An Open Letter to Cabonne Council – RE: Proposed Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies

Leave a comment

ATTN:
Mayor Ian Gosper
Deputy Mayor Lachie MacSmith
Councillors and Staff
Cabonne Council, NSW

I write to you in response to a disturbing, yet typical article, which appeared in the Central Western Daily on June 19th, 2014 [1]. In this article, it is confirmed that your council is currently under direct pressure from the pro-fluoridation lobby to approve the fluoridation of drinking water supplies on behalf of your community.

Here is what you are NOT being told by the pro-fluoridation lobby; and also, here are some questions for you to consider…

1. Once you fluoridate the public water supply, how will you obtain the informed consent [2] of those receiving the treatment [3]?

2. Once you fluoridate the public water supply, you may be able to control the concentration of fluoride in the water supply, but you will not be able to control the dose people receive. This will depend on how much water they consume [4] [5] and how much fluoride they receive from other sources [6]. Consider the following:

“The major dietary source of fluoride for most people… is fluoridated municipal (community) drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared at home or in restaurants from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and processed foods originating from fluoridated municipalities” [7].

In other words, by adding fluoride to your water supply, you will be increasing the level of systemic exposure across your entire population. There is no way you can control or monitor the doses received. The question is, will you take full legal responsibility for the doses (and potential health effects, long or short term) received? Furthermore, will your council pay for and organise regular health monitoring – i.e. primary health studies [8] – of your community over the lifespan of the fluoridation program? Again, consider the following:

“Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups” [9].

3. Considering #2 (above), how will you establish an adequate margin of safety [10] to protect your entire population from any potential negative health effects [11]?

4. Perhaps you should be made aware that – despite the deliberately misleading implications of Dr Shanti Sivaneswaran and Anthony Brown in the Central Western Daily – tooth decay rates have fallen in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated nations over the past few decades [12] and that:

“This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt” [13].

In fact, do you even know how many advanced nations do not fluoridate water supplies and do you know they have just as good or even better teeth than ours [14] [15]?

5. Perhaps the pro-fluoridation lobby also failed to mention to your council that – after an examination of the international fluoridation literature – a research team from the University of York concluded as follows:

“We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” [16].

The quality of evidence behind fluoridation is a well-known problem [17], but you won’t hear about it from the pro-fluoridation lobby.

In summary, by this time, surely you must be “smelling a rat” in relation to the zealous claims put to you by the pro-fluoridation lobby – or as they seem to regularly reveal themselves – the “pro-fluoridation mafia.” Perhaps it is most telling to examine their behaviour with councils in the past who have refused their demands and intimidation tactics [18].

Regardless, the least your council can do now is do more research into the arguments against fluoridation:

https://afamildura.wordpress.com/basics/

And in conclusion, you now have no excuse – i.e. from the receipt of this open letter – to be ignorant of the detailed arguments against fluoridation and the many questions surrounding the practice [19]. Therefore, any ethical or legal ramifications that may arise in the future, if you choose to crumble to the pro-fluoridation mafia and subsequently fluoridate your community’s water supplies, will rest upon your shoulders as an organisation and as individuals. Be warned.

Sincerely,

The Administrator
AFAM Research Division
afamildura.wordpress.com

Advertisements

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s