Fluoride – must we drink it?

February 8th, 2009

I have personal concerns about mass medicating our community but have recently received enough email correspondence to raise the issue again. The Queensland State Government has legislated that all Queensland Local Governments must introduce flouride into our water supplies. This means that fluoride will become increasingly prevalent in our environment as well as inside us.

We will be paying to water our garden, to swim and to shower and bath in fluoride as well as to drink it and cook with it. There are many people who think this will be a good thing as it will reduce tooth decay. There are many other people, myself included, who wonder if the costs (both health and financial), outweigh the benefits.

In these, our scientific and medically advanced times, surely we know enough to be sure. Is fluoride good for us or is it bad for us? Or is the evidence so murky one way or the other that we should wait till we are sure? I often wonder why some diseases are increasing in frequency with our communities. Why are there more children diagnosed with autism than were in the past for example?

Personally I prefer to avoid being forced to ingest a substance that will have no direct benefit on my 50 plus year old teeth but may in fact have negative consequences for the rest of my body to which I am still somewhat attached. I am not sure that at this late stage continued debate is worthwhile but it is an election year. So let the debate continue. After all shouldn’t we be the ones deciding the quality of the water we pay to drink?

24 Responses to “Fluoride – must we drink it?”

  1. Sadmanon 08 Feb 2009 at 7:27 pm


    There are two seperate issues here –

    Do we accept the idea of forced mass medication?
    In my view NO, incases such as this the matter should
    warrant a plebiscite.

    Is fluoride good for our teeth?
    Let’s for debate say yes,then the question becomes
    how to introduce it?
    Rather than medicate mega litres of water, most of
    which will be used to flush toilets, wash cloths, shower
    in etc. Why not provide it FREE OF CHARGE, to those
    that want and need it?
    Don’t tell me, we govern for the brain dead.

  2. mgon 11 Feb 2009 at 6:16 am

    Sadman –
    Agreed on the first point, no to mass medication…
    On the second point – there are many studies that have shown flouride is not what it is cracked up to be, see http://www.fluoridealert.org/ & http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/44.html

    If people are silly enough to still ingest fluoride after that – then let them buy it themselves!!!

  3. Noflon 12 Feb 2009 at 6:45 am

    Fluoride, i.e. sodium fluoride does not occur in nature. Calcium fluoride does & is good for us. Sadly, sodium fluoride is going into our water. This form of flouride is a poison & has categorically been scientifically proven by independent studies to have no benefit to teeth whatsoever. The report that Townsville teeth are better than the rest of Q is a red herring!! That report came from a 1990 survey which showed such a negligible .ooo8% improvement in Townsville over the rest of Q & over Melbourne & Sydney both of which were also fluoridated. The last Q. dental health survey 2002 showed that the best teeth were from the Gold Coast, an unfluoridated area. Sodium fluoride contains heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury & lead. Anyone who supports compulsory (or otherwise) flouridation is either misled, lazy or has a vested interest. http://www.fluoidealert.org

  4. Noflon 13 Feb 2009 at 6:21 am

    Sorry, seems above web site is not available. Go to http://www.qawf.org for all the info you’ll ever need to realise how silly we’ve all been in falling for the political propaganda. Seems the English speaking world is the last to wake up, most other countries in the world are taking it out as fast as possible.

  5. Juliaon 15 Feb 2009 at 4:12 am

    I am completely against the addition of fluoride to the water supply. As has already been observed, those people who want to use it can do so individually, but the rest of us would have to install very expensive reverse osmosis filtration to remove it.

    A question posted to the LNP as to whether they would cease this fluoride plan has been unanswered so it would seem they have as little regard for the personal wishes of the Qld population as the Labor Party.

    Ah, if only there were a genuine alternative for whom to vote in the upcoming election.

  6. Geoffon 15 Feb 2009 at 7:11 am

    The concept of mass medication begs obvious questions: first is it safe and effective? The answer to those two is VERY VERY DOUBTFUL.
    Secondly, why do we always have to pay for looking after other people’s kids? (And children’s teeth seems to be the main concern.) Having brought up 4 of my own and medicated them and made them clean their teeth, why can’t parents make THEIR OWN kids clean their teeth with fluoride toothpaste if that is what they think is the best way for dental health. Nanny State – BAH!

  7. sueon 15 Feb 2009 at 7:25 am

    I wonder who the Government bothers to ask when making these decisions? Where is our freedom of choice? Yes seatbelts save lives in that they protect nearly 100% of the people wearing them nearly 100% of the time so a good thing to make Laws about but other things need to be left to the people themselves to decide. Sue

  8. Cy d'Oliveiraon 20 Feb 2009 at 2:06 am

    There is not a single scientific validation research document that shows floride protects teeth, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows that Floride is a toxic substance that it is a danger to mankind brain (rat poison/ obtained from sludge from aliminium smelter pots) Wake up Australia Floride is damaging your brains , and is damaging brain cells ,making you stupid, a scientific fact. Does Ann Bligh want to turn all Queenslanders into stupid people.

  9. Sadmanon 20 Feb 2009 at 10:37 pm

    Now come on Cy.
    This is not about teeth, it’s about jobs, jobs and more jobs.

    People to produce the fluoride,put into the water, doctors to
    assess your problems (fluoride induced),hospital staff to treat
    your condition, priests to give you the last rights, grave diggers
    and coffin makers.
    It’s fluoride that will get this country back on it’s feet. Let’s
    all thank the Aluminium industry for the benefits of fluoride.


  10. OzSpenon 22 Feb 2009 at 11:46 am


    The Fraser Coast Chronicle’s “great fluoride debate” articles (12/1/09) were a pro-fluoride promotion. Just look at the imbalance they gave to the articles presented.

    The Chronicle had the audacity to state: “It has been said that fluoridation is bad for babies.” Who said it? The American Dental Association (ADA)! The ADA warned parents of infants on 9 November 2006: “Infants less than one year old may be getting more than the optimal amount of fluoride (which may increase their risk of enamel fluorosis) if their primary source of nutrition is powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula mixed with water containing fluoride. If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.”

    If fluoride is such a benefit to us all, why did the ADA warn against giving babies fluoridated water?

    Fluoridated water contains up to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk. Thus babies who consume formula made from fluoridated water are exposed to much higher levels of fluoride than a breast-fed baby. This is dangerous to the baby.

    This is based on the scientific evidence and not on “it has been said.”

    Dr. Hardy Limeback has two doctorates, a PhD in biochemistry & DDS (dental science), and is the associate professor and head of preventive dentistry in the school of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Canada. He gives reasons “why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water.”

    There are excellent scientific reasons to oppose fluoridation but there is another factor. Anna Bligh and the Queensland Government have violated our rights in a democracy. They have forced it on us. It is not a “will of the people” decision. This undemocratic action is similar to what was done with forced Council amalgamations and the proposal for the Traveston Dam. I hate living in a dictatorship.

  11. OzSpenon 28 Feb 2009 at 1:27 am

    In 2003, the Queensland government stated that “whilst recognising that the balance of the scientific argument favours the use of fluoride in the pursuit of oral health, it is a principle of ethical public health that mass, involuntary medication must never proceed without the express consent of the community. . . . Queensland Government supports the introduction of water fluoridation wherever it receives the consent of the community affected” (Queensland Government Position Statement on Water Fluoridation 2003).

    So, the then Queensland Beattie government considered it unethical to provide “mass involuntary medication” through water fluoridation without the “consent of the community.” But what did the Bligh government do? Repudiating its own government statement in 2003, it implemented an unethical practice of forcing a toxic drug on all Queenslanders through water fluoridation – without the people’s consent.

    The scientific evidence is accumulating against fluoride.

    The Canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland, withdrew fluoride for the same reasons that Queensland should not fluoridate its water supply. The Swiss gave these reasons:

    1. The preventative effect of the fluoridation of drinking water could not be proved by any study. When specialists do not succeed in producing definitive proof in 40 years, the issue has to be abandoned.

    2. In spite of the fluoridation of drinking water, caries (tooth decay) has been on the increase with children.

    3. The danger of fluorosis is played down; nobody talks about fluorosis of the bones. The fluoridation of drinking water is particularly problematic in the case of young children and babies.

    4. Less than 1% of the fluoride in drinking water is actually used for “prevention of caries”, more than 99% of the fluoridated water is used for washing, cleaning, industrial production, etc. and thus only pollutes the environment, a very undesirable imbalance (this Basel statement by Rudolf Ziegelbecker & Konradin Kreuzer, from: http://www.woats.co.uk/pages_articles/nutrition_03.htm [cited 28 February 2009].

