On the development of SA Health new fluoridation plant for our community with the intention of introducing fluorides through the Mount Gambier District and communities and persons serviced by respective SA Water potable water supply, Choice Mount Gambier and concerned citizens takes the following stance on the issue: 

1. The need for pertinent South Australian Water Fluoridation legislation.
South Australia is the only State in Australia which does not have any legislation which mandates how water fluoridation is implemented in South Australian communities. Mount Gambier is the last stand to demand of our State Government to implement proper process, not solely by administrative decision alone, but by and within the confines of actual law. Choice Mount Gambier requests proper legislative process to ensue to create a South Australian Water Fluoridation Bill to be ratified through Parliament in conjunction with public and mainstream/independent scientific consultation and verification. Inherently if something is a true science, there should be no discrepancy between mainstream and independent research.

2. The need for an Environmental Impact Statement or Report.
An EIA report is a process of identifying the potential, social, environmental and economic impacts of the fluoridation plant. Such an undertaking would have gone through several stages from its development proposal leading to a physical outcome – the fluoridation plant itself. Choice Mount Gambier objects to the serious lack of public involvement, lack of information and transparency by the relevant industrial and government departments. These include Orica Water Care  (source product Fluorodose/sodium fluoride) and SA Health and its inadequate 6 June 2005 advertisement in the Border Watch entitled State Oral Health Plan Public Consultation Meeting which John Hill has stated to both Choice and the Mount Gambier City Council on several occasions was our only chance to discuss the issue and his subsequent unwillingness to attend a citizen organised Public Town Meeting on 27 November 2007 or thereafter. Water fluoridation was a topic covered not even mentioned in the ad so much so that we understand not even members of our City Council attended. Subsequent submissions were made as claimed by Minister John Hill which supported water fluoridation e.g. Grant Council in their ¾ page submission made no mention of water fluoridation. We challenge John Hill to provide us with a copy of all other submissions made at said meeting in 2005. 

3. The need for balanced and consensus information concerning the scientific facts of swallowing fluoride.
Chemical/material safety data sheets for sodium fluoride declare the substance as a Schedule S6 poison with stringent handling procedures. Choice Mount Gambier acknowledges that some toxins have a beneficial effect on the body in small regulated doses, but in the case of water fluoridation we question the wisdom of allowing such a poison, although metered at the initial point of delivery into municipal water supplies, how such regulation will continue to occur from the thousands of water dispensing mechanisms (taps) when consumers drink fluoridated water.

4. The need for scientific clarification of the scope of fluoride action within the human body.
Knowing that healthy kidneys excrete approximately 50% of ingested fluoride, what are the long term impacts for the community and other specific groups within same communities e.g. diabetic, renal impaired, elderly persons? Whilst we have no dispute that fluoride provides some benefits to oral health in that fluoride actions in the mouth provide a two-fold effect in helping reduce tooth decay to a point by:

a)     Causing changes to the underlying dentin by transposing natural occurring hydroxylapatite
Ca₅(PO₄)₃(OH) to become harder fluoroapatite Ca₅(PO₄)₃F.  See picture below.

b)     The inherent toxicity of free fluoride causing the death of bacteria that helps cause tooth decay and how such toxicity discriminates other healthy bacteria

that the time of exposure of fluoridated water when briefly present in the mouth is of minimal benefit to dental health and whether these minor benefits offset long term risks once fluoride is swallowed and absorbed by the human body.

We understand that too much fluoroapatite promotes dental substrates to become more rock like, leading to eventual brittleness thus inducing the onset of visible dental fluorosis and ironically tooth decay itself.

Choice Mount Gambier and concerned citizens express a desire to view and understand both mainstream and independent corroborative scientific research at a community forum into the long term effects of swallowing fluoridated water. Such information should include but not be limited to, unseen skeletal fluorosis, and due to fluoride/fluorine has a propensity to displace iodine - thyroid impairment and other relevant effects within the human body. In spite of toothpaste manufacturers labels explicitly warning consumers not to swallow fluoride, even in pea sized amounts as promoted in recent years, a logical anomaly concerning the ingestion of fluoride appears to be present here.

We also question whether the economics of water fluoridation should overshadow other methods of introducing fluoride into a population for those that choose and require it as a health measure and the need as outlined in District of Grant submission for better regional dental support and education.

We also question the logic in the included graph as could be printed in your paper which places into context the toxicity of fluoride in conjunction with lead and arsenic. The question that should be asked but is not being answered is if fluoride is slightly more toxic than lead but slightly less toxic than arsenic, would you accept your local water supply being artificially supplemented with the addition of lead in the order of 0.7 mg/L to 0.9mg/L which becomes unregulated at the tap?

We encourage you to follow up the Product Line Manager for Fluorodose at Orica Water Care in Victoria and ask for a complete chemical constituency report of the product which is dry weight 98% sodium fluoride. The aim was to ascertain, knowing how sodium fluoride is produced and marketed, and ignoring the effects of fluoride for the moment, the constituency of the remaining 2%. Ask to speak to Andrew Dowd on 03 9665 7721 in which he will no doubt refer you to his client SA Water. Said line manager admitted they were in possession of such information but declined to make it available. Choice humbly took the liberty in early 2008 to ask Orica Water Care which policy or legislation prevented the release of this information to the public. No suitable response was given to this question other than a continual reiteration that we should seek to gain the information from SA Water. Relevant Orica Water Care Fluorodose product information has been included for your perusal.

Thank you for allowing Choice Mount Gambier to provide an alternate viewpoint on this matter.