Bradfield Resident

Information. Issues. Insight. Investigation.

Fri 21 Aug 09 | To: The Border Mail | Fed up to back teeth with crisis article

Posted by bradfieldresident on 21 August 2009

From: Bradfield Resident <>
Date: Friday 21 August 2009 00:02 (+10)
Subject: Fed up to back teeth with crisis article
To: The Border Mail <>

I am writing to express concern at the content of John Conroy’s 18 August article “Fed up to back teeth with ‘crisis'” ( I understand that the article is about a forum for which Professor Anthony Blinkhorn was the keynote speaker, but I think it is inappropriate to present his words as scientific truth.

A single example of increase in dental care after removal of fluoridation is proffered to suggest dental care costs always increase, which is absolutely not the case.

“It strengthens dental enamel on a daily basis” has never, to my knowledge, been proven. In fact it has been shown that water fluoridation weakens teeth and bones.

“He said 95 per cent of people in NSW drank water with fluoride added and did not protest,” is hardly an argument, besides which is it not true. I am a resident of NSW, and I protest. The reason most people haven’t protested is because flouridation has been in place virtually unquestioned for many years, and most people are under the non-proven belief that it is good for your teeth and the non-proven belief that it is harmless.

“We have emotions on one side and science on the other,” neglects the private sector profits on the pro-fluoridation side, the fact that there exists zero high-quality scientific research demonstrating the claimed benefits of water fluoridation (even after some 70 years since it was introduce in the United States), government and health agencies misinterpreting and misrepresenting data from studies such as the York Report (the authors of which have publicly criticised UK health and dental organisations for the conclusions they have drawn), and the fact that there is scientific evidence against the use of fluoride (from all sources including water fluoridation).

It is the case that most of Europe has rejected water fluoridation, and you will find that they do not have a dental health crisis as a result. In fact it has been shown in numerous cases that flouridated areas can have worse dental health than non-fluoridated areas.

My understanding is that the science, overall, is uncertain with regards to the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation, though it has been said before in reports that more research needs to be done. Problems will not be found unless someone is looking for them, and it just so happens that the world mostly didn’t consider so much the problems and wasn’t looking for them. Regardless, it has never been proven to be safe, and yet people allow it. Why is it pushed so hard? Because there is a fortune to be made in turning a difficult and expensive to dispose of toxic waste product into a water additive.

Bradfield Resident, NSW
Friday 21 August 2009


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

%d bloggers like this: