Letter | Which is the real noisy minority on fluoride

RE: “Allow truth to prevail”, (letter to the editor, Oberon Review, August 2).

Before your victory lap and unwarranted criticism of former mayor, Keith Sullivan, please remember that previous mayors and councillors were subjected to the same barrage of propaganda and misinformation as the current one - in fact, on several occasions.

They obviously rejected the spin doctors and, reflecting the will of their ratepayers, elected to protect their community, and for that they should be appreciated.

It is noteworthy that the issue never arose at the last election. Immediately the "new chum" council emerged, I believe the bureaucrats saw their opportunity and pounced. They must have been "high-fiving" all the way back to Sydney.


When referencing "noisy minorities", proponents should be reminded that they, in fact, are the five per cent minority worldwide who are silly enough to put a poison in their drinking water.

The so-called "noisy minority" are far better informed and are performing a valuable service by sounding the alarm.

We do know what sodium fluoride is. It occurs in nature and is quite rare. There are no sodium fluoride mines. The statement seems to imply that sodium fluoride is the substance used in fluoridation.

This is, at the best, disingenuous, and if the five councillors made their decision based on this assumption, they have been seriously misled.

We know the additive is hydrofluorosilicic acid. It is more dangerous than lead and slightly less dangerous than arsenic. Taken over decades, it weakens bones and calcifies in organs, including the pineal gland. Dilution is immaterial.

All this information is readily available to those who choose to look.

However, in this age of deception, the bureaucrats ignore and ridicule the facts.

As for respected Australian organisations, Australia is a vassal state of America and any Australian government going against the interest of an American multinational polluter would have their leash quickly jerked.

When fluoridation was introduced in the 1950s and 1960s, Australia was a much more trusting and naive society. Governments would not get away with this nonsense today.

There is an excellent chance the pending lawsuit by the American fluoride action network against the American Environmental Protection Agency will be successful, but it could take up to two years.

Professor Paul Connect says if successful, it will mean the practice will cease, not only in America but worldwide.

This could coincide with our next council election.

Roger Arrow