Page 4550 - Week 15 - Thursday, 22 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The letter goes on to say that there is some thought that that level of cancer - very minor as it was - may have been treatment related in that there was whole body radiography of the rats in order to determine what was happening to their bones. So that is what "equivocal" means. It is not a serious alarm bell that is ringing out.
Is the Department of Health and Human Services worried about this? I have received a copy of a letter from John Bucher who is Head, General Toxicology, Experimental Toxicology Branch, National Toxicology Program. That is a quite complex title, but it seems pretty significant to me. It states:
The results of the sodium fluoride studies will not receive mention in the NTP Sixth Annual Report on Carcinogens because listing in this document typically requires a positive response in carcinogenicity studies with two species of animals.
So, the alarm bells are not being pressed by those people in high places. Mr Stevenson suggested that such was the alarm that two special studies had been developed. Well, I can find no evidence of those studies. He mentions two studies, but nowhere in his letter did he specify precisely what those studies were.
Other information I have says that quite responsibly and sensibly the US working group on toxicology continues to monitor the possible adverse health effects of fluoride. They continue to look at it. So this is the background. The study has been noted. It has been surveyed. There has been found to be no great problem - equivocal results, as I have interpreted from the experts - so we do not need to wait. That is my belief.
In fact, as I read through the material, there is a further report of fluoride experiments with rats. They are rats of a different strain. If we were going to wait for anything, that, I would imagine, would be a more sensible thing to wait for.
I am sorry that this matter came up in the Assembly. It was dealt with in the committee. All of us have worked on committees and many of us still do. I believe that we would take the view that that is where it should be debated.
MR PROWSE (5.49): Mr Deputy Speaker, I as well am dismayed that this has come to pass. It is unfortunate that we can be so blinded by people like the NHMRC who I believe are blatantly and purposely trying to mislead this committee.
Mr Connolly: It is a big conspiracy, David.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .