Page 2717 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
dental fluorosis and that they should conduct analytical epidemiological studies of osteosarcoma, in other words, bone cancer. They have not done it; they should conduct it. They recommend that they should evaluate the scientific merit of conducting further animal cancer studies; they should conduct analytical epidemiological studies to determine the relationship, if any, among fluoride intake, fluoride bone levels, diet, body levels of nutrients such as calcium, and bone fractures. So, we are looking at another thing they have not done. This is the world authority on fluoride. We do not do any original research in this country, I might add. None has ever been done, to my knowledge. Yet the body that is supposed to be the be-all and end-all on fluoride information has not done the studies.
It recommends that studies be conducted on the reproductive toxicity of fluoride using various dose levels including the minimally toxic maternal dose. So, it would be looking at the effect on mothers of a minimal dose that is toxic. These studies have not been done, but here are people saying, "It is safe. Let us put it in the water. It is good stuff". It may be good for teeth, and it may be good for bones - I doubt that - but it is certainly not good for soft tissue, and I will repeat that ad infinitum. I seek leave to table the article from the Journal of Dental Medicine.
Leave granted.
MR PROWSE: We have been told in the past that this debate is so technical that mere mortals like members of this Assembly cannot understand it. That is absolute rubbish. There is nothing so technical about the debate on fluoride that every member of the community who can read cannot understand it. It is easily understood because it is all in lay terms. There is no long discussion that is relevant to this debate on the medical terminology and scientific molecular studies of this. We are looking at the basic information that can be presented and represented to all members.
There is a recommendation that there should be funding for research into the hypersensitivity of fluoride. I could not agree more. The World Health Organisation recommends that before fluoride is introduced into the water supply of a community the total intake from all foods and other sources should be established. That has never been done in Australia, let alone the ACT. We keep going back to these peak bodies, such as the NHMRC and the World Health Organisation, and we use them as the reason why we can do these things, but we do not follow their instructions. We have never done a study in Australia as to the source of fluoride in our food and other areas such as air, particularly around furnaces and those sorts of things. So, people who suggest that they know what level is best for us are fooling themselves. They do not fool others who have actually researched this basic topic.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .