Page 2711 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ELECTRICITY AND WATER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
[COGNATE BILL AND STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT:
WATER SUPPLY (CHEMICAL TREATMENT) (REPEAL) BILL 1991
SOCIAL POLICY - STANDING COMMITTEE - REPORT ON WATER FLUORIDATION]
Debate resumed.
MR STEVENSON: The major worldwide improvement in children's teeth in developed countries over the last few decades is a global phenomenon. It has occurred equally in non-fluoridated, as well as artificially fluoridated, areas and was occurring before fluoridation began. There was a 60 per cent reduction in dental caries in Sydney from 1964, I think it was, to 1970. But 58 per cent came before 1968, when Sydney water was fluoridated; 2 per cent came between 1968 and 1970. The suggestion that it was due to fluoride is totally misleading and appalling when you look at the so-called establishment people who use the information.
One of the clearest facts to prove the nonsense of fluoridation is that most children in developed countries have better teeth. Perhaps in excess of 80 per cent of children throughout the world have rather good teeth. When we look at the number of children in the world who receive artificial fluoridation, we understand that it is less than 5 per cent. So, one needs to go no further than that simple fact.
Industrial fluoride waste emissions are major environmental pollutants of the air, water, land, and now our animal and vegetable foods. Artificial water fluoridation greatly increases the existing pollution and human intake levels. Fluoride is not an essential element. Dental caries are not caused by a lack of fluoride. The main cause of tooth decay seems to be the ingestion of too much sugar and refined carbohydrates. Indeed, the only countries in which children's teeth are getting worse are those where they have an increased use and importation of sugar. That is not surprising.
Mr Humphries mentioned earlier that I asked in my report: When experts disagree, who are we to believe? Before people have a chance to look at the compelling arguments against artificial fluoridation, they quite often say, quite reasonably, "Who are we to believe when we have contrary scientific opinions?". (Extension of time granted) Dr Colquhoun explains the answer that Mr Humphries did not give:
... if you do not know who to believe, you should follow your doubt and we should not be imposing it compulsorily on the whole population if ... experts cannot agree among themselves.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .