Questions (and information) for Councillors of the Gympie Region


GENRE: Email letter

TITLE: Questions (and information) for Councillors of the Gympie Region

AUTHOR: AFAM Research

DATE SENT: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:14 AM

STATUS: Waiting response

FURTHER READING: The Case Against Fluoride (Connett, Beck, Micklem)(2010)

To: mayor@gympie.qld.gov.au

Cc: crmarkmcdonald@gmail.comcrraegate@gmail.com

crianpetersen@gmail.comcrwaynesachs@gmail.com,  

crlarryfriske@gmail.comcrtonyperrett@gmail.com

crmickcurran@gmail.comcrjuliewalker@gmail.com

Profiles: http://www.gympie.qld.gov.au/categoryholder.asp?CategoryID=6

Dear Councillors of the Gympie Region,

On Nov 29, 2012, Cr Tony Perrett said, in relation to fluoridation of water, “That’s why we need to make certain we have all the facts and figures, that we don’t run on emotion on these sorts of things, that we do make rational decisions.”

If this is a genuine statement, then we assume that Council will have no objection to reading the book, The Case Against Fluoride by Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. Spedding Micklem. According to one expert review:

“The authors have produced a well-researched, cogently argued, and very readable text that summarises historical, political, ethical, toxicological, and epidemiological scientific data behind drinking water fluoridation… The text is approachable by non-scientists and specialists, although an extensive technical bibliography is provided for those who wish to delve deeper.”

If time or cost is an issue, Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation is another option. FREE to view online, this film features a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, three scientists from the National Research Council’s landmark review on fluoride, as well as dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field. This professionally-produced feature presents a powerful indictment of the water fluoridation program.

In the ABC article, linked above, in which Cr Perrett is quoted, we read, “Councillors overwhelmingly decided not to support his motion and voted to seek advice from health experts.” We would strongly warn Council about the “experts” from which they plan to seek advice. Any “expert” who “assures” council of the “safety” and “effectiveness” of fluoridation, should be asked questions such as those below (and Council should ask itself these questions too):

1) How convincing is the evidence that Council has a dental crisis that would warrant this kind of intervention?

2) How convincing is the evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces dental decay?

3) Is swallowing fluoride the best way of protecting the tooth enamel? Are there more appropriate delivery systems?

4) Have other communities demonstrated alternative methods of fighting tooth decay, which do not involve forcing a practice on people who may not want it?

5) Are children in the community already exceeding the “optimal dose” of fluoride as hypothesized by early promoters of fluoridation?

6) If ingested fluoride is necessary to protect children’s teeth can the Council explain why it is that the level of fluoride is so low in mothers’ milk (0.004 ppm)? Did evolution screw up on the baby’s first meal and nutritional requirements?

7) What is the evidence that has convinced you, or the experts upon whom you rely, that this program can be applied without causing any damage to the health of your citizens, especially infants and young children, other than an increase in the incidence of dental fluorosis?

8) What is the evidence that has convinced you, or the experts upon whom you rely, that a bottle fed infant will suffer no damage to its growing tissues when exposed to fluids containing fluoride at levels 250 times higher than the level in mothers milk (1 ppm versus 0.004 ppm)?

9) What is the evidence that has convinced you, or the experts upon whom you rely, that fluoride can damage the growing tooth cells (by some systemic mechanism) without damaging any other tissue in the child’s developing body? How convincing is this evidence?

10) What is the evidence that has convinced you, or the experts upon whom you rely, that no one in your community is particularly sensitive or vulnerable to fluoride’s known toxic effects? How convincing is this evidence?

11) Do you dispute the fact that fluoride – given in a sufficient dose – can cause a whole range of health effects from the very mild to the very serious? Do you dispute the fact that this has been demonstrated in hundreds of studies from India, China and other countries and communities that are exposed to high levels of natural fluoride in their water?

12) Please present a discussion of what is meant by “Margin of safety” for a toxic substance or “therapeutic index” for a pharmaceutical substance.

13) In your view, and the view of the experts on whom you rely, is there an adequate margin of safety between the doses or levels reported to cause adverse effects in the National Research Council (NRC, 2006) report, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” and the doses that people are likely to receive drinking fluoridated water (together with fluoride from other sources like dental products, pesticides etc) sufficient to protect everyone in your community?

14) There have now been 36 studies from 4 different countries (Iran, India, Mexico and China) that report an association between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children. What evidence has convinced you that all 36 studies can be safely ignored as suggested by fluoridation promoters in Queensland and elsewhere, and have they produced a written scientific analysis supporting this claim?

15) What peer-reviewed and PRIMARY published studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have examined a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in fluoridated communities and convinced you that this is not a problem?

16) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have examined a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and lowered thyroid function (including sub-clinical hypothyroidism) in fluoridated communities and convinced you that this is not a problem?

17) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have compared the levels of fluoride in the pineal glands of people living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities and convinced you that this is not a problem?

18) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have examined a possible relationship between a) fluoride exposure and melatonin levels and b) fluoride exposure and an earlier onset of puberty among children in fluoridated communities and convinced you that this is not a problem?

19) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have examined a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and bone fractures in children in fluoridated communities and convinced you that this is not a problem?

20) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have examined a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and arthritis in fluoridated communities and convinced you that this is not a problem?

21) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have convinced you that lifelong consumption of fluoridated water along with other sources of fluoride will not weaken the bones of the elderly and cause an increased rate of hip fractures, in fluoridated communities?

22) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have examined a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in fluoridated communities, and convinced you that this is not a problem?

23) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have used the severity of dental fluorosis as a biomarker for epidemiological studies on children in fluoridated communities?

24) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have surveyed the population in Australia or any other fluoridated country, in a comprehensive fashion for the level of fluoride in their bones as a function of age, fluoridation status and other variables?

25) What peer-reviewed and published PRIMARY studies can you, or the experts on whom you rely, cite which have surveyed the population in Australia or any other fluoridated country, in a comprehensive fashion for the level of fluoride in their urine, as a function of age, diet, fluoridation status and other variables?

26) Are you satisfied that over the 60 year history of fluoridation that sufficient effort has been made by the governments, which promote this practice, to investigate possible health effects (in tissues other than the teeth) in fluoridated communities?

27) If this program moves forward are any health studies planned for the local community?

28) If this program moves forward will any compensation be given to children who develop very mild, mild, moderate or severe dental fluorosis? Will they be provided with free treatment for these conditions if desired?

29) If this program moves forward and some citizens complain of reversible symptoms, which elsewhere have been identified as being caused by fluoride (i.e. they cease when the source of fluoride is removed), will any steps be taken to investigate the matter scientifically?

30) Please discuss what you understand by the Precautionary Principle. Do you believe that in the context of the current scientific uncertainties about fluoridation’s effectiveness and safety, and the availability of alternatives, that fluoridation is consistent with the Precautionary Principle?

31) Normally governments (including Councils!) only use their police power to enforce medication on people when they are dealing with a life threatening contagious disease. Do you believe that this is the situation that confronts Gympie with respect to current dental decay levels?

32) Bearing in mind your responses to all of the above, are you convinced that the evidence of benefit from this practice is so strong, and the evidence of harm so weak, that it merits the application of governmental (or Council) police power to force this practice on your citizens regardless of their views on the matter?

33) Could you summarize the evidence that has convinced you that there are no extra problems associated with using hexafluorosilicic acid (an industrial waste product) as a fluoridating chemical as opposed to pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride?

34) If you are convinced that children’s teeth in Gympie will benefit from ingesting fluoridated water please compare these two delivery systems: 1) adding contaminated hexafluorosilicic acid to the public water supply and 2) making fluoridated bottled water available in local supermarkets and chemists, and free for families of low income.

35) Are you prepared to do the whole community what an individual doctor is not allowed to do his or her individual patients: i.e. override the individual’s right to informed consent to medication?

SOURCE (adapted questions)

We hope Council will consider all the issues raised above, and hold fluoridation promoters’ feet to the fire accordingly. Council should also consider that, even though the State Government has apparently relinquished power on this issue, what gives Council the right to medicate its people, if it so chooses?

We are available for further questions/information.

Sincerely,

AFAM Research Division
afamildura.wordpress.com

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s