"If the mass of scientific evidence is correct and no human catastrophe ensues, will the anti-fluoridation lobbyists be apologising for the decades of unnecessary tooth decay suffered by Queensland residents?"

Funny that. I was raised without the "benefit" of fluoride.

I have consumed nothing but rain water for the last 14 years though during that period, I did require one filling. However, rest assured, my teeth are very old!

The local council test rain water for amoeba, free of charge and every few years, I have the rainwater tested for heavy metals.

I rarely retire for the evening without flossing which I believe is essential to protect against tooth decay.

Consumers need to realise that they are not just consuming fluoride in public water schemes. Their bodies must also cope with excessive amounts of chlorine, a particularly nasty chemical and I am told additional additives.

Chemicals rarely have a "catastrophic" effect on the human body. Their impact is insidious and often with long latency periods for symptons to appear.

The "mass of scientific evidence" also assured us of the "benefits" of the many hundreds of chemicals manufactured during the 20th century where many of these chemicals are now classed as carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic and dozens are now banned. Unfortunately, that was many decades later and after the horse had bolted.

Therefore, the "anti-fluoridation" lobbyists have absolutely no reason to apologise and are fully entitled to their opinion!

Decisions made by health departments are rarely influenced by the "lunatic fringes" of society.

You will need to look elsewhere for your answer to these delays!

So i suppose the mercury in your tooth fillings is harmless too? And the chlorine in the water?

For years i was proud of Qld not having flouridated water, now they've caved in too. We only need trace amounts of flouride which can be found in food and in our water already. How do you think we evolved?

Whats with the person talking about compulsory circumcision? That scares me.

As long as we load up our kids with sugary refined foods we will need fluoride. I believe the sugar industry has sponsored research on the benefits of fluoride so as to allay the fears of parents over children’s access to sugared foods such as the cola drinks and Kellogg’s.
The ranting of so called scientists and mind dead doctors on the devastation caused by ingesting fluoride is mischievous.
IF YOU CHOSE NOT TO HAVE FLUORIDE IN YOUR DRINKING WATER THE BUY A TANK AND MOVE TO WHERE THERE IS AN AVAILABLE DENTIST

Dearie me. All this flaming from the pro-fluoride group.

More curious is why these people with a passion haven't taken fluoride tablets if they were so worried about the lack of it in public water schemes.

"Physician, heal thyself."

Dickie

"The "mass of scientific evidence" also assured us of the "benefits" of the many hundreds of chemicals manufactured during the 20th century where many of these chemicals are now classed as carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic and dozens are now banned. Unfortunately, that was many decades later and after the horse had bolted.

Therefore, the "anti-fluoridation" lobbyists have absolutely no reason to apologise and are fully entitled to their opinion!"

What is needed is scientific evaluation, not scaremongering based on a gut feeling. Whether it be alcohol, tobacco, the relation of atmospheric CO2 levels to the Earth's temperature, or radiation, the evidence for harm is science based. And where there is harm, as with chlorination, what is of concern is the net benefit. So while there is no better alternative for water purification, chlorine will continue to be used.

Unfortunately, water fluoridation is a popular subject for fear campaigns, to the detriment of the health of Queenslanders.

Water fluoridation has thus far shown no ill effects after extensive evaluation over many decades.

Yes, you are entitled to have an opinion, Dickie, but does your opinion entitle you to cause others harm?

"What is needed is scientific evaluation, not scaremongering based on a gut feeling."

Get one thing straight Fester. Unlike you, I don't make claims which I am unable to substantiate.

"Water fluoridation has thus far shown no ill effects after extensive evaluation over many decades."

Well take your tablets mate and stop ya sookin.

"Yes, you are entitled to have an opinion, Dickie, but does your opinion entitle you to cause others harm?"

And what "harm" would that be Fester? The real harm on issues like this, is the suppression of information by senior bureaucrats and your arrogance in over-ruling other people's opinions.

I remind you that the public are fully entitled to as much information as possible. They may then make an educated assessment and either reject the various findings or accept them.

And unlike the dictatorial edicts that you spruik, I like to share my research with others.

"And where there is harm, as with chlorination, what is of concern is the net benefit.'

Hmmmm....."net benefit" eh? That's bureauspeke Fester, used often by the public service these days, isn't it?

And since I significantly alluded to chlorine and other organochlorines (not fluoride), I have included the following for posters' perusal.

I advise that the influential chlorine industry would not be happy with these assessments.

http://www.epidem.com/pt/re/epidemiology/abstract.00001648-200405000-00021.htm;jsessionid=HZvYSHj8lFlJ2l0v5Wfsph0mG5y5dQF6lRF2sG7pHfYqtYCxJnhX!-1288052477!181195628!8091!-1

http://www.pure-earth.com/chlorine.html

Now take a cold shower, Fester. Mind that chlorine though!