WHAT IS THE NSW EXPERIENCE WITH FLUORIDATION? WHERE IS THE PROOF?
According to Cr Lisa Intemann's (Member Hastings Council) submission No. 89 to the NSW Standing Committee on Public Works Parliamentary Inquiry into Coast Infrastructure (May 2005):
There is Australian evidence that fluoridation does not lead to lower rates of tooth decay:
• the latest Australian dental survey by Adelaide University reports NO significant difference in decay rates in the permanent teeth of children drinking fluoridated compared to unfluoridated water. Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. (2004) Consumption of nonpublic water: implications for children¹s caries experience. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 32:283-296 p283.
• The latest Child Dental Health Survey NSW 2000(2003) reports that the largely unfluoridated Mid North Coast Health Region has LOWER rates of decay in children’s permanent teeth than four out of the five Sydney Health Regions and many fluoridated Regions of NSW.
• Save Our Kids Smiles (SOKS) 2004 data shows that the unfluoridated Hastings and Kempsey in the Mid North Coast have LOWER rates of decay in children’s permanent teeth than neighbouring Nambucca (fluoridated since 1963).
• 100% fluoridated areas such as Sydney are not reporting the decline of tooth decay but rather are experiencing a decay crisis (SMH 15-02-05 page 1 etc and 16-02-05)...
AND, she also said:
The only reason that the toxin fluoride is added to water supplies is on the pre-text of reducing tooth decay. Because of this pre-text fluoride has never been properly examined for its corrosive and negative effects on infrastructure pipes and fittings and on the environment in general.
The only way that fluoridation can be presented as a ‘cost-effective’ measure is by failing to measure or monitor any of its likely negative effects. It is NOT the case that fluoridation is well researched and monitored. Please see the attached letter from the NHMRC in which it is reported that ALL the planned
fluoridation health and safety studies were stopped in 2002 by the Australian Health Administration Corporation on the grounds of 'insufficient resources'. As these were to be the first such Australian studies it can now be said with assurance that Australia is practising fluoridation without benefit of even the most basic and highly recommended health studies.
It is NOT the case that any legitimate health authority gives unqualified support to fluoridation. Fluoride promoters quote the least (to them) challenging of statements but neglect to mention the provisos that are actually attached to the comments of the health authorities.
For instance the WHO states quite clearly in their Drinking Water guidlelines and their Fluoridation Technical Reports that fluoridation should be preceeded by an accurate measurement of people’s actual daily fluoride intake from all sources such as food and medication before adding fluoride through the water supply.
SOURCE: WHO ‘Drinking Water Guidelines’(present and all past editions): Fluoride <1.5ppm Climatic conditions, volume of water consumed, and intake from other sources should be considered when setting national standards.
Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention, and the cost-effectiveness of such programs should be carefully considered.” WHO (1994). Fluorides and Oral Health. WHO Technical Report Series 846.
The same recommendations are made by the Australian National Heath and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in their reports of both 1991 and 1999. In 1999 the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council repeated its findings from eight years earlier in saying: In view of the classification of fluoride as an ‘equivocal’ carcinogen in high dosage, they (NHMRC 1991) felt it was imperative that public health recommendations in the future be based on accurate knowledge of the total fluoride intake of Australians … (Unfortunately) No Australian reports were available which would have permitted the Working Group to precisely estimate the current intake of fluoride which various individuals are ingesting,
nor the differential amount of fluoride which is being stored in Australian skeletons. (NHMRC1999:Ch8).
[This statement has recently been downgraded to say that “fluoride is an equivocal carcinogen in rats” but please note that clinical researchers suggest that humans are MORE not less susceptible to fluoride toxicity than rats or mice.]
FULL DOCUMENT LINK http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/Committee.nsf/0/a693e621363b9b26ca25704200157752/$FILE/ATTD037T/89%20Lisa%20Intermann.pdf
