Page 2704 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
one part per million in the water. The consideration that one has to have is for the total intake of fluoride. Those dangers are flagged on pages 115 and 116. Point 9.2.7 states:
If, in the light of future health surveillance, there were any future need for a community-wide reduction in long-term exposure to fluoride in adults, this would be best achieved by reduction in the concentration of fluoride in drinking water.
That is from the NHMRC report. Our committee, which met for many, many hours over long periods, was very concerned about this particular level of fluoride. There came that point in our discussions at which - I want to stress this very much - it was not a political compromise. It was not somebody saying, "Let us take half". By contrast - I hope others will speak to this - we are listening to such advice as the following statement which is from a person who is on the NHMRC. Listen to this:
A significant reduction of the fluoride level to between 0.5 and 0.7 ppm, however, would probably result in only a relatively small decrease in protection.
That is from a working paper by Professor Robert M. Douglas and Alison Hill, Fluoridation of public water supplies and public health: an old controversy revisited, June 1990. It is this particular report, emanating from Canberra, I stress, with Canberra circumstances, which especially led us to wonder about the one part per million. I am going to stop here because I want to come back to the other matter later.
MS MAHER (9.13): I rise to speak briefly on this issue. In principle, I support the Electricity and Water (Amendment) Bill 1991, which allows for the permanent addition of fluoride to our water supply. The issue of water fluoridation, as all members are aware, has been a very contentious one. During its inquiry into fluoridation, the Social Policy Committee, of which I am a member, received extensive information on the issue, held public hearings and heard many arguments for and against fluoridation. Subsequently, after long deliberations, the committee made four recommendations, two of which the Government has supported. In my view, the two major recommendations, which the Government has not supported, were: To reduce the level of fluoride in the ACT water supply to the lowest level which would achieve maximum effect, that level being 0.5 parts per million; and the other related to research, which I will comment on later.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the beneficial property of fluoride has been scientifically proven, and I believe that there is sufficient data to substantiate the arguments as to why we should continue to add fluoride to our water supply. The question remains: At what safe and effective level should
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .