Attn: Mayor Comerford – NOTICE Re: decision to fluoridate (medicate) Mackay

TO: Mayor Comerford , Mackay QLD


DATE SENT:  Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:14 PM

TITLE:   Attn: Mayor Comerford – NOTICE Re: decision to fluoridate (medicate) Mackay

STATUS: No response.

UPDATES: Please place any updates into the COMMENTS section below

ATTACHMENTS: 5 x attachments below letter


Dear Mayor Comerford                                            (OPEN LETTER)

I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that you have been very misguided in your decision to fluoridate Mackay.  However there is still time for Council to change its mind to protect the health of your citizens before you add a chemical industrial grade poison to the water supply with the intention of PROPHYLACTIC MEDICATION of all individuals, whether they need it or not.

Please NOTE the following:

1)  Fluoridation and its chemicals are neither regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration nor NICNAS.  We therefore have no regulating agencies in Australia checking for health and safety of this process in the community.  This is despite the NHMRC recommending that further studies be carried out in relation to people with kidney disease who can retain three times the level of fluoride as an average adult (NHMRC document attached from FOI re kidney disease and fluoridation).

2)  The Queensland state government and health department, along with the industry dental lobby (ADA), are only ‘promoters’ of fluoridation, however they cannot guarantee your legal liability in a class action (or criminal act) of overdosing certain population subgroups that may be fluoride hypersensitive and can tolerate much less fluoride than the average person.  In such cases Council is responsible as the ‘doser’ of the medication (maker, supplier and administering agent) of the fluoride water medication, and is thus liable for any health damage that results from over-consumption of this medication.  Such class actions are already underway in USA, UK and Ireland.  Councils cannot rely on any guarantees offered by the ‘promoters’ – as is explained in the attached legal analysis “Water Fluoridation is Mass Medication”.

3)  Europe is almost fluoridation -free (98%).  I have attached an official position statement from Germany summarising the main reasons why it is not fluoridating its citizens.  These are the same reason why Australia should not be fluoridating its citizens.

4)  It is unethical to fluoridate a community en masse because you cannot control the dose every person gets, and you cannot monitor the health consequences of overdose.  Fluoride is a poison and it is inarguable that 2mg per day is a toxic dose that can cause the disease of fluorosis (as per World Health Organisation documents).   1ppm concentration gives you 1mg of fluoride if you only consume one litre of fluoride water product.  If you consume 2 litres, you will receive 2mg.  Many people consume much more than this – especially when you consider that other beverages made with fluoridated water will also contain significant levels of fluoride (eg  .7ppm in reconstituted fruit juice).  Once you dose the main water supply with fluoride it becomes ubiquitous in the food supply and people cannot escape it: They cannot protect against potential fluoride overdose.  In other words, Council would be putting people in a position of forced medication whether they needed the medication or not, and without proper medical supervision.  This is a moral and ethical abomination because people must have water to drink to survive.  We may be able to exercise choice by not consuming beverages made with fluoridated water, but most people cannot afford the very expensive reverse osmosis filters which can remove fluoride from tap water.  This is especially the case with the elderly and poorer sectors of the population.  This makes fluoridation also discriminatory against the poor, defenceless and the sick.

Regarding the ethical issues raised I attach the legal analysis by David Shaw, “Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth: The legal fiction of water” published in the journal Medical Law International, as well as the report published by Professor Niyi Awofeso (University WA) “Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia.”

5)  As fluoride has the propensity to bind with heavy metals, and as Mackay’s populations and environment may be more susceptible to heavy metals exposure due to mining, the synergistic effect of metallic fluoride compounds (eg aluminium-fluoride and lead-fluoride) exponentially increases the toxicity of fluoride.  See:  and
“Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity” …study review:
“Fluoride and Aluminium: Possible Risk Factors in Etiopathogenesis of Autism Spectrum Disorders”
“Aluminium contamination from fluoride assisted dissolution of metallic aluminium
“Fluoride Interactions: From Molecules to Disease”  … Fluoride has long been known to influence the activity of various enzymes in vitro. Later it has been demonstrated that many effects primarily attributed to fluoride are caused by synergistic action of fluoride plus aluminum. Aluminofluoride complexes have been widely used as analogues of phosphate groups to study phosphoryl transfer reactions and heterotrimeric G proteins involvement. A number of reports on their use have appeared, with far-reaching consequences for our understanding of fundamental biological processes. Fluoride plus aluminum send false messages, which are amplified by processes of signal transduction. Many investigations of the longterm administration of fluoride to laboratory animals have demonstrated that fluoride and aluminofluoride complexes can elicit impairment of homeostasis, growth, development, cognition, and behavior.

6)  Environmental considerations have been ignored, as 99% of the fluoridated water flows out to the environment.  Where is your Environmental Impact Study?,%20Environmental%20Impact%20and%20Legal%20Implications%20of%20Water%20Fluoridation_February%202012_EnviroManagement%20Services.pdf


1)  In view of the above information, do you think it is acceptable to cause adverse health effects in some sectors of the population that may receive fluoride overdose, for the benefit of another part of the population (ie. perceived caries benefit of children forming teeth)?

2)  How much adverse health effect from overdose is acceptable and how much isn’t for the ‘greater good’ as perceived by mass medication via the water supply?

3)  If you were to be diagnosed with kidney disease and therefore could not tolerate any fluoride due to excess accumulation, and if you could not afford a reverse osmosis filter, would you decide against fluoridation? Or would you decide to risk kidney poisoning for the sake of a child’s caries prophylaxis that may be eating too much sugar and not brushing or flossing?

4) Do you intend to undertake an Environmental Impact Study regarding toxicity of fluoridation exposures and metals synergy?

I trust these attachments are sufficiently well referenced and credible sources for you.  However, if you need more I can supply from a vast range of scientific fluoridation research in the areas of toxicology.

Yours sincerely

Sandy S


Awofeso – Public Health Ethics


Shaw 2012 Weeping and Wailing

Water Fluoridation as Mass Medication – Doug Cross



Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s