IT is surprising that the mayor of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, Lisa Intermann, is not receiving more media exposure with regards to recent developments relating to who is responsible and liable in the hierarchy of fluoridation gone wrong.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
This maverick woman is taking on a big house of cards that we should all be concerned about as residents who will soon be in a municipality of artificial water fluoridation.
By now, tenders have probably gone out from Oberon Council and I believe this is advertised for about 21 days and then further considered by council to start the fluoridation process.
The then councillor Lisa Intermann submitted to the NSW Standing Committee of Public Works a document for parliamentary inquiry. This is a stellar work and references and eloquently argues the simple facts of fluoridation's interaction with human health; the effects on health and the environment and the long-term integrity of infrastructure pipes, pumps and sewerage treatment systems. This was in May 2005 and why has so little changed with regards to public awareness of fluoridation?
Why should we as residents be concerned with all this? After all, the councillors have agreed to make it their responsibility. In the future, if things go wrong with health, environment or water/sewer reticulation processes, will the council bear the financial burden or do we as ratepayers?
READ ALSO:
Even down to the end promoters of fluoridation, the Australian Dental Association (ADA), where does legal liability sit? If you haven't recently read their website, do so. The ADA website still openly promotes fluoridation and refers to it broadly as natural. There is no real information about artificial fluoridation and the actual type of fluorides used which may come from the phosphate fertiliser industry or the aluminium industry.
The ADA site is a good read with many helpful suggestions and it, of course, is representing the dentists. It would be wise for them to also seek legal counsel to perhaps change some of the wording on the site to protect themselves and the dentists they represent.
One could wonder is it time for dentists to have patients sign a legal waiver when they have fluoride treatments or patients use fluoride supplements that they are recommending in the name of tooth decay? They do not know the individual's health issues nor the total daily fluoride intake of their patients via food, water, medicine, etc.
Why should the dentist be the last on the list of possible litigation? We all love our dentist! Or is it the duty of the ADA to accept this role due to their "voice" being the advocate of dentists?
This year two major litigation proceedings are happening, one in Australia and one in the USA, which will decide the fate of all these questions. In the meantime, will the public bear the brunt of increased rates for fluoridation gone wrong and as liability becomes an issue?
The end user in this tale, unfortunately, is always the general public, which has to contend with the health and environmental consequences.
