristic of a poison. So, the Qld Liberals waffling on that many substances like chlorine, iodine, iron, salt, vitamins A & D, antibiotics, painkillers and oxygen can be dangerous at very high levels are missing the point totally.
Equally irrelevant is the assertion that fluoride is a naturally occurring substance, suggesting that therefore it must be non-toxic. There are quite a few naturally occurring substances that are very toxic. A well known one is arsenic. Also, aluminium has been associated for quite a few years by now with Alzheimer’s disease. In India there are areas with such a high level of natural fluoride in the soil that it must be taken out of the water, because of its toxicity. If fluoride were non-toxic they would not bother.
Also, anti-fluoridation advocates do not oppose fluoridation, because fluoride is a by-product of industry (one of the Qld Liberal’s claims), but because it is a toxic waste product of industry.
Another claim made by the Qld Liberals is that there is no support to the claims that fluoridation has causative and detrimental health effects on such things as bone and joint strength. They argue their case by stating that in that case it could be expected that the incidences of such conditions would be lower in Queensland than in other States and Territories. And then, wait for it, they state that this is not the case.
Well, how do they know? The only way to find this out is to research the issue carefully and compare many people over many years and make sure that only comparable people participate. This research has not been done here in Australia. So, for Australia we don’t know. But overseas research shows that these effects from prolonged exposure to fluoride intake do occur. Should this amaze us? Not really. Remember, fluoride accumulates inside your body. We are in this respect not different from those fish swimming in water with a low mercury level. Over time the fish accumulate so much mercury that they become dangerous to eat. In the same way, our internal fluoride levels increase over time, hence these side effects.
The many side effects of ongoing fluoride intake are well documented in the scientific journal Fluoride. As a politician you might not have appreciated what a peer reviewed scientific journal actually is. Such a journal publishes research reports, which are written by the scientists who did the research. The regular pattern of a research report is as follows: an introduction that states what this research is about; a section on the used materials and methods; a section on the findings; and a final discussion of these findings. So, the names you found under my summaries of research reports in the journal Fluoride were the names of research scientists. They were not the names of staff members of the journal Fluoride.
Peer review comes in when other scientists write in to Fluoride to support the findings of a particular research or to question these findings. So, you can get at times a lively discussion. And this is all published in that journal. Now, if researchers all over the world find adverse effects from ingesting fluoride over a prolonged time as published in Fluoride, then heck who are those Qld Liberals to question that and to disparage this? And what are their motivations for doing this?
The adverse effect specifically named by John-Paul Langbroek for which he claims there is no support whatsoever is bone and joint strength. Apart from the summarised research in the info-bundle from August/September, I have included here a photocopy on industrial fluorosis. This time fluoride entered the body by inhaling fluoride in gas form. And the effects? Read it for yourself.
Another photocopied item is from a Handbook of Poisoning, written by a professor in pharmacology. Anyone game to dispute the knowledge of a professor in pharmacology on fluoride toxicity? You find here the term ‘neutral fluoride.’ This is a fluoride without an H-group or OH-group. This is the case with sodium fluoride. Therefore sodium fluoride is a neutral fluoride. The entry of this Handbook of Poisoning covers ingested and inhaled fluoride.
It is well known to people familiar with the fluoride issue, how misinformed doctors and dentists are themselves. So, if now to bolster the Liberal Party campaign to force poison in our drinking water, they advise their patients to ask for water fluoridation, you will get all these enthusiastic people asking for this. May I suggest that as their local Member for Parliament, you contact them with the question whether they really want poison in their drinking water and direct them to the relevant Web sites for the correct information. By not doing this, you would become part of a misinformation campaign.
The info-bundle you earlier received is on the Internet. Go to www.rag.org.au and under the section fluoride you find it. I also recommend you have a good look at www.fluoridealert.org . It will give you an additional perspective on the issue. The article from The Courier-Mail from last year comes from this Web site. I have it included here in case you missed it. Also included is an open letter from prominent Australians on water fluoridation.
Another issue comes in here as well: the issue of bribing. It is well known that big business tries this tactic in getting its way. And of course politicians are fair game. So, if you have been approached, think again. If one day it becomes clear that you knowingly have legislated poison in our drinking water, you could find yourself in court. Dragged in by your own constituents and sued for unspecified damage. There is a wealth of scientific evidence to back this up. The side effects included in the info-bundle from August/September is only a selection from what is available.
The next issue is of course when do we see a Private Members’ Bill to ban water fluoridation from the State of Queensland? Would this be so out of step? Far from it: in Canada the State of Quebec outlawed water fluoridation many, many years ago and this has also happened in many countries in Europe.
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
as a community service.