Join Us – Sign the AHFA Fluoride Petition Today!
(New South Wales residents only)

"In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk." - US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEADQUARTERS' UNION, 2001.

“Over the past ten years a large body of peer-reviewed science has raised concerns that fluoride may present unreasonable health risks, particularly among children, at levels routinely added to tap water in American cities.” - ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, July 2005

    

Sign this petition by filling out the form below. We'll include your online signature in a petition report delivered to every Member of the New South Wales Parliament. As this is an Australian petition, it is open only to Australian citizens and residents. (* Indicates required fields).

* First Name:
* Last Name:
* Your Street Address:
* Suburb:
* City:
* Post Code:
Country:
* Email Address:	(required for authentication)
Website address:	(used to link back to you at your request, see below)
Yes, you may publicly display my name and website as a supporter of this petition (only your first name and last initial are displayed, your email and other details are kept private)
Yes, I would like to receive the latest relevant information and updates about this petition subject when more news comes to hand.

Simple, honest terms and conditions: By signing this petition, you agree to allow us to add your petition entry to our database, and to deliver your petition by email along with contact details, email and personal addresses information to the Members of the New South Wales Parliament as part of a collection of petition signatures.(Your petition will be sent as a single email to the politicians involved).

Politicians need to know that you are a real person, with real address details, else they will construe this email as spam

We agree to protect your email privacy and other private details. With your permission (if you check the checkbox, above) we will publicize your name and website as a supporter of this petition. This petition is a completely non-commercial effort, and nothing is for sale here.

Remove The Fluoride From Our Drinking Water! (NSW)

Help us reach our goal of 100,000 signatures on the Health Petition sent to the New South Wales Parliament.

Signatures received since launch day (September 2, 2009):

We, the People of New South Wales, hereby call for revolutionary changes in our health care system that encourage health and prosperity instead of disease and corporate profit. Specifically, we call for: The full removal of fluoride from our drinking water. The fluoride that is introduced into our drinking water is an industrial waste by-product from the phosphate fertiliser and aluminium industries ( fluorosilicic Acid and Sodium fluorosilicate ), and is not the natural inorganic form of fluoride normally occurring in nature (Calcium Fluoride). This practice disregards the fact that naturally fluoride-rich water may contain more calcium (found chemically linked with calcium in nature) and little or no silicon-linked fluoride. These unnatural industrial bi-products are not flushed from our bodies and they build up residually over time. They are industrial grade, not pharmaceutical grade products and can also contain small residues of toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, arsenic, mercury or lead. "Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation, are unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. Fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity, and, lacking toxicity testing of silicofluorides, constitutes unlawful medical research. It is banned in most of Europe; European Union human rights legislation makes it illegal. Indeed, most of Western Europe has rejected fluoridation on the grounds that it is unsafe. In 1971, after 11 years of testing, Sweden's Nobel Medical Institute recommended against fluoridation, and the process was banned. The Netherlands outlawed the practice in 1976, after 23 years of tests. France decided against it after consulting with its Pasteur Institute and Germany rejected the practice because the recommended dosage of 1 ppm was "too close to the dose at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected." All of western Europe, except one or two test towns in Spain, has abandoned fluoride as a public health plan. It is not put in the water anywhere. They all established test cities and found that the benefits did not occur and the toxicity was evident. Silicofluorides have never been submitted to the U.S. FDA or Australian TGA for approval as medicines. The ethical validity of fluoridation policy does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics, including the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999. The police power of the State has been used in the United States to override health concerns, with the support of the courts, which have given deference to health authorities." Australia has used a similar format to introduce fluoride. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12749628?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum We refuse to be mass medicated, without consent by our government (see State Criminal Laws governing consent) based upon faulty data and quasi science when there is now overwhelming scientific evidence to prove the real dangers far out weigh any perceived gain. As the Nuremberg Code dictates, it is not a reasonable defence for an elected government official or military personal to claim that "they were only following orders" or that "they were ignorant of the information and facts before them". This is no defense with regard to the care of duty towards citizens and public. Government public health and environmental policies should be determined honestly, with full attention paid to the latest scientific research and to ethical principles. You are now in receipt of overwhelming valid scientific evidence relative to the dangers of fluoride. We will now hold the government responsible for any future illness, disease(dental fluorosis) or death associated with fluoridation of our drinking water. The below points justify our position. Please also see http://www.fluoridealert.org/queensland-letter.htm EIGHT recent events make action to end water fluoridation urgent. 1. The publication in 2006 of a 500-page review ( http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 ) of fluoride’s toxicology by a distinguished panel appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC, 2006). The NRC report concluded that the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (i.e. maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG) of 4 parts per million (ppm) is unsafe and should be lowered. Despite over 60 years of fluoridation, the report listed many basic research questions that have not been addressed. Still, the panel reviewed a large body of literature in which fluoride has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects. These include an increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis and, possibly, osteosarcoma. The average fluoride daily intakes (*) associated with many of these adverse effects are reached by some people consuming water at the concentration levels now used for fluoridation -- especially small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, people with poor kidney function and other vulnerable sub-groups. For example, the average fluoride daily intake associated with impaired thyroid function in people with iodine deficiency (about 12% of the US population) is reached by small children with average consumption of fluoridated water at 1 ppm and by people of any age or weight with moderate to high fluoridated water consumption. Of special note among the animal studies is one in which rats fed water containing 1 ppm fluoride had an increased uptake of aluminum into the brain, with formation of beta-amyloid plaques, which is a classic marker of Alzheimer's disease pathology in humans. Considering the substantial variation in individual water intake, exposure to fluoride from many other sources, its accumulation in the bone and other calcifying tissues and the wide range of human sensitivity to any toxic substance, fluoridation provides NO margin of safety for many adverse effects, especially lowered thyroid function. * Note: "Daily intake" takes into account the exposed individual’s bodyweight and is measured in mg. of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight. 2. The evidence provided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2005 that 32% of American children have dental fluorosis – an abnormal discoloration and mottling of the enamel. This irreversible and sometimes disfiguring condition is caused by fluoride. Children are now being overdosed with fluoride, even in non-fluoridated areas, from water, swallowed toothpaste, foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water, and other sources. Fluoridated water is the easiest source to eliminate. 3. The American Dental Association’s policy change, in November 2006, recommending that only the following types of water be used for preparing infant formula during the first 12 months of life: "purified, distilled, deionized, demineralized, or produced through reverse osmosis." This new policy, which was implemented to prevent the ingestion of too much fluoride by babies and to lower the risk of dental fluorosis, clearly excludes the use of fluoridated tap water. The burden of following this recommendation, especially for low income families, is reason alone for fluoridation to be halted immediately. Formula made with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than the average 0.004 ppm concentration found in human breast milk in non-fluoridated areas (Table 2-6, NRC, 2006. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030910128X&page=40 ). 4. The CDC’s concession, in 1999 and 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC. To the extent fluoride works to reduce tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. It makes no sense to drink it and expose the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available. Fluoride’s topical mechanism probably explains the fact that, since the 1980s, there have been many research reports indicating little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Leverett, 1982; Colquhoun, 1984; 1985 and 1987; Diesendorf, 1986; Gray, 1987; Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer,1996; deLiefde, 1998; Locker, 1999; Armfield and Spencer, 2004; and Pizzo 2007 (see citations - http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/biblio.html). Poverty is the clearest factor associated with tooth decay, not lack of ingested fluoride. According to the World Health Organization, dental health in 12-year olds in non-fluoridated industrialized countries is as good, if not better, than those in fluoridated countries (Neurath, 2005. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/384/files/384324-325.pdf). 5. In 2000, the publication of the UK government sponsored “York Review,” the first systematic scientific review of fluoridation, found that NONE of the studies purporting to demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation to reduce tooth decay were of grade A status, i.e. “high quality, bias unlikely” (McDonagh et al., 2000. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/855 ). 6. The publication in May 2006 of a peer-reviewed, case-controlled study from Harvard University which found a 5-7 fold increase in osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young men associated with exposure to fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th and 8th years (Bassin et al., 2006). This study was surrounded by scandal as Elise Bassin’s PhD thesis adviser, Professor Chester Douglass, was accused by the watchdog Environmental Working Group of attempting to suppress these findings for several years (see video - http://www.fluoridealert.org/fox-transcript.html ). While this study does not prove a relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma beyond any doubt, the weight of evidence and the importance of the risk call for serious consideration. 7. The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion (Fox, 1999; Hazan, 2000; Plaisier, 2000; Thurnau, 2000). 8. The publication in 2004 of “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson. This meticulously researched book showed that industrial interests, concerned about liabilities from fluoride pollution and health effects on workers, played a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation. Bryson also details the harassment of scientists who expressed concerns about the safety and/or efficacy of fluoridation (see Bryson interview - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3949434744498031545&hl=en ). We call upon Members of Parliament to sponsor a Royal Commission Hearing on so that those in government agencies who continue to support the procedure, particularly the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), be compelled to provide the scientific basis for their ongoing promotion of fluoridation. They must be cross-examined under oath if the public is ever to fully learn the truth about this outdated and harmful practice. We call upon all medical and dental professionals, members of water departments, local officials, public health organizations, environmental groups and the media to examine for themselves the new documentation that fluoridated water is ineffective and poses serious health risks. It is no longer acceptable to simply rely on endorsements from agencies that continue to ignore the large body of scientific evidence on this matter -- especially the extensive citations in the NRC (2006) report discussed above. The untold millions of dollars that are now spent on equipment, chemicals, monitoring, and promotion of fluoridation could be much better invested in nutrition education and targeted dental care for children from low income families. The vast majority of enlightened nations have done this (see statements - http://fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm ). It is time for Australia, and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now. Click here ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/refs.html ) to see references cited in this statement. Yours sincerely

See all Friend Point scores: (click here to check your score)

41 friend points - Rob M of Sydney NSW, Australia
http://www.BetterLivingResources.name

6 friend points - Thalia S of NSW, Australia
http://www.myneways.com.au/thalia

3 friend points - Tom G of Sydney, Australia
http://www.healthelicious.com.au

2 friend points - Jerome L of Sydney, Australia

1 friend points - Margaret B of Bellingen, Australia