Debate from NSW Department of Health
The Acting Manager, Mr John Skinner, of the Centre for Oral Health Strategy NSW responded (11 July 2005) to a representation by Federal Member Tony Windsor M.P. on my behalf (H. Julius) to the NSW Department of Health re. water fluoridation by making a number of points.
1 "Fluoride is an inorganic and naturally occurring element in most drinking water supplies. The concentration of fluoride depends on the type of soil and rock through which the water drains."
This is correct, no disputation here
2 "The National Health and Medical Research Council recommends that natural occurring levels of fluoride be adjusted to one part per million (1mg/l) in order to effectively prevent dental decay."
It is correct that this is recommended by the NHMRC, but it is misguided. Why? Because it does not take into account that fluoride is highly toxic and accumulates over time inside your body. Because of this accumulation the internal environment of your body becomes more and more toxic while time goes by and when you get older you pay the price with all kinds of health problems.
Because of fluoride's toxicity it is obvious that fluoride should not be put in drinking water. If you think that fluoride is helpful in preventing dental decay, then a topical application (tooth paste) is a more effective way to get fluoride to your teeth than fluoride in drinking water.
3 "The fluoridation of public water supplies has been recognised by the World Health Organisation as one of the most significant public health successes of the last century. Water fluoridation has proved to be the most cost effective public dental health measure since its introduction in Australia in the 1960's as it benefits the community."
This is a mere belief and now the views of the World Health Organisation are changing. The Open Letter from prominent people on this website, released 31 Aug 2004 refers to the WHO as follows: "Data compiled by the WHO shows tooth decay has declined at a similar rate in all Western countries, irrespective of each country's water or salt fluoridation status."
4 "Communities have been receiving the benefits of adjusted levels of fluoride since 1945 with 89% of the NSW population receiving these benefits."
No disputation here
5 "Children living in un-fluoridated areas have higher decay rates than similar children living in neighbouring fluoridated areas."
Research comparing like with like shows that this is not the case. Comparing like with like means that you take into consideration the socioeconomic background of the children. It turns out that the socioeconomic background makes the real difference. Children from poorer suburbs have less oral health than children from better suburbs. This has to do with teaching children to clean and brush their teeth daily.
6 "The water fluoridation program has strictly adhered to the provisions of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957, which was passed with support from all political parties. It is worth noting that all health ministers in Australia signified their endorsement of water fluoridation in July 2004".
This is not an argument for or against water fluoridation. It is reporting the actions of misinformed bureaucrats and politicians.
7 In addition, the NSW Government has a commitment to fluoridation of public water supplies as a proven public oral health measure and is currently developing a three year State-wide Fluoridation Strategy via the Centre for Oral Health Strategy, NSW. This strategy will target all communities with a population of over a 1000 people with an oral health promotion strategy that includes water fluoridation as a key component. The NSW Department of Health will continue to utilise the current legislation and strategies in place to evaluate the success of these strategies on a regular basis."
This too is not an argument about the merits of water fluoridation, it is reporting on commitment and actions assuming that water fluoridation has any merit.
8 It is further stated that, "European countries have not banned water fluoridation."
This is incorrect, in my former country, The Netherlands, water fluoridation was banned by Royal Decree in 1976 after it had been introduced in 1972/3. Most other West European countries banned fluoridation in the 1970s after extensive research and public debate.
The statement continued, 'In some countries it (fluoridation) is not practical, because their very complex water systems are without a single central point that could be fluoridated'.
This may well be the case, but this is not the reason why fluoridation was prohibited in many countries.
9 "The Centre for Oral Health Strategy NSW is also developing a use of fluorides policy and is co-sponsoring a National Workshop on the Use of Fluorides in Australia, in Adelaide in October 2005."
This again is not an argument for or against water fluoridation. It is reporting actions by the clearly misinformed Centre for Oral Health Strategy NSW
This page is maintained by
The Rivermouth Action Group Inc
as a community service.
E-mail: activist@rag.org.au