Page 1623 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the statement by the Victorian inquiry that there was no evidence of harm. There were 100 individual cases of harm caused by drinking fluoridated water presented to that government inquiry, substantiated by doctors' statements in each case. The report of the inquiry made no mention of any single one of those cases. Such is the understanding, as Mr Wood mentioned, of impartiality. It will be a change to have some impartiality, to have an honest look. We have not had it before - - -
Mr Wood: Do you think we can get that?
MR STEVENSON: I think we can get it - where both sides of the issue are allowed to present their cases. I welcome that. Let us have a look at something else that the 1968 and 1979 inquiries said. Having made the statement that it was safe, they said that with water fluoridated at optimum levels there was a probability that up to 10 per cent of young children would be affected by dental fluorosis or mottling due to variable water intake. This is the uncontrolled dose. It depends on how thirsty your kids are. The only two government inquiries in Australia admit that you can have up to 10 per cent mottling.
Let us look at what mottling is. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines fluorosis as "chronic poisoning with fluorine", and mottled enamel is chronic endemic dental fluorosis that is found in communities using a drinking water that contains one part or more of fluorine per million. One part per million - that is what Canberra gets. The two inquiries say that fluoride is safe, but their reports state that up to 10 per cent of our children are going to suffer from chronic fluoride poisoning, the first visible evidence of which is mottling on the teeth. I am sure that many of those "common mothers", who were referred to on one of the radio stations this morning, have evidence that in certain areas their kids' teeth are mottled.
It is interesting to look at people's rights. With some of the Liberal people still here, I think it worthy to note that the declaration of Liberal Party beliefs in 1988 states, "We believe in the fundamental freedoms" - what fundamental freedoms? - "to choose, to be independent. We believe in the individual, we stand for the free man and the free woman, their initiative and personal responsibility". What that has got to do with compulsory mass medication would be a difficult thing to ascertain.
Bill Wood once again talked about impartiality in this matter. Can we be impartial? I agree that it is an emotional issue, but it is about time that the matters were presented in an impartial manner before a committee. Let us have a look at what is considered to be the most impartial situation in our society - the courts. There have been three major court cases in America where both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence to an impartial body - the court.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .