Page 4548 - Week 15 - Thursday, 22 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On 28 August 1990, Dr William L Marcus, chief toxicologist for the US Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water programme, claimed that the original findings of the NTP study showed the cancer hazard from fluoridated drinking water to be greater than the NTP was telling the public.
That is an absolutely amazing statement from a chief toxicologist with the US Government Environmental Protection Agency. He is saying that the studies that showed cancer were worse than they were stated to be by the national toxicology program.
Also, in September this year, 40 dentists in America, members of the American Dental Association, took legal action against the American Dental Association. It is a class suit and they charged that the association had fraudulently misrepresented the situation of harm from fluoridation. They also included amalgam. Basically they were saying that the association had broken their contract with the dentists and were hiding cancer dangers caused by fluoridation.
Mr Connolly: How many dentists are there in America, Dennis?
MR STEVENSON: They are growing each year, actually. There are more and more all the time. I think this is something we should seriously consider. All that I ask here is that our reporting date be extended from 29 November to 29 April next year. I believe that the initial data showing a cancer potential in the animal study would be enough reason to take the time to look at the result. The fact that Ziegelbecker has shown that there was more, the fact that a chief EPA toxicologist has shown that there was more, and the fact that 40 dentists in America have said that the American Dental Association has been fraudulently misrepresenting the situation, I think, gives us reason to put the reporting date back to early next year.
That reporting date would also allow us the opportunity to do something which we have been waiting for many months to do, namely, to evaluate the report by the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia. They have brought out a second interim report. We were waiting for the report. So perhaps this will give us that opportunity.
I ask members to consider this aspect seriously. The ACT fluoride inquiry will be spoken about all over the world, as the 1968 Tasmanian inquiry and the 1979 Victorian inquiry have been. At the moment ours would be the 1990 ACT inquiry. I suggest that we make it the 1991 ACT inquiry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .