Fluoride in perspective
The proponents of fluoridated water are trying to invalidate the opposition to fluoridation.
It's time to put the debate in perspective. Perhaps it makes sense that dentists are concerned with teeth rather than with overall health. Perhaps it suits legislators to slip fluoride into tap-water to set a precedent for introducing widespread medication of their electors.
So we have fluoride on one side, and a valuable raft of events on the other - toothbrushes, toothpaste, dental floss, better trained dentists with far more sophisticated equipment and choices other than amalgam, extraction and laughing gas.
The critical event may just have been the widespread teaching of dental care in preschools and schools. Dental hygiene and awareness have improved greatly in the last 85 years,
Fluoride in drinking water causes discoloration of teeth for some people, and if there is a slight crack in a tooth fluoride can enter and gradually eat away the tooth's pulp.
While dosing at the water plant may be low, there is an accumulation throughout the day - it's in many toothpastes; in the water we use in soups and stew and we wash our vegetables in; it will be added to the soil whenever we water our plants; it is in commercial vegetables that use town water; and any food animals will have it in their bodies. So the dosage is way higher for those who live with fluoride in their water.
The fluoride that is added to water supplies comes from mining waste. It is a neurotoxin. The chemical compound being used has other neurotoxins in it as well.
So hooray for Dr Maria Claudianos. I wonder if most dentists are too busy making money or attending pharmaceutical company funded in-service training to do up-to-date research?
The growing amount of people's first-hand experience cannot be ignored, either.
There are serious questions to be answered:
Why is council even contemplating fluoridating the rest of the shire's water supply? Are they offering to cover our ensuing health costs personally?
Who is putting pressure on the state and federal governments to put a toxic substance into our water? Why are they going along with outdated and biased research to make their decision on?
If half the world is taking it out of their water, why on earth are they wanting to put it in? If in doubt, don't do it!
The question the BVS councillors should be considering is how quickly they can remove fluoride from the large part of the shire whose health it is damaging.
Maggie Camfield, Bermagui
Working towards best outcomes
Doug Reckord rightly observes that “community is very much about teamwork” (Letters, 14/7), however, like a team, the success of our community is also dependent on the ability of its members to work together to achieve the best outcomes for everyone.
Of course, where those entrusted with governing are not seen to be working to advance the best interests of the entire community, then it is inevitable that there will be disagreement and disharmony.
Doug contends that the health of our community will be enhanced by minimising criticism. However, putting to one side the fact that this thesis conveniently works to benefit those in power, I would contend that the health of the community is made stronger where it is capable of debating its differences in open, honest and respectful discourse, rather than closing its eyes and pretending they don’t exist.
As long as there are those in government, the bureaucracy, business or the media who are prepared to act contrary to the collective interests of our community, it is inevitable that there will be discord, and pretending that it will go away if we ignore it will resolve nothing.