----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Poor State of Address & the Need for
Proper Public Forum

Entity Causing State of Imbalance:
SA Water.
SA Health - under the direction of the Minister, John Hill MP

The mechanics and morals of the situation can be graphically
represented as below. In a true democracy, which column 1, 2 or
3 would you prefer to see enacted? Which column (note not 
groups F, A or G) represents fairness and good governing 
principles?

1.
All parties attend. 
Independent of who
organizes meeting.

2.
State invites F only, A 
excluded, P at large not 
made suitably aware.

3.
Citizenry invites F, A & P.
F declines to attend 
due to internal policy.

The bottom line so as to remove any possible group interests, F
and A needs to be seen by P in a common forum, moderated by
a neutral party so as to ascertain the truth of the matter.

This is not an unreasonable request, but could so be considered
as such by those parties who do not express a desire to participate in such a moderated forum.

Remember if something is a truth, both independent and mainstream science on fluoride will corroborate it. The truth of a chemical and its actions upon the human condition is immutable.

Given this apparent and obvious lacking of professional duty of care by the Office of the Minister of Health, Choice Mount Gambier challenges the Minister to provide legitimate scientific evidence in a mutual public forum to be held in Mount Gambier, perhaps organised by the City of Mount Gambier Council or the District Council of Grant or both, whereby the claims for the potential benefits of oral health can be ascertained in proportion to the health of the individual or person(s) who swallow fluoride.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Absurdity of Water Fluoridation: A US Example

Consider the two graphs below. In the second graph ask yourself if the toxicity of fluoride in relation to the toxicity of lead and arsenic falls half way between the two, why as in the first graph for allowed fluoride concentration in US drinking water is fluoride given such a magical allowance of 80 times stronger at 4mg/L?

Interestingly the US EPA in 2000 met with Congress to have this lowered to 2 mg/L - US Senate Hearing on Safe Drinking Water Act 2000, 29 June 2000.

Lets translate the first graph for Australia and Mount Gambier which will be fluoridated at 0.9 mg/L +- 0.1 mg/L. The World Health Organization limit is  1.5 mg/L. A comparable graph is as below:

At 1500 ppb or 1.5 mg/L or even the Australian dosage of 1.0 mg/L (1000 ppb) makes no sense in terms of relative toxicity between all three chemicals. I challenge any proponent of fluoridation to answer this apparent incongruity with honesty and scientific integrity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
The 10,000 Campaign

In 1971 Ms Helen Lesley Gebhardt with 7000 signatures stopped fluoride in the water supply for Mount Gambier. Mayor Steve Perryman informs us that the population of the Mount at the time was approximately 18,000.

In 2010 we need your help. In order to stop this outdated practice, we will be asking residents to sign a new petition - the 10,000 campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Fluoride actions are primarily topical for
both adults and children"

Center for Disease Control 1993 MMWR, pg 933-940

So the application of fluoride is topical. The ADA finally changed their minds after 50 years teaching the public that fluoride was systemic. There is no major benefit to teeth when fluoridated water is swallowed.

Fluoride's application and any dental benefits are not delivered systemically by the body after ingestion. However after ingestion fluoride becomes available to interfere with other body functions.

This is contrary to good health policies.

The practice of water fluoridation is outdated. It remains the only delivery application in the world to date where one drug is administered to whole populations at one time. The practice of good pharmacology for each person is to find the right drug, at the right dose, at the right time. This is not achieved nor honored in the practice of fluoridation of public water supplies.
 

Bottom Line Analogy: If you want to prevent sunburn, you do not drink sun tan lotion. You apply it topically.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Fluoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth and development"

National Academy Sciences (1993), Health Effects on Ingested Fluoride, pg 30.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOT OFF THE PRESS!
PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES
ON WATER FLUORIDATION

GET THE LOW DOWN ON FLUORIDE FROM THE
INDUSTRY NON-ALIGNED PRO'S

YouTube Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY AVOID A COMMUNITY REFERENDA? SIMPLE!
Read this letter from a US Department of Health to get an idea what goes behind the scenes to promote water fluoridation. Note if taken to a referenda the case for fluoridation fails
nearly 3 out of 4 times.

No wonder they avoid the community like the plague!

PRO FLUORIDE PROMOTION IDEALS

1. Keep a low profile
2. Approach officials individually
3. Avoid referendums

These ideals can be seen emanating from SA Health. Choice Mount Gambier says not good enough!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tooth decay is principally a sugar disease, a nutritional disease. It's not from a lack of fluoride."

Dr Andrew Harms, ABC South East Radio Monday 18 January 2010

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Listen to the latest on Water Fluoridation on ABC Radio about Mount Gambier marching against fluoridation.

Click here to go to the ABC SE Local Radio website
to hear Dr Harms and Dr Cunliffe speak on the subject.

Did you catch the numerous mistakes as made by SA Health Principle Water Quality Advisor - Dr David Cunliffe?

(Choice Hint: For the record the amount of fluoride used by SA Water annually is 819 tonnes. This equates to 21 B double trucks. Both doctors did not know the exact figure at the time of the interview, but clearly Dr Cunliffe is misinformed. The use of the word by "truckloads" by Dr Harms is not an exaggerated claim as Dr Cunliffe would have you believe.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Water is a basic necessity of life. Trouble comes when we deviate from how things are meant to be." Anon

"We are the Gaul of Romanised entity that is the SA Health Department. Stop bullying us with ignorance and silence and start stepping up into your role as educators of our Community".

Even without water fluoridation most of us refrain from drinking town water if we can help it. We usually prefer instead, and if available, rain water, bottled water and filtered water. Why? Because we instinctively know that most town water supplies are less than ideal by taste. We are not implying that you will be able to taste or smell fluoride because by these senses alone as you would not be able to tell the difference when fluoride comes online for Mount Gambier in mid 2010.

The aim of this website is to promote the awareness of water fluoridation in our community - both the good and the bad.

The topic of water fluoridation has engrossed many world-wide especially in western nations where its push is most prominent. Water fluoridation is often cited as one of the top medical wonders of the 20th century.

The veracity of good decision making is best pre-empted by weighing up all the facts. As servants and representatives of the people and communities, we place a degree of trust for those in government to attend to the needs of the community and the State in the best possible way.
 

Governments are supposedly elected to enact policies and laws to best serve the interests of the State or Nation. This is the essence of democracy.

But has the very word "democracy" become something that in recent decades, in conjunction with the increasing powers given to industry and corporations, something of misnomer and an altruism slowly fading into oblivion?

It has been said we cannot see the wind. But we know where it blows by its effects on objects around us. Where did the winds blow in the days of yesteryear when politics was taken more seriously and morally upheld by both politician and layman alike? Fast forward - where does the wind blow now?

On the issue of water fluoridation, in the past the State of Queensland has been the only State in Australia with low incidences of town water supplies being fluoridated approximately 5%.

By contrast the rest of the States and Terroritories were typically between 60% to 77% fluoridated with aims to fluoridate all towns with a population over 1000 until 100% of all such towns is achieved. This is now taking place despite trends overseas which are questioning the wisdom of such practice and in some cases dismantling or turning off what are termed in the industry as fluoride saturation equipment. These are also called fluoride dosing systems. These systems dissolve water soluble sodium fluoride and meter in the solution at a certain rate to effect a fluoride concentration of approximately 1.0 mg/L as typically used in Australia.

Why did Queensland, up until 2008, show such a marked difference when compared to other States in Australia? What winds blew there?

The answer lay in legislation. More specifically a 1963 Queensland Act entitled "Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act". This legislation was seen as democratic and morally astute because the decision to fluoridate any community lay with the community itself.

To make our point clear regarding the winds of change and who controls policy in regards to water fluoridation, the intentions at the time for the Queensland Water Directorate in conjunction with Queensland Health and the ADA,  were to vigorously reverse past trends in Queenslanders adopting low incidence of towns being fluoridated. Prior to 2008 the Queensland Water Directorate released a brochure entitled Fluoridation - The Facts promoting water fluoridation yet still had to reflect existing law at the time.

"It was not until 1963 when the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act was legislated, that Queensland had a governing body to control the implementation of fluoride systems in water supply treatment plants."

The Queensland Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act required that - "…a local government shall not be authorized by this Act to add fluoride to a public water supply under its control if at a poll taken pursuant to the part the number of votes against is greater than the number in favor of the addition of fluorine to the public water supply… While the Act does not appear to require a council to conduct a referendum prior to the introduction of fluoridation to the water supply system; in practice it is considered unlikely and unwise for a council to take such action without first undertaking a ‘poll’ to determine the level of support within the local community.

These good provisions were also continued in the 2005 amendment of said Act.

So thumbs up for the Act. It enacts and respects the wills of many Queensland communities for nearly 45 years. Then the wind abruptly changed.

It is common knowledge to many now that Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland, was fluoridated in December 2008. So logically one could infer that the wills of the people of the city of Brisbane wanted fluoride in their water in 2008.

Yes? No. In December 2008 as preparations were being finalized to bring Brisbane in line with the rest of the capital cities around Australia already fluoridated, the 1963/2005 Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act  was repealed and replaced with the Water Fluoridation Act 2008.

The law is the law. Any good and abiding citizen follows the law as it promotes a stable society by looking after the interests of the people.

Unfortunately the previous provisions to consult with a community prior to introducing water fluoridation to any Queensland community has now been removed. Nowhere in the Queensland Water Fluoridation Act 2008 are there any provisions to gauge the wills of a community by voting to ascertain as to whether or not that community wants their municipal water supply fluoridated.

Was Brisbane given the chance to legitimately vote on the matter? No. As there was no longer legal requirement to.

So what happened? Why did the wind change for Queensland in respect to water fluoridation? Who was responsible for removing the provisions? Why did the new Act not carrying these same or similar provisions over? These are all important questions especially to the people of Queensland.

But they are also important questions to the rest of the Nation as the whole process of what happened in Queensland towards the end of 2008 in regards to Brisbane becoming fluoridated is a fine example of forces at work that reduce democracy.

It must have come to some embarrassment to the Government of Queensland and Queensland Health who have aggressively pushed for water fluoridation and making sure that appropriate legislation suited the role as such when soon after in May 2009 Brisbane became awashed in the issue of over fluoridated water incident.

Courier Mail - Fluoride overdose strikes Brisbane's water
Sunshine Coast Daily - Brisbane fluoride overdose

Always ask the question who does your Government serve? It really only boils down to two entities - Industry or the People.

Goodbye good 1963 Act, you were a product of a previous generation of Queensland politicians who at least on the issue of water fluoridation were well informed and respected the wills of your people.

Former SA Premier Dean Brown would no doubt agree.

So say we all.

Read Letter to All Queensland Parliamentarians 8 February 2005