  12. paulmackon 15 Mar 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Fluoride is a toxin: period. it is not supposed to be ingested at all in the human body; even natural fluoride. Natural fluoride is an abberation of nature. just because nature produces something doesnt mean that its good for you. Arsneic is natural it is not good for you. no not even in small doses is natural fluoride good either.

    It is a waste product of 1) aluminum smeltering 2) phosphate fertilizer production. Fluoride is a medicine, and it is used therefore in mass medicating all water drinking species which means everything
    that lives and breathes including the plants we eat; vegetables, fruits etc., are all watered with fluoride…including fish animals and humans.

    Rat poison is found in almost every pesticide and rat poison. Where are the liberals banning this substance for its cruelty to animals and humans > naturally they’re selective in what they want to ban, and liberals often ban the wrong thing for all the wrong reasons, and fluoride is liberal because it is a utilitarian concept meaning ” for the good of all,’ and “one size fits all,” is usually a liberal/communist ideology.
    For instance Liberal govt. banned bottled water in San Francisco because it was taking the monies away from the govt through the water municipalities. Everyone knows that taxes are the lifeblood of democrats, and having the population all gravitate toward bottled water could not be tolerated because it was cutting into the govts
    tax base ! hence democrats shot themselves in the foot just being democrats as they geared toward the natural way of water drinking !

    Fluoride found in nature is usually found with calcium and its known as Calcium fluoride = CaF2. This propels the pro argument for fluoride by its proponents, but fluoride in nature means nothing special it means the same thing as supporting the argment for poisonous mushrooms or arsenic or even poison ivey ! Fluoride is in pop you drink, any bottled drink for that matter. fluoride is a health hazzard as it leaches calcium
    from the body as it is found in nature attached to calcium, so it attaches to the bones and teeth in the body and’ leeches it out of the body and causes mass tooth decay as well as an uncontrollable osteoparosis in humans but particularly in women in mid life especially.

    in the 50’s and 60’s when fluoride was put into the water and toothpaste, the toothpaste tubes were made of aluminum (courtesy of the main supplier of aluminum and fluoride: ALCOA) you could find silver substance coming out onto your toothpaste from the bottle and it was scary. This was because fluoride is so acidic that it leeched the metal
    from the aluminum tube as you squeezed out your toothpaste onto your toothbrush ! since they use plastic tubes to stop that.
    Fluoride is so acidic that it is carried in specially rubberized lined tankers because it would eat right through the metal of the tanker that carries it to the water supplies !
    The dictionary (any dictionary) defines fluorine as: “the most toxic corrosive poisonous halogen (meaning unstable) element known
    to man. how about that for being ‘safe and effective” against tooth decay?
    So someone please tell me just how this definition of the most dangerous toxin known to man suddenly translates to being ‘safe
    and effective” against tooth decay ! I’d be interested in just how this transition occurs.

    No not even small doses is safe even at the .001 ppm that the govt qualifies it in the industrial drinking supplies. This is because fluoride not being a natural substance to the human body, is accumulative so drinking a saffe amount deemed by govt in drinking water, eventually becomes toxic because fluoride is added to everything you drink including soups, juices pop and even in the OJ you squeeze yourself because plants like oranges absorb it from the soil !

    There are two important books out on the issue of fluoridation. One book is out of print now but maybe can be found in your public library called “Fluoridation the great dilemma” written by allergist George Walbott MD in approx 1969 i think… The other is more recent written in the 90’s i believe called: Fluoride the aging factor” by John Yimmanous (check spelling). Both books are totally comprehensive studies on fluoride and its effect on health, and shows just how damaging and dangerous it is to us.

  13. Cliff Greeton 16 Mar 2009 at 5:26 am

    Guys, it’s a bit late – tell the toothpaste manufacturers as well!

  14. paulmackon 29 Mar 2009 at 10:14 pm

    Guys, it’s a bit late – tell the toothpaste manufacturers as well!

    Too bad for America because of people like you.
    whats too late is our salvation because of fluoridated brains like yours;
    looks like your attitude proves the point of the dumbing down of people
    who ingest toxic substances.

