Page 1504 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Examination of scientific literature confirms previous recommendations by Council concerning the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation of water. Allegations which have been made from time to time concerning particularly skeletal fluorosis, carcinogenicity, congenital abnormalities, interference with enzyme function, adverse effects on renal function, allergies and hypersensitivity and mutagenicity are not supported by scientific evidence.
Mr Prowse: Please turn to page 6 of the same document. There is a contradiction - - -
MR WOOD: I have read the full document. You will have your say. Now, there are any number of scientific references. Look at the national oral health survey which points out clearly the benefits that Canberra children have derived from the use of fluoride in the water. I do understand why there is so much emotion about this. I do understand that some people feel that we should not have this mass medication and I will make some reference to that shortly. But as a result of that emotional input I think there are a lot of misconceptions spread around about fluoridation. Let me correct some of those briefly in passing. Fluoridation was not discovered in a laboratory but is simply mimicking nature. All water supplies contain fluoride as a result of water running over soils and rocks prior to reaching the point of consumption.
Mr Prowse: There is also some strontium-90.
MR WOOD: There is a whole host of stuff. Some water supplies have too little fluoride to ensure adequate protection. Fluoridation is not pollution, as it is a natural constituent of all water supplies. Fluoridation is not mass medication, as it is a preventive dental measure. Fluoride used in water fluoridation does not come from the aluminium industry.
I want to make some reference to the concerns that people have about mass medication. On the surface there is some appearance of validity in that claim because it is putting into water something that we all have to take in. But have a look around. We have already mass inoculation of our young children. There is no parent in this community who would deny their much loved young child, or children, the protection that is afforded through the inoculations that are available.
It was not so long ago that we had a mass anti-TB campaign when we were all required to be X-rayed. That is not so any more. Why not? Because it has been proved successful. TB has been substantially eradicated. That is why it is not so any more. What would happen if we suddenly found a cure for or an inoculation to prevent AIDS? Would we not all race to that mass medication?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .