I received water usage information for the town in the 2017 calendar year from the general manager.  The town used 607 megalitres of water in 2017. 

If fluoridation were to be implemented, it would mean between 607 and 910 kilograms of sodium fluoride would be added to our environment every year.

Over a 10-year period, with the population growing, that would be at the very least six tonnes to up to or in excess of 10 tonnes of sodium fluoride. It would be environmentally detrimental to fluoridate the water supply as the majority of the water treated is not drunk by anyone. If I pitched this concept to the Shark Tank, they’d fall about themselves laughing at the idea.  

New Zealand has just confirmed that the practice of fluoridation is mass medication. But I still contend how is it an effective way of treating teeth when only 0.34 per cent of water now is actually being consumed by anyone? 

It is actually even less due to people drinking bottled water and other sources, like tank water, etc. It is a method of mass medication that makes sure your lawn and vegies get a good dose of fluoride, and your pets too. What are you going to do if your pet gets sick because of the fluoride in the water?

So where does all that other water go, the 99.66 per cent? It goes on our lawns and gardens and back into the Fish River. 

The sewage treatment process does not take the fluoride out. It’s not designed to and it would be cost-prohibitive in any event. If you live downstream of the town, wouldn’t you want to know what effect fluoridation would have? This has not been addressed by council, but it should be.

This policy makes no environment sense. This policy makes no common sense. Yet another two reasons I am opposed to water fluoridation.