Page 1501 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
than that of Brisbane. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn is that having fluoride in the water gives a greater improvement. In fact, had these members of the pro-fluoride lobby been fair, had they been scientific in their approach, they would also have presented the statistics for Melbourne. When one compares the statistics for Brisbane and Melbourne one finds that they are basically the same; Melbourne with fluoride in the water, Brisbane without fluoride in the water.
When we look at a comparison of the statistics along those lines, then of course we start to ask ourselves why the pro-fluoride lobby does not wish to present a fair picture in the first place and why we would have a situation where one fluoridated city is in exactly the same position as a non-fluoridated city. What is happening in Canberra? What has been happening since the days, as somebody else commented, when we all had our mouths filled with metal? I will tell members what has been happening. There has been a totally different approach to dental hygiene and dental health care since we were children, from the time we were babies. That is really what has brought about these improved figures, and that is particularly clear from Brisbane.
Many other countries have discontinued using fluoride. Of course, that in itself is not an argument. We have to look at the reasons and find out why. If we look, first of all, at those statistics and say there is no particular reason to have fluoride in the water and then we look at the studies done on possible harm - particularly those by the Dutch physician, Hans Moolenburgh, on hypersensitivity and on people with kidney disease and osteosclerosis - we then need to ask whether it is really worth having fluoride in the water. I particularly draw attention to the fact that Canberra is a city where people commonly have hay fever; there is a large number of people with some hypersensitivity. Dr Moolenburgh's study, which covered a very broad range of people, found that hypersensitive reactions could be explained in terms of the toxic effect of this particular agent.
One must remember that we are talking about a cumulative poison. So when Mr Berry talks about drinking a bathful of water, he must realise that we drink more than a bathful of water in our lives. We have a cumulative poison going into our bodies. So, the older we get, the more likely we are to have problems caused by fluoride. At this stage we have not had fluoride in the water long enough to really assess those problems in Australia, but such studies have been done in India. So, when we look at the statistics and when we look at the situation there, we really should ask ourselves what right we have to keep fluoride in the water. My colleague Dr Kinloch will talk about the civil liberties issue, which is one of the major issues that has influenced the Residents Rally, and I believe we will have a few other comments from Mr Jensen about what the normal medical approach should be when there is any doubt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .