Fluoridation-’THE TOWNSVILLE REPORT’

We are told by the Queensland Government, that no adverse effects
have been seen in Townsville from fluoridation, but Queensland
Health has never provided any health studies to justify this claim.

‘The Townsville Report’ has been used as part of ‘The Evidence’
to justify the fluoridation of Queensland’s public water supply.

Map of queensland

The original  

TOWNSVILLE_AFTER_10YRS

( Fluoridated on 2nd August 1965 )

‘THE EFFECT ON CARIES EXPERIENCE OF LIFETIME RESIDENTS’

A Survey by W. Vidoroni, G.S. Sternberg and G.N. Davies 
Division of Dental Services, Department of Health,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and Dental School,
University of Queensland, Turbot St, Brisbane, Australia.

 Our criticisms:

Extract

❝ …Another feature of Townsville is the mobility of the population.
This is reflected by the fact that although 900 children were examined
only 317 or 35 per cent could be classified as lifetime residents.
Data on the remaining non-lifetime residents will be reported in a separate paper. ❞ 

 So Where Is It ?

This additional data was promised in the report,
but despite numerous telephone requests to one
of  the authors of this report at the time –
W. Videroni, none was ever provided.

 More criticisms:

Extract

 …In addition to assessing the dental caries experience
of the children, data was collected on the following:

fluorosis, idiopathic enamel opacities, enamel hypoplasia, tetracycline staining, traumatic injuries to teeth, oral mucosal disease, pathology of bone, dentofacial anomalies, periodontal status (soft deposits, calculus, intense gingivitis), need for periodontal treatment, prosthetic status, denture requirements, conditions needing immediate attention and fillings and extractions required for individual teeth. These data will be reported in a subsequent publication. ❞.

So Where Is It ?

This additional data was promised in the report, but despite
numerous telephone requests to one of the authors of this report
at the time – W. Videroni – none was ever provided.

More Comments:

•  Lost in this long list fluoridation negative outcomes,
 is one of major concern, Dental Fluorosis:

•  Dental fluorosis is not reversible and in more severe cases,
causes disfigurement, pitting, staining and positional defects.

  Dental fluorosis is also associated with skeletal fluorosis.

 dental problem in Australia.

Qld. Health – Demographics 

As can been seen from the newspaper cutting below,
Fluoridation of Townsville’s water supply
has not had the expected results:

blue line

Townsville Kicked in the teeth

CHILDREN will no longer receive free dental care at school. The Queensland Government has stopped offering treatment in its school dental vans because there is not enough staff to man them. A letter sent out through schools this week says the vans would only examine students and provide a report to parents on the state of their teeth. They will then have to seek treatment at private dental practices or take their chances with long public dental waiting lists. “Due to expected demand for treatment you may have to wait for a while for an appointment for non-urgent treatment,” the letter said.Queensland Parents and Citizens Association Northern Region president Mick Cutler said parents wanted to see the dental van visits saved. “We would be disappointed but we also understand the reality of change,” Mr Cutler said. “We’d hope they have the capacity to recruit more staff. “When Queensland children have the highest rate of tooth decay in Australia of course we would like to see the dental vans continue. “We also need to continue the education of our children on better eating habits that don’t contribute to (poor dental health).” In the past all Queensland children from four years old to year 10 at school have been eligible for public sector oral health services. The non-emergency dental treatment is provided at schools through dental clinics and dental vans on a rotational basis. Parents sign a consent form allowing the dentists to check for cavities and put in fillings, if necessary. In February 2006 the Townsville Bulletin reported annual free dental check-ups for students across the twin cities would be stretched out to every two years. At the time a health spokeswoman blamed the wait on the twin cities’ population surge. Leading dental researcher Dr Kerrod Hallett said he had been shocked by the sorry state of  Townsville tots’ teeth on his last visit to the city. Dr Hallett is trialling a new mouth guard, designed to stop tooth decay, at Vincent State School. The paediatric dentist hopes the trial will stop young children from suffering the pain of tooth aches and rotting teeth. “I examined 16 children on the first day,” he said. “Out of those one had a healthy mouth. “I was quite shocked myself.” Caption: BRUSHED . . . children such as Annabella Schmid, 4, will no longer receive treatment through school dental vans.

Illus: Photo Library Heading: Health General State Government Health Local Section:
NEWS 
… © Copyright …

blue line

TOWNSVILLE_AFTER_10YRS

—  UPDATE  NOVEMBER  2010  —
Townsville has been fluoridated for 40 + years
by the Townsville Council.

… Earlier this year [2012] we asked Townsville Council if they knew of any general health studies that had been done in Townsville for water fluoridation  the then Mayor and Director’s representative replied:

  Townsville Council ….. not aware of any specific studies (fluoridation health studies) not commissioned any – not aware of any …. contact Qld.  Health to see if they have done any …

We are told by the Queensland Government that no adverse effects have been seen in Townsville from fluoridation, but Queensland Health has never provided any health studies to justify this claim – the reason why - they have never looked at anything but teeth. Fluoride, when ingested travels throughout the body in the blood plasma, but supposedly it only  beneficially affects teeth? If you don’t look – you don’t find — Just keep on parroting fluoridation is safe

Credit: 

Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc.

blue line

Full 91 page original text→ HERE ←

Extract Davies page 16

Full 91 page original text→ HERE 

logo-aust-f-skeptics

new splash

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECOMMISSIONING FLUORIDATION PLANTS – Qld.

At least 30 days prior to actually ceasing fluoridation,
the water supplier must notify Queensland Health
and again publish a notice at least once in a
newspaper circulating in the area service
by the water supply indicating the date
it intends to cease fluoridation.

DECOMMISSIONING FLUORIDATION PLANTS – Qld.

F.-Plant

Q – Can a local government elect to cease fluoridating communities that are currently fluoridated?

  A – Yes

Q – What is the process?

  A – Prior to ceasing fluoridation of a water supply that is currently

fluoridated the local government must have made a determination

that ceasing fluoridation is in the best interests of the community.

Once a decision has been made the local government must notify Queensland Health and publish a notice detailing the nature of the decision at least once in a newspaper circulating in the area serviced by the water supply to which the decision relates.

If the local government is not the water supplier for the community the water supplier must be informed of the decision and is bound by the Act to comply with it.

At least 30 days prior to actually ceasing fluoridation, the water supplier must notify Queensland Health and again publish a notice at least once in a newspaper circulating in the area service by the water supply indicating the date it intends to cease fluoridation.

Q – If a non-SEQ local government chooses to cease dosing in

certain communities, what costs incurred to date will be reimbursable?

  A – The majority of water suppliers outside south east Queensland that are currently dosing would have signed financial agreements under the Queensland Fluoridation Capital Assistance Program (QFCAP) administered by with the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) to cover up to 100% of costs associated with the installation of fluoride dosing infrastructure. Where there are still claims outstanding under this program these may be submitted to DSDIP even if it is the local government’s decision to cease operation of the relevant infrastructure.

All QFCAP claims must be finalised prior to 30 June 2014 when this funding expires.

Costs that are not reimbursable include:

- costs associated with making the decision to cease fluoridation, including costs associated with compensation to other local governments or the water supplier

- costs associated with the safe decommissioning of fluoride dosing infrastructure

- costs associated with the operation and maintenance of fluoride dosing infrastructure including chemicals, power, operator wages and laboratory testing.

Q – What do we do with plant, equipment and consumables?

  A – Where a decision to cease fluoridation is made under the Act the water supplier should ensure that the fluoride dosing facility is fully decommissioned and any remaining fluoride chemicals are 2

disposed of, or removed from site, in compliance with legislative requirements pertaining to those particular chemicals.

Decommissioning should include the physical removal of the fluoride injection point, not just turning off the valve.

Schemes yet to commence fluoridating

Q – Will costs incurred in scoping to date be reimbursed if a local government determines it is not in the best interests of a community to proceed with fluoridation?

  A – Yes costs incurred in preparation for the installation of fluoride dosing infrastructure (concept design and tender related costs etc.) incurred in good faith will be reimbursed via the Queensland Fluoridation Capital Assistance Program administered by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

The guidelines around reimbursements of costs where local governments choose not to fluoridate are currently being developed.

Costs associated with the making of the decision not to implement fluoridation cannot be claimed.

Q – If a Local Government is part way through implementation and determines it will not implement fluoridation will the cost of contract penalties be covered?

  A – The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning is still considering this matter but the maximum amount available for reimbursement will not exceed the approved funding amount stated in the Financial Incentive Agreement.

Q – If a local government elects to continue and implement fluoridation, will all eligible costs be met?

  A – All local governments deciding to proceed with implementation of fluoridation will be able to claim up to 100% funding for the lowest cost option for the installation of fluoride dosing infrastructure. This funding is available from the Queensland Fluoridation Capital Assistance Program administered by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

All funding claims made under this program must be finalised by 30 June 2014.

The water supplier must operate the plant in accordance with the requirements of the Water Fluoridation Act, Regulation and Code of Practice. The supplier must meet all ongoing operation and maintenance costs.

Q – Will an operating cost support fund be established to support smaller local governments?

  A – At present the government has not announced any financial assistance for ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with fluoride dosing infrastructure. 3

Q – Will there be an opportunity in future for capital support costs if a local government decides to proceed with fluoridation?

  A – The Queensland Fluoridation Capital Assistance Program administered by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning currently provides up to 100% funding for the costs associated with the installation of fluoride dosing infrastructure.

This funding expires on 30 June 2014. At present there are no arrangements in place to assist local governments in meeting the costs of fluoride dosing infrastructure beyond this date.

SEQ and schemes where the Local Government is not the water supplier

Q - Where the local government is not the water supplier, who makes the decision about whether fluoridation is in the best interests of the community?

  A – The decision as to whether fluoridation is in the best interests of the community is always to be made by the local government.

Where the local government is not the water supplier the Act gives provision for the local government to consult with the water supplier about the cost implications, infrastructure arrangements and potential impact on other water supplies before making a decision as to whether fluoridation is in the best interests of a community.

Q – Where the local government is not the water supplier does the water supplier have to act on the decision to implement or cease fluoridation for a community?

  A – Yes, the Act states that the water supplier must comply with the decision made by the local government.

Q – Where the local government is not the water supplier and there are costs to the water supplier associated with implementing or ceasing fluoridation in line with a local government decision, who pays?

A – If a water supplier incurs costs in complying with the decision of a local government to implement or cease fluoridation the Act requires the local government to meet these costs.

Q – If an SEQ local government considers the interests of their communities are best served by discontinuing the supply of fluoridated water, how can they achieve this?

  A – The scenarios below provide some guidance on this point:

For communities served by Water Grid-connected water supply infrastructure, if all local governments in SEQ jointly make the decision to cease fluoridation of the drinking water that is supplied to them (or to their jointly owned Distributor/Retailers) by Seqwater, then Seqwater would have to cease fluoridation at all of their water treatment plants.

If only some local governments decided that the supply of fluoridated water to some part or all of their local government area should cease, but others wanted to continue fluoridation, then the obligation would lie with those local governments intending to discontinue fluoridation to implement this decision by negotiation with Seqwater and, potentially, the other impacted local governments. The negotiations would have to address measures to ensure there was no adverse impact on the water supply arrangements for other local governments in the SEQ region. All costs faced by Seqwater or the other impacted local governments, would be the responsibility of the local government or governments that took the decision to cease fluoridation.

A number of Seqwater-owned water treatment plants are not Grid-connected, and serve only one local government area. In these cases, if the relevant local government whose community or communities are served by the Seqwater treatment plant in question decides to discontinue water fluoridation, then Seqwater would have to cease adding fluoride to the relevant water supply.

Best interests of the community

Q - How does a local government determine whether fluoridation is in the best interests of the community?

  A – Queensland Health will not direct a local government as to how they determine what is in the best interests of their communities. However, local governments should note that the State Government continues to advocate for the inclusion of fluoride in drinking water.

Fluoridation has been proven as a safe and effective means of preventing tooth decay, for people of all ages and not just for children, and is supported by peak health bodies including the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australia Dental Association, the Australian Medical Association and the World Health Organization.

When considering whether fluoridation is in the best interests of a community Queensland Health urges local governments to consider the significant oral health benefits that are associated with drinking water fluoridation. With the State Government covering up to 100% of the costs associated with the installation of fluoride dosing infrastructure, local governments should carefully balance the costs to rate payers of operating and maintaining fluoride dosing infrastructure against the cost to rate payers of dental visits associated with tooth decay.

Local governments are urged to ensure they consider their community as whole and not just the opinions of vocal anti-fluoride campaigners. Local governments should note that until the recent changes in the fluoride legislation those who are pro-fluoride have had no reason to voice their support and will not be well-versed in campaigning methods. Councillors should note that an LGAQ survey in 2005 showed that nearly 60% of Queenslanders surveyed favoured fluoridation, while only 21% were opposed to fluoridation. The Government believes that this strong community support for fluoridation should be considered and not just the views of a noisy minority.

Q – How can a local government dispel myths associated with fluoridation and get more information on the health benefits of fluoridation?

  A – Queensland Health is able to offer the services of oral health professionals to brief local government representatives on the health benefits of fluoridation and to assist Councillors to determine the credibility of common pro- and anti-fluoridation arguments. 5

To arrange a briefing, please contact Dr Greg Jackson, Director – Water Program, Queensland Health via (07) 332 89345.

Miscellaneous questions

Q – Are exemption applications granted or made under the old version of the Act valid?

  A – Any exemption given or exemption application made under the old version of the Act has no effect as fluoridation is no longer mandatory.

Q – Will the State indemnify a local government against all costs and expenses properly incurred, and not recovered, by it in relation to any proceeding taken against the local government as result of making a fluoridation decision.

  A – Yes. Local governments have been added to s96 of the Water Fluoridation Act which deals with the provision of indemnity.

Q – What requirements does a water supplier have to comply with if they decide to continue or proceed with the implementation of fluoridation?

  A – These have not changed with the recent amendments to the Act. A water supplier adding fluoride to a public potable water supply must comply with the requirements of the Water Fluoridation Act 2008, Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008 and Queensland Water Fluoridation Code of Practice.

Q – Can fluoride tablets be provided as an alternative to water fluoridation?

  A – Fluoride supplements, such as tablets and drops, do not provide the same benefit as water fluoridation for several reasons:

They are most likely to be used by the people who need them least – children with good oral hygiene and healthy diets

People who brush their teeth regularly with fluoridated toothpaste receive little, if any, additional benefit from fluoride tablets when sucked or swallowed once a day

People may not remember to take them, or may take too many

They increase the risk of dental fluorosis, without clear benefits

Animal experiments have shown that fluoride given once a day is more likely to cause fluorosis than the same amount of fluoride given intermittently throughout the day, as occurs with fluoridated water.

Since 2006, the Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health has recommended that fluoride supplements should not be used. Therefore, since 2006, fluoride supplements have been progressively phased out nation-wide.

      The Government does not support the use of fluoride tablets.

  NEITHER DO WE  

List-voted-to-ot-F.-+-Warwick

F.Quack-Corporate-Science

logo-aust-f-skeptics

new splash

 

HISTORY OF FLUORIDE IN CAVITY PREVENTION – Dr. Russell Blaylock, Neurosurgeon

“Opponents of the fluoridation project were quickly labeled by the
masterminds of Alcoa’s PR group as loonies and right-wing
extremists who saw fluoridation as a communist plot.

History-F.-Cavity-Prevention-c

russell-blaylock-image

Dr. Russell Blaylock, Neurosurgeon

Officials who loudly promote fluoridation of public water claim as their motivation the prevention of dental cavities. They frequently cite studies comparing tooth decay rates in fluoridated areas to unfluoridated areas, which purport to show dramatic reductions in tooth decay in children-as much as a 60 percent difference. If this were true, and fluoride were indeed safe, it would be a truly miraculous substance, but this still would not justify putting it in the water supply because we are being medicated and have not even been given a choice in the matter, as you will see. As it stands, there is in fact no credible evidence that fluoride added to the water supply reduces cavity rates at all, and several studies have convincingly demonstrated that the incidence of cavities is actually higher in fluoridated areas.

Shortly after the turn of the century it was noticed that children in certain areas of the country had a high incidence of damaged teeth. Further investigation disclosed that this mottling of their tooth enamel, now known as “dental fluorosis,” was caused by elevated contents of naturally occurring fluoride in certain water systems. This finding motivated the American Dental Society and the U.S. Public Health Department to call for the removal of fluoride in the water from these areas. H. Trendley Dean of the U.S. Public Heath Department in 1930 conducted the original work on this problem.

At this juncture, Dr. Gerald Cox took up the banner and suggested that using a smaller dose of fluoride could not only prevent dental fluorosis, but could even prevent cavities. He suggested adding 1 ppm of fluoride to the public drinking water. He made this proclamation without any studies, human or otherwise, to suggest that it would be effective or safe. What makes this so interesting is that Dr. Cox was on the staff of the Mellon Institute, and the Mellon family owned the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). One of the major waste products produced in the aluminum industry is fluoride. Because of its intense corrosive ability and extreme toxicity, disposal of fluoride had, up until that time, been a very expensive and controversial proposition. So what could the aluminum industry do with all of this toxic fluoride? After all, safe disposal cost the company millions of dollars every year.

Ironically, the answer was to come from government. Fortunately for Alcoa, Andrew Mellon, its founder, was also the Treasury Secretary. Interestingly, the U.S. Public Health Service at that time was under the direct control of the Treasury Secretary. Dr. Dean, who eventually came to support adding 1 ppm fluoride to public water supplies as a safe and effective way to reduce dental caries, became known as “Mr. Fluoridation,” and was chosen by the USPHS to head up the fluoridation studies. As Dr. John Yiamouyiannis noted in his excellent book, Fluoride. The Aging Factor, the American Medical Association (AMA), on September 18, 1943, (as fluoridation was first being proposed) cautioned that fluoride was a powerful protoplasmic poison, and because of its widespread presence in nature, toxic accumulation could be a major problem if water was fluoridated. On October 1, 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association also noted that: “the potential for harm outweighed those for good.” It would behoove the Association’s present membership to remember that in this same article the ADA recognized that as little as 1.2-3.0 ppm of fluoride in drinking water was associated with “developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteoporosis, as well as goiter.”

Despite these cautionary warnings, Dr. Cox convinced Dr. J.J. Frisch, a Wisconsin dentist, to actively promote fluoridation of the water supply. According to historians of the era, Frisch led the charge with the frenzy of a religious zealot and turned it into a political crusade. These developments were, of course, just what Alcoa’s owners wanted. In 1944, according to Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held on May 25-27, 1954. Alcoa hired a powerful attorney, Oscar Ewing, and paid him an annual salary of $750,000, even though Alcoa wasn’t facing any major litigation. A few months after being hired, he left the company to accept a job as Federal Security Administrator, a position that put him in charge of the USPHS and under the direct control of, – you guessed it, Treasury Secretary Mellon. It should also be noted that he made a great deal of fanfare about leaving such a well-paid job to serve his country. Not surprisingly, Ewing launched a vigorous nationwide campaign to promote fluoridation of public water supplies.

The fluoridation effort was no small project, and certainly not one that Ewing intended to lose. He hired the best public relations master money could buy: Edward L. Bernays, labeled by The Washington Post as “the original spin doctor.” In addition to his other credentials, Bernays was also the nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays knew the best route to take was to get the endorsement of the dental and medical professionals, since the public depended on their wisdom in these matters, and generally trusted them. By using all of the powers at their command Mellon’s fluoridation team convinced the city council of Grand Rapids, Michigan, to allow its water supply to be fluoridated, with the city of Muskegon serving as an unfluoridated control in the experiment. The project was to begin on January 25, 1945, and would be the first U.S. city to add fluoride to its drinking water.

Two things need to be understood at this point. First, the recommendation was accepted just three months after the dire warnings expressed by both the AMA and the ADA. Second, even at that time there was significant evidence that fluoride was toxic to cells in small concentrations, yet these devious men proceeded despite the fact that no human studies had been published on the safety of adding fluoride to Grand Rapids’ water supply. The people of Grand Rapids were to be unwilling test subjects.

Opponents of the fluoridation project were quickly labeled by the masterminds of Alcoa’s PR group as loonies and right-wing extremists who saw fluoridation as a communist plot. I remember these charges very well in the ’50s, having grown up during that period. Suddenly making a complete reversal of their previous stance, the USPHS and the ADA began to endorse widespread fluoridation, even before a single study of the Michigan experiment had been completed that could show fluoridation was safe, much less that it reduced cavities. But there was a compelling reason they didn’t want to wait on the results of a study, namely because initial results were showing that tooth decay rates in unfluoridated Muskegon had decreased as much as fluoridated Grand Rapids. In fact, tooth decay rates were falling in all industrialized nations well before fluoridation. Why? Because of better hygiene and nutrition.

The fluoridationists’ shenanigans were recognized as early as 1952 by Dr. A.L. Miller, a U.S. representative from Nebraska who was also Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals in Foods. He noted how strange it was that high officials of the USPHS would do a complete about face on the acceptability of fluoridation and within only three months of advocating extreme caution. Dr. Miller also noted that he could find no original studies by the AMA or the ADA, or any other evidence for fluoridation’s usefulness. All those associations did was refer to each other for confirmation. Representative Miller also noted the convenient connection between Oscar Ewing in his position as Federal Security Administrator, and his representation of Alcoa, which was anxious to get rid of its toxic fluoride waste.

In his book on this subject, Dr. Yiamouyiannis also points out that dissenting dentists were either censured or lost their ADA membership. Dental scientists themselves were controlled by the power of USPHS grant money: those who criticized fluoridation simply saw their grant monies dry up, a very effective tactic still used in many other areas of politicized science. The list of people involved in the fluoridation conspiracy reads like a rogues’ gallery. For example, there is John Small, the USPHS’ fluoridation expert since the 1960s. His sole job is to stem any criticism of fluoridation from any quarter, and he does his job very well. One of his major tasks is to harass, intimidate and virtually destroy anyone who dares to publicly speak or write about the dangers of fluoridation. As an’ example of his viciousness, I will share the story of Dr. Yiamouyiannis, who was once the biochemical editor of the Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center. When John Small learned that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was writing critical reviews of fluoridation, he contacted the problem doctor’s immediate superior and expressed his displeasure. In ensuing conversations with this superior, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if he did not cease and desist his criticisms of fluoridation. The good doctor was warned several more times and finally unwilling to suppress the truth about fluoridation dangers-he was forced to resign.  So much for the independence of science.

blue line

” Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century. “

Robert Carlton, Ph.D., former EPA scientist, 1992

blue line“Regarding Fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public. Not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects. “

William Marcus, Ph.D., Senior EPA toxicologist, 1992

blue line

Unfortunately, this world is inhabited by some people who seek a profit at any cost and have no concern for public welfare and safety. The fluoride story powerfully demonstrates that we are indeed correct to be suspicious of megacorporations. We have seen how these institutions have done everything in their power to avoid civic responsibility and to manipulate the government, scientific institutions, and the medical and dental professions, all in the name of empty profit.

Most of us have been led to believe by a powerful propaganda network that fluoridation of drinking water, regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste and regular fluoride treatments are not only a good way to prevent cavities, but that the practice of fluoridation itself is very safe.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who promote this viewpoint have an ulterior motive and, it is not your health.

Russell Blaylock 2

 

blue line

 

new-skeptics-logonew-water-splash

FLUORIDATION SURVEYS IN AUSTRALIA

Adelaide University has had all the dental data for over
five years no report has yet been published.

Aust. Dental Survey heading f

Despite a long history of Australian water fluoridation, there is a dearth of national data on the measured amount of adult tooth decay in Australia. Only two national surveys measuring the oral health of Australian adults have ever been done in Australia. The first adult survey was conducted in 1987-88, the second adult survey, titled the National Survey Adult Oral Health 2004-2006 (NSAOH 2004-2006) was published in March 2007, with the 8 State and Territory reports following in August 2008.

Although one of the stated aims of the 2004-2006 National Adult Oral Health Survey was to compare the amount of tooth decay in adults to their percent of lifetime exposure to fluoridated water, as at April 2012, this has still not been reported. A formal comparison of adult tooth decay, state to state, has also not been reported by the Adelaide University NSAOH report authors. 

It is possible however to generally compare the tooth decay of adults in Queensland ( less than 5% of population exposed to fluoridated water before mandatory fluoridation commenced in early 2009 ), to adults in the other Australian states where the majority of adults have been exposed to water fluoridation for 30 to 40 years or more.

Within each state and territory report there is an inconspicuous section that lists DMFT values ( DMFT = Decayed teeth, plus Missing teeth due to decay, plus Filled Teeth due to decay ). DMFT values are a measure of accumulated tooth decay experience used world-wide as a reliable index of tooth decay.

The DMFT values for adults have been collated from the 8 state and territory NSAOH reports for 4 age groups and are tabulated in this document. Graphs have also been constructed of the DMFT for each age group for each state and the percentage of the population in each state with a fluoridated water supply.

Examination of the tabulated and graphed data shows that there is very little difference in tooth decay between adults who live in Queensland with little water fluoridation ( < 5% in 2007 ) to adults who live in states and territories with the majority of public water supplies fluoridated ( 70 % to 100 % of population exposed to fluoridated water ) 

* QUESTION – If consuming fluoridated water for up to 40 + years

has not significantly reduced or prevented tooth decay in adults

– why are Australian water supplies still being forcibly fluoridated?

Water fluoridation is forced mass medication of the population

through their own public water supplies in an attempt to

reduce tooth decay - and it has not worked. 

See below:

National Survey -Adult Oral

The 8 state and territory reports of National Adult Oral Health Survey
can be found at the Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health.

( ARCPOH ) Website at↓ ↓ ↓

www.adelaide.edu.au/arcpoh/

Background to the 2004-2006

National Survey Adult Oral Health 

Only two national surveys measuring tooth decay in Australian adults have ever been published.

The first was titled the “National Oral Health Survey of Australia 1987-88: A report of the first national oral health survey of Australia ” (NOHSA 1987-88) and was published in 1993 by P. D Barnard and the Australian Dept. of Health, Housing, Local Government, and Community Services. 

The second survey, titled the “National Survey Adult Oral Health 2004-2006” ( NASOH 2004-2006 )was performed as a result of a NHMRC grant obtained by dentists Prof Gary Slade and Prof John Spencer both then of Adelaide University Dental School’s ARCPOH Unit ( Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health ) 

On the 30th Oct 2003 the NHMRC advised Prof Gary Slade that the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Tony Abbott had approved his application for a $682,500 NHMRC Project Grant to do the National Survey of Adult Oral Health project. Each of the 8 states and territories were to contribute in-kind assistance by examining the selected adults and collecting the dental data. 

On the 29 July 2004 all 8 Australian State and Territory Health Ministers, along with the Federal health Minister the Hon Tony Abbott had met at the Australian Health Ministers Conference ( AHMC ) and endorsed the National Oral Health Plan 2004-2013 (NOHP 2004-2013) which gave approval and endorsement to commencing a national adult oral health survey. 

The National Survey Adult Oral Health however, was already well under way when the 9 Health Ministers endorsed commencing a national adult oral health survey. Data collection had already commenced in the ACT earlier in July 2004. The NHMRC had given approval for the grant back in Oct 2003. 

On the 9th Nov 2004 Prof Slade was advised by the NHMRC that the Hon Tony Abbott had approved another grant application, this time for a $2,500,000 NHMRC Capacity Building Grant in Population Health Research (CBGPHR) to extend and build on the results of the National Survey of Adult Oral Health. This NHMRC grant was titled “Oral Health Research for the Australian Population” (Chief Investigators Slade and Spencer) 

A significant part of the National Oral Health Plan 2004-2013, was the endorsement of the extension of water fluoridation to all Australian communities with more than 1000 residents. 

Briefing Notes provided to Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott for the AHMC 29 July 2004 meeting obtained under FOI legislation, recommended that the Federal Health Minister endorse the 2004-2013 National Oral Health Plan, but there is no mention in the Health Dept Briefing Notes that this plan was to endorse water fluoridation being extended to all communities of 1000 residents or more. 

There were 5 stated aims of the National Survey Adult Oral Health Project when Prof Slade submitted his application for the NHMRC grant (Chief Investigators Prof Gary Slade and Prof John Spencer) 

Aim 1: To describe prevalence and extent of dental caries, periodontal disease, tooth loss and related oral conditions. We hypothesize that all national targets for oral health by the year 2000 will have been achieved. 

Aim 2: To evaluate changes in the prevalence and extent of the oral disease in the adult Australian population since the 1987/88 NOHSA. We hypothesize that compared with the 1987/88, caries experience in the Australian population will have declined for adults aged <45 years ( the “ fluoride generation” ), remained stable for people aged 45-64 years ( pre-fluoride ) and increased for people aged 65+ years. 

Aim 3: To evaluate regional and socioeconomic variations in prevalence and extent of the principal oral diseases and conditions in the Australian adult population. We hypothesize that regional variations in oral diseases observed in the NOHSA will have persisted, but that socioeconomic factors explain more than half of the regional variation. 

Aim 4: To describe variations in onset and progression of oral disease among “synthetic cohorts” of the Australian population that have been differentially exposed to community water fluoridation. 

We hypothesize that levels of dental caries among adults who have been lifetime residents of Australian cities will be inversely proportional to the duration of community water fluoridation in those cities.** 

Aim 5: To establish a prospective surveillance system that captures mortality and hospital admission data among the cohort of people examined in the 2003/04 NSAOH, thus creating a research database for future epidemiological and health services research. We hypothesize that markers of periodontal disease obtained in the 2003/04 NSAOH, will be predictors of coronary heart disease incidence and mortality within this cohort during the next decade. (NB – finalising data collection for this study still extends into the future) 

NB: Aims 1 and Aim 2 were fulfilled in March 2007 when the National Survey Adult Oral Health 2004-2006 was published. The intended 2003/2004 NSAOH ended up being the 2004-2006 NSAOH. 

** Profs Slade and Spencer’s Hypothesis that fluoridation reduces caries in adults inversely proportional to duration of exposure to water fluoridation appears totally incorrect – however although Adelaide University has had all the dental data for over 5 years no report has yet been published . 

It is time to acknowledge that water fluoridation has neither prevented, nor reduced tooth decay in Australian adults. If the majority of the population has been exposed to fluoridated water for up to 40 years but tooth decay has not been reduced, how can continued water fluoridation be justified? 

NB Tooth decay may have fallen in the younger “fluoride generation” (fluoridated toothpaste PLUS fluoridated water) (Hypothesis 2) but tooth decay has similarly decreased in most western countries which do NOT have water fluoridation. 

By kind permission of:

    Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air & Food Inc 

        Email:  info@qawf.org

Look Mum No F. f

blue line

See also → The Townsville Report

new-skeptics-logo

new splash