Dr Steven Lin’s position on fluoridation of water and the future of Australian water
Sent: Thursday, 3 September 2020 11:06 AM
To: NHMRC <nhmrc@nhmrc.gov.au>
Subject: Official Request for NHMRC
National Health and
Medical Research Council
Canberra ACT 2601
Dear Sir/Madam,
Would the NHMRC please take into account Dr Steven Lin’s position on
fluoridation of water supplies as outlined in www.drweitz.com/2018/05/rational-wellness-podcast-056-the-dental-diet-with-dr-steven-lin/
And https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/fluoride-debates-should-switch-focus-to-cause-of-tooth-decay-20150909-gji62b.html
I find that in addition to consent issues, ‘fluoride fails to address the core
reason of why tooth decay occurs’. ‘Fluoride addresses a very small
slither of that equation… we’ve really moved past the idea that fluoride is our
underlying way of preventing. It’s a treatment. It should be seen as a
treatment.’
And is this not correct?: ‘the idea of fluoridation came from mountain ranges that
had higher mineral content of fluoride. And this idea that we insert it in a
chemical way, probably isn’t as effective anyway.’
SA does not have legislation to fluoridate. SA Health/Water jointly undertake
it in good faith. Their strongest and only source of evidence is the National
Health and Medical Research Council paper outlining the reasons for
fluoridating. While it’s not a life or death issue, and we can ‘agree to
disagree’ in the meantime, it’s still better to err on the side of not fluoridating.
One point I can’t deny is that the saliva may contain more fluoride and
therefore provide constant availability for strengthening the surface. Is it
proven that toothpastes and tea do not result in the same constant
availability? Does it have to be water? I find that it is easier to change a
fluoride believer into a fluoride hater than the other way around. There is no
issue of opposition to this issue if one were to be more courageous.
Everyone is different and we don’t all want the same treatment as is common in
the hospitals. While we can refuse to drink SA water, we are not that strong
willed. I ask that fluoridation of water be ceased if possible in the future by
having NHMRC come to a position of neither recommending nor rebutting
fluoridation. That will pave the way for SA Health/Water to consider on their
own what is in the best interests of the people of SA.
Thank you for your
email to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and apologies
for the delay in response.
As outlined in the 2017 NHMRC Public Statement – Water fluoridation and human
health in Australia (the Statement) there is consistent and reliable
evidence that community water fluoridation at current Australian levels helps
to reduce tooth decay. NHMRC found that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay
by 26 to 44% in children and adolescents and by about 27% in adults. Further
information on how NHMRC evaluated the evidence to develop the recommendations
in the Statement is provided on the NHMRC website.
NHMRC considers it
ethical to fluoridate community water supplies because it provides important
dental health benefits and reduces tooth decay across the population. This is
especially important for children and those who are on a lower income with less
access to dental treatment or other forms of fluoride. More information on the
ethics of fluoridating water can be found in our Questions and Answers Resource. Access to fluoride such as
through community water fluoridation is also noted as a key oral health
promotion strategy in the National Oral Health Plan 2015-2024.
It is constitutional
for state governments to pass legislation to protect and enhance public health.
The decision to implement the advice outlined in the Statement continues to be
the responsibility of the state and territory governments.
We trust the above
information answers your questions.
Kind regards,
The Water Team
Public Health
Research Translation
Branch
National Health and
Medical Research Council
Comments
Post a Comment