  15. Rita Downeyon 18 May 2009 at 4:52 am

    We’re moving to Hervey Bay from the area which has been affected by this latest QLD fluoride overdose. Both my husband and myself still have symptoms about a fortnight after it flowed through our pipes.
    It’s appalling and foolish to think fluoride is safe and doesn’t cause any health problems or risks now or in the future. We should have a choice to say that we don’t want this in our area – I don’t like mass-medication. We’ve a choice if we think we need fluoride to use fluoride toothpaste/mouthwash or other things to keep our teeth healthy. It’s just too much of a risk to take. I do hope that Hervey Bay area will never say ‘yes’ to fluoride in drinking water.

  16. sueon 18 May 2009 at 8:38 am

    I’m sad to say that the Queensland State Government has legislated to ensure thatevery Council in Queensland introduces Fluoride. The Fraser Coast Regional Council will be introducing fluoride to our water supply in the future as directed by the State Government.

  17. Sadmanon 18 May 2009 at 8:38 pm

    Good morning Sue,

    Let’s show some leadership on the Fraser Coast.
    The FCRC should seek the views of it’s residents
    on Flouride. If people in this region are predominately
    opposed to fluoridation of our water. Council should
    so NO and advise Premier Bligh of the reason.

    Democracy is about the wants and needs of the
    people. Councillors are supposed th be representing us.

    Or is DEMOCRACY just a word?


  18. Rita Downeyon 19 May 2009 at 4:13 am

    Good afternoon Sue,
    I really feel strongly about it now since I’ve been affected by it, and DO NOT choose to have fluoride in drinking water. Once we’ve moved to Hervey Bay I’d like to join your campaign against fluoride and make other residents and the council aware that it’s not beneficial to our health. Nobody should be forced to drink water with added fluoride!
    If Hervey Bay residents are predominantly against it, then the councillors, and the council should listen as well as Premier Bligh. That’s DEMOCRACY, and Australia’s a democratic country!
    The risks outway the benefits.

  19. Ertle*on 02 Jul 2009 at 5:16 pm

    To all,
    Queenslanders, and the rest of the world are always ingesting poison. Check this website out:
    Those are just a few of the daily, common poisons.

    As for the dumbing down thing you all seem to think is true, you are wrong. New Zealand has had fluride in their water for years! And annual studies have shown that the children in Australia have lower grades than children in New Zealand. Just so you know, they get the same tests that we do.

    Also, do you really think the government would really put a dangerous substance in drinking water if they didn’t know that the amounts they put in were safe.

  20. Paul Evanson 24 Nov 2009 at 5:21 am

    The arguments re water flouridation have been around for over 50 years.I don’t want to spend my hard earned money paying for the poison in my water.It certainly will not help my false teeth! Let Council conduct a referendum when the next election is held and see what the majority of ratepayers want.Better still, get rid of all the chemicals in the junk food kids are eating.

  21. Neilon 13 Oct 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Quote: “Calcium fluoride does & is good for us” by Nofl.

    No fluoride or fluorine compound whether naturally occurring or man made is good for human consumption.

    As for these quotes by Ertl –

    “As for the dumbing down things you all seem to think is true, you are wrong. New Zealand has had fluride in their water for years! And annual studies have shown that the children in Australia have lower grades than children in New Zealand.”

    Ertl what parts of NZ are fluoridated & what parts are not?

    From NZ Govt website:

    Fluoridation in New Zealand

    “Fluoride is a natural element found in air, soil, fresh water, seawater, plants and lots of foods.
    The most widely known and used topical fluorides are incorporated into toothpastes.
    Fluoride works in three ways to help protect our teeth from decay:
    * Fluoride makes teeth more resistant to decay by strengthening the tooth surface.
    * Fluoride interferes with the growth of the bacteria which cause cavities.
    * Fluoride helps to repair the early stages of tooth decay.”

    That is the greatest pack of lies ever told.
    As for this gem –

    “Also, do you really think the government would really put a dangerous substance in drinking water if they didn’t know that the amounts they put in were safe.”

    Ertl that’s the propaganda believing, blind freddy sheep following mentality that the authorities want so they can force this poison on us or keep forcing it on those who have had it for years.

    What part of “Fluoride is harmful to us no matter how little they put in the water” .. don’t you understand?

    Also Ertl once this toxin is in the water supply the dosage per individual cannot be controlled because individuals drink more or less water than others & it will be in everything we eat & drink do to the use of water in some form or other for cooking, manufacturing etc. It will also be absorbed through your skin when you bathe/shower.

    The first township that fluoridated it’s water supply in the USA over 50 years ago – Grand Rapids in Michigan has now ceased doing it because they have realised that it has no significant benefit in preventing dental caries.

    I believe that if our Council & Councilors truly represent us & believe that forced fluoridation of our water is undemocratic/ unconstitutional then the people of this region should be given a vote on the issue. If the majority vote “NO” then we as a region should stand up to the Govt. & refuse to have this toxin in our water regardless of the legislation. They can’t throw us all in jail.

    It also pays to remember that fluoride is accumulative & all the water the comes through our households that goes down the sewer to the treatment works ends up in the river.

    That then ends up accumulating in the fish & other seafood products we eat.
    So now we add Fluoride to the list of poisonous chemicals & heavy metals that can be found in seafoods like mercury,cadmium,lead, DDT’s, PCB’s etc. All deadly & all accumulative.

    Wakeup Australians this draconian scam has to be stopped.

  22. StewartGon 28 Feb 2011 at 10:56 am

    I agree with practically everything written on this current blog against the mass medication of Fraser Coast residents with fluoride. But there is one thing that (most) people have missed completely. The fluoride that we will be getting isn’t sodium fluoride nor is it calcium fluoride. It is fluorosilicic acid. Sodium fluoride is to expensive for mass mediaction. Fluorosilicic acid is a waste product of aluminium smelting and superphosphate (fertiliser) production.

    As mentioned earlier, this toxic waste, in liquid form, is tankered in rubber-lined tankers because it eventually eats it’s way through stainless steel. When workers handle the powdered form, they have to dress in protective clothing, masks and respirators to prevent contact, inhalation or ingestion of the stuff.

    Most of this waste comes from Geelong in Victoria from the Insitec or Alcoa plants there but I believe (from hearsay) that our waste comes from China – because it is cheaper still.

    I can’t believe that we have to pay (and we will have to pay) for someone else’s toxic waste to put into our water supply. This is a toxic waste that these companies would have enormous difficulty and cost to dispose of in any other way. They must be rubbing their hands together with glee.

    Now here is the clincher. Because it is a toxic waste product with no further processing, it also carries with it a number of heavy metals and elements such as mercury, arsenic, chromium, zinc, nickel, aluminium, iodine and manganese. This information is from actual certificates of analysis from Incitec Pivot and I would suspect that the Chinese sourced product would contain as much, if not more of these contaminants.

    Surely we can take out an injunction to stop toxic waste products from being dumped into our drinking water.

    As also mentioned earlier, most filters won’t take out fluoride as it is soluble. You need an expensive reverse-osmosis unit.

    For further information on fluoridation of Australian drinking water see the following website: http://www.firewaterfilm.com

    Sue, what can we do before it is all too late? And it is NEVER too late…


  23. Sueon 02 Jun 2011 at 2:57 pm

    If you go to this site : http://www.breatheeasy.com.au/fluoride_mandate.html – there are mandate forms there that can be completed and sent to the Qld Govt (all info is on that site). There was apparently a successful mandate in one town in Victoria (the town where Australian produced fluoride comes from).

    A mandate is an order from the people to the government – the government are the servants of the people and not the other way around – it is apparently in our Australian consitution.

    The introduction of fluoride is mass medication and I know that for myself with thyroid disease and regard for my health, I will not be consuming any town water which does make life a bit more of a challenge.

    My hubby and I have sent off out mandate forms and I suggest that anyone else concerned about this should do the same.


  24. Judith & Alan Genschon 07 Mar 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Right from the time our three boys were small, they were given a flouride tablet with their milk daily. All three have strong, white teeth (and they are now in their mid to late 30s). We would prefer to see mass fluoridation scrapped, and replaced with the daily tablet by those parents who choose to do so. Every new system introduced has a cost to the local councils, and this has to be shared across the community. We believe that fluoride is not needed once children reach their teens, and certainly the benefit to adults would be minimal, particularly if they have neglected good dental hygeine. Surely caring parents should be responsible for their child’s general health, as let’s face it, dental and medical expenses can prove an enormous budget hole if basic tasks are neglected.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply