Newspaper article The Daily Mercury (Mackay, Australia)

Elementary Argument

Newspaper article The Daily Mercury (Mackay, Australia)

Elementary Argument

Article excerpt

CAROL Skeggs (DM 31/12/09) seeks the views of Mackay Regional councillors re fluoridation.

Carol may not know that the opinions of local councils were not canvassed: they were ignored in exactly the same way as all the rest of us.

It is, however, understandable that Carol may think that councillors are in some way responsible as Council controls the water supply and (now) adds the stuff to the supply.

This is because they are compelled to do so under the Water Fluoridation Act 2008. Although local government is not spelt out in the act, public potable water supplier is, and the Mackay Regional Council fulfils this role here and is therefore bound to fluoridate the water.

Section 8 of the act provides some exemptions from the requirement, but Mackay does not comply with any of the exemption provisions. So the views of individual Mackay councillors are irrelevant.

Much more useful to continue to question the local Labor politicians re Part 9 of the act - matters relating to liability and indemnity. This carefully written nonsense protects everyone associated with fluoridation except the public.

As for the value of ingesting fluoride generally: I read all the for and against arguments and end up no longer caring. It seems to me a question of belief and I choose to believe it is stupid to take the stuff in any form... however, I defend the right of people to believe otherwise, to take it or administer it to their children in tablet or any other form.

What I do violently object to is being forced to spend money on either bottled water, a reverse osmosis filter or a tank (and risk the bat poo). I object to being forcefully medicated when any doubt whatsoever exists and there are alternatives.

And there's no question that if we kick this lot out that the LNP will remove the poison from the water; after all their leader is a dentist who thinks he knows that fluoridating the water is good so they won't change anything, especially as millions of public dollars have been spent on infrastructure.

The general run-of-the-mill dentist knows as much about the effects of fluoride on the whole body as a car mechanic knows about the effects of spilled fuel on fish stocks in the ocean.

Probably a whole lot less.

Taxes did not fund most attendees

IN response to the SMS addressed to me from OM, Eaglemount Heights (DM 24/12/09): He/she appears to be labouring under the ridiculous impression that the majority of the estimated 46,000 attendees, at the recent Copenhagen conference all travelled to the conference at taxpayers' expense.

He/she further claims that sceptics would have out-numbered those that did attend, had taxpayers paid their fare. How could he/she justify such a silly claim?

He/she probably does not realise those attending, in addition to participants, included interested individuals and groups from around the world. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.