Page 69 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Justice Flaherty said:
The trial brought into my Court experts on the subject of fluoridation, and I meticulously considered the objective evidence. In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary.
Indeed, you would have to review the evidence before you knew that. The dissenting report to the ACT fluoridation inquiry, apart from just ratbags and so-called communist idealists that the chairman was talking about, lists in excess of 1,000 names of scientists opposed to artificial fluoridation; 11 of them Nobel Prize winners.
The submissions received by the inquiry were listed in the front part of this report. However, it did not list whether they were for or against. So, I listed them in the back. There were 141 submissions against artificial fluoridation submitted to the inquiry and only 18 for, and the vast majority of them had a dental connection.
Professor Sir Arthur Amies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University, in 1975 was Dean of the Faculty of Dental Science, and he said:
The case against fluoridation medically requires only such evidence as is necessary to support a reasonable doubt. Where the public's health is concerned no reasonable doubt can be ignored. I submit that the doubt here is more than reasonable; it is considerable.
(Extension of time granted) When experts disagree, the average individual in Canberra wants to know whom they are to believe. When 1,000 people and 11 Nobel Prize winners disagree with a few dentists, et cetera, who have said that it is a good idea - the NHMRC, the ADA and the AMA - whom are they to believe? The words of Dr John Colquhoun put the case well. He said:
If you do not know who to believe, we should not be imposing it compulsorily on the whole population.
On behalf of the people of Canberra, I ask members of this Assembly not to force all Canberrans to take this highly toxic poison daily. I commend that you read, in full, particularly, the dissenting report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .