Page 2729 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
here agree with that. I certainly agree with that. I have no doubt about that. The second premise is that excessive fluoride - fluoride in very large quantities, whether naturally or artificially occurring - is potentially dangerous. There is no doubt about that. If you had fluoride at 10 parts per million, or something of that sort - as naturally occurs in a few parts of the world - you can see the problems that are there. So, we are trying to find a point between zero and 7, 8, 9 or 10. Naturally, we would not go that high. So, the aim is to find that level of fluorine additive which gives the maximum protection at minimum risk. There is no perfect figure.
For Mr Stefaniak and me, that figure might well be in excess of one part per million. We can take it, Bill; there is a lot of us. For a baby - especially for a baby, and that is a part of our report that I ask you to look at - an anorexic girl, a very thin and frail aged person, and some of the people we, in fact, have had evidence from, it is not clear what might be the most acceptable dosage. Certainly, a dosage that is right for some people is not right for them. So, what you have to do is find the point which - let me stress it again - gives the maximum protection at minimum risk. As with all drugs, toxic substances or medications, you do not put people at risk if you can possibly avoid doing so.
We have heard recommendations from zero, or 0.0001, in Mr Stevenson's case, to 0.5, to 0.7, to 1.2, or more. What factors, then, relate to deciding on this percentage? First of all, one part per million was the amount in the mid-1960s, and a great deal has happened over the quarter of a century since then. Since then, there have been several changes. There have been dietary changes which have already been mentioned and which are mentioned in our report and in the NHMRC report. There is the question of cumulative intake of fluoride, which is something to consider. Data on that is disputed. Then there is the question already mentioned by Mr Berry, quite rightly, concerning fluoride in dentifrice and what to do about that. I appreciated his comments on that. Another factor is that since the 1960s there have been growing worries about the evidence. To do Mr Prowse justice, he has raised many of those questions, and so has Mr Stevenson.
I am not necessarily raising questions about specific pieces of evidence; but I will quote from the NHMRC working group on the effectiveness of water fluoridation, written earlier this year, after our report came down. This is a draft of the final copy. This is concerned with the nature of the evidence. This is a reason why we should look at the codes within the NHMRC conclusions. This is a very considerable point. On page 110 it states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .