Page 633 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry asks what the poll shows. Let us have a look. The question was, "The proposal is to double the amount of fluoride added to the ACT water supplies from 0.5 parts per million to one part per million. How should I vote?".
Mr Connolly: You did not tell them that that was the nationally approved standard?
MR STEVENSON: I did not tell them that it causes various other problems either. It would tend to become educative. The total number of people surveyed was 212 and the survey sheets showed that 25.5 per cent were for the proposal. Our telephone poll to check on the others showed 25 per cent. On the survey sheets 51 per cent were against it, and on the telephone poll 29 per cent were against it. "I do not have enough data to make a decision", said 20 per cent on the survey sheets, and 29 per cent on the telephone. "I am not concerned about the issue", said 2.8 per cent on the survey sheets, and 17 per cent in the telephone poll.
Mr Lamont: How many people were surveyed, Dennis?
MR STEVENSON: There were 212 surveyed on that one. It has been over the last few days - - -
Mr Lamont: That is 212 people in Canberra?
MR STEVENSON: In Canberra, yes. Normally, we survey between 600 and 1,000. What this shows is that, while there is not necessarily a large majority against fluoridation, there is certainly a majority against it; but, more importantly, there are many people who do not feel that they have enough information to make a decision. I suggest that we move to adjourn the debate after the in-principle stage and get some more information as to why it should be increased from 0.5 to one part per million.
Look at the dose. We have an interesting situation in that it matters not if you need the fluoride. Is it best to dose people with a particular chemical by including it in the water supply? Is there a better way? If you want to give someone a drug there are a lot of better ways. You go along to a doctor and he gives you a prescription after examining you, after telling you about the side effects, and after taking into account your sex, your age and your weight and determining a precise dosage and how often you should take it. He would never say, "Take it every time you get thirsty". He would never say, "Take it because your kids need it". Doctors would never do that. Of course, they would not be allowed to do that.
Is there anybody against fluoride? We hear that the National Health and Medical Research Council, the AMA and the ADA are for fluoride. I am against fluoride; but, more importantly, I am for freedom of choice. At the inquiry that we had in this Assembly there were 160 submissions and 141 were against fluoridation. Indeed, I also listed at the back of my dissenting report over a thousand doctors, dentists, scientists and medical researchers who were opposed to fluoridation.
Mr Connolly: Living in obscure parts of America.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .