‘No reliable evidence’ Australian water fluoridation harmful


dripping tap

Public consultation is being sought on water fluoridation

The National Health and Medical Research Council has released for public consultation a draft Public Statement on community water fluoridation.

NHMRC says it continues to support fluoridating water given fluoride’s role in reducing tooth decay.

It is inviting the public to make a submission through its online public consultation portal at https://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au. Consultation closes on Thursday 3 August 2017.

Following a thorough review of the evidence, NHMRC has confirmed that adjusting the natural level of fluoride in drinking water supplies helps to reduce tooth decay for all Australians. The benefits of community water fluoridation in reducing and preventing tooth decay are supported by over 60 years of research, it says.

The studies reviewed by NHMRC show that community water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 26 to 44% in children, teenagers and adults.

Community water fluoridation is seen as one of the top public health achievements and has been approved by major health organisations in Australia and internationally, including the Australian Medical Association, Australian Dental Association, World Health Organization and World Dental Federation.

“NHMRC found no reliable evidence that community water fluoridation at current Australian levels causes health problems,” said NHMRC CEO Professor Anne Kelso AO.

“Studies implying harms from water fluoridation are largely from overseas countries that have much higher levels of fluoride than the levels used in Australia, and were done in ways which make their results scientifically unreliable.

“Despite the backing of a substantial body of scientific evidence, about 10% of the Australian population live in areas without water fluoridation.

“Health authorities, which decide whether water will be fluoridated or not, should be assured that NHMRC recommends community water fluoridation as a safe, effective and ethical way to help reduce tooth decay.”

Previous Baby formula claims part of "scare" agenda: experts
Next What you said: Pharmacy pathology screenings slammed

NOTICE: It can sometimes take awhile for comment submissions to go through, please be patient.

24 Comments

  1. pagophilus
    05/07/2017

    But it’s not necessary. There are other ways to prevent tooth decay. I like the personal responsibility route rather than the feed the waterways chemicals route. We live in a democracy and effective or not, harmless or not we should get what the people want.

    • Andrew
      05/07/2017

      Your job as a pharmacist is almost entirely dependent on individuals’ failure of personal responsibility.

      I agree with your final sentence though – bring on Marriage Equality!

      • pagophilus
        05/07/2017

        Off topic, but bring on the plebiscite, or even better a referendum. Then we’ll really know what the public thinks.

    • pagophilus – So, you believe that scientific matters and health measures should be determined by a public vote instead of by a consensus of experts who have the training and experience to understand complex issues?

      There are, indeed many ways to prevent tooth decay – why not employ all of them?

    • Ronky
      06/07/2017

      So you object to the water supply authority adjusting the fluoride level of the water up to the optimum healthy concentration which occurs naturally in most of the world (Australia and the USA being notable exceptions).
      Do you also want to take ‘personal responsibility” for ensuring that your drinking water does not contain Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and other dangerous microbes, and do you object to the water authority putting chemicals in the water to kill them?

  2. James Reeves
    05/07/2017

    Some say fluoride helps CHILDREN”S teeth as they form. That is certainly questionable, but:

    It is important to ask — exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this toxic chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life.

    Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers.
    (Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.)

    • Jarrod McMaugh
      05/07/2017

      That took 24 hours.
      Surprising.

      You are, of course, misguided, but you don’t need to be told that again

      • Andrew
        05/07/2017

        lol….A warm evening on 4th July….some would suggest there’s better things to do right now than shitpost an Australian pharmacist’s forum.

      • Curtis Watson
        05/07/2017

        But it has over 80 pages …

        • Steven Slott
          06/07/2017

          …….of “scientific references” consisting of nearly 400 duplications of sources, along with newspaper stories, magazines, and newsletters, letters, testimonials/personal communications, and 17 videos. The remainder were for books and various journal articles and reports.

          Gee, who could argue with such “solid” references as that……..

          Steven Slott, DDS
          Communications Officer
          American Fluoridation Society

          • James Reeves
            06/07/2017

            Fotunately everyone can go read for themselves. We don’t need a promoter to interpret for us.

            The 70 year old science of forced fluoridation is simply wrong and dangerous, but other big money schemes with the wrong science hung on for years, like tobacco, DDT, lead in paint and gasoline, Red Dye No. 40, and asbestos. We eventually learned the truth in each case. Because something has been used for years is no reason to keep using it after evidence of its potential harm to people, animals, or the environment.
            So, it will take some time to overcome the fluoridation scheme.

          • Steven Slott
            06/07/2017

            James

            Until you can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your ridiculous claims, you are doing nothing but wasting space here.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Communications Officer
            American Fluoridation Society

          • James Reeves
            06/07/2017

            Please excuse Stevie. He seems to be off of his medication.

          • Steven Slott
            06/07/2017

            James

            Until you can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your ridiculous claims, you are doing nothing but wasting space here.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Communications Officer
            American Fluoridation Society

    • Steven Slott
      05/07/2017

      James

      Until you can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your ridiculous claims, you’re doing nothing but wasting space here. Connett’s little non peer-reviewed book of conspiracy nonsense obviously does not qualify as such.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

      • James Reeves
        05/07/2017

        We know. We know.

        Promoters of this big money scheme (selling industrial toxic waste fluoride) can’t answer the basic question above and won’t read any current science showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.

        • Steven Slott
          06/07/2017

          James

          Until you can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your ridiculous claims, you are doing nothing but wasting space here.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Communications Officer
          American Fluoridation Society

          • James Reeves
            06/07/2017

            ACF is just another fake origination pushing the big money fluoride scheme.

          • Steven Slott
            06/07/2017

            James

            Until you can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your ridiculous claims, you are doing nothing but wasting space here.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Communications Officer
            American Fluoridation Society

  3. Colin
    06/07/2017

    2 questions for Pharmacists, Dentists’ answers are not required.
    1. Do Pharmacists agree with Politicians being able to legislate to dose the public with a cumulative Govt Toxic Fluoride for the rest of their lives, without their consent, as once in the water then fluoride becomes part of the food and beverage supply? Bear in mind that there are many other sources other than from water, food and beverages, including dental products, air, soil, drugs, medicines, cigarette smoke, pesticides, teflon, workplaces, etc.
    The populations more vulnerable to fluoride toxicity are the young, the old, the infirm and the pregnant.
    Only about 50% of this toxin is eliminated by healthy adult kidneys.
    2. Even though the fluoride level in the water is “regulated” to between 0.6 – 1.1 PPM F, depending on thirst due to climate but not thirst due to other factors, the level in everybody’s bloodstream is not “regulated” or monitored, is this medically wise?

    • Steven Slott
      06/07/2017

      Colin

      1. “Legislate to dose the public”? Uh…you do realize this is a discussion of water fluoridation…correct?

      2. “a cumulative Govt Toxic Fluoride”? I suppose whatever is meant by this bizarre term is clear to your foggy, delusional brain. To intelligent people it’s gibberish.

      3. “Consent”? Well, consent is conveyed for local officials to do their jobs, upon election/appointment to office. So, it’s unclear as to what delusion you attach to that word.

      4. “Populations more vulnerable to fluoride toxicity”? That would be zero.

      5. “Only 50% of this toxin is eliminated by healthy adult kidneys”? Well, given that elimination of fluoride through the kidneys is an ongoing process, its unclear as to what “adult kidneys” you refer. Adult kidneys of little green men from Mars, maybe?

      6. “Not medically wise”? Well, let’s see. Obviously, online commenter “Colin” believes water fluoridation to not be “medically wise”.

      Those who differ with “Colin” in that regard, include the Australian NHMRC, the Australian Dental Association, the Australian Medical Association, the US CDC, the US Institute of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the past 6 US Surgeons General, the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world.

      My, my, who to believe…….

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Colin
        06/07/2017

        I said, these questions were for qualified Pharmacists.
        Not rude and arrogant dentists.
        Especially Steven Slott Dentist from North Carolina, USA. 🙂

        • Steven Slott
          06/07/2017

          Oh, gee, poor little Colin’s feelings have been hurt. Tell you what, Colin, stop posting false claims and utter nonsense and I’ll stop correcting you. As that will never happen, you probably should just get used to me.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Communications Officer
          American Fluoridation Society

Leave a reply