Draft NHMRC Public Statement 2017: Water fluoridation and human health in Australia submission

ID:

This submission reflects the views of

Please add further information:

community member

Personal Details

First Name:

Mark

Last Name:

Strother

Question 1

Q1. A. The draft Public Statement is presented in a format and manner that is useful, and is easy to read and understand:

Disagree

Overarching/General comments on the Public Statement:

It is not useful because it is not balanced and giving the full facts.

It needs to include infomation like the following

"There are many unanswered questions due to lack of research, regarding the safety of flouridation. There are plenty of scientists and toxicologists who would recommend using the precautionary principle, until more research is done."

Comments on a particular section of the Public Statement:

Health outcomes

The public statements about there being 'no reliable evidence of an association between community water fluoridation at current Australian levels and health problems' is misleading .

In the Information paper - Water Fluoridation : dental and other health outcomes, the evidence statement statement for cognitive impairment is based on just one study that was not even done in Australia. This is hardly conclusive. You seem to have ignored the 280 studies that Michael Connett referenced in his public consultation submission, and the fact that the one study you do use is flawed. In the NHMRC evidence evaluation report it says on page 29 "Interpreting a body of evidence consisting of few studies and/or poor quality studies

When a body of evidence consists of few studies and/or poor quality studies, caution should be used when interpreting it and making any recommendations." But with only one study that the NHMRC found acceptable (as flawed as it is), the NHMRC has thrown caution to the wind and 'Strongly Recommended fluoridation as safe' !

According to the NHMRC Health effects of Fluoridation -Evidence Evaluation Report page 224, the study done by (Choi et al 2015) concluded that their research supported the notion that fluoride in drinking water may produce development neurotoxicity. This was based on the finding that participants with moderate to severe dental fluorosis had a significantly decreased mean total and backward digit span score compared to participants with normal to questionable dental fluorosis. However this is being chosen to be ignored, no further research is being conducted, and there has been a declaration by the NHMRC that there is absolutely no association with current levels of water fluoridation and cognitive impairment, despite there not even being a reference to a margin of safety analysis. This makes it seem that the NHMRC is developing their arguements with bias, and telling only the story they wish to tell.

In 2006 the National Research council in the United states examined the literature on fluoride’s impact on health. In Chapter 7 of its report, the panel reviewed both animal and human studies relating to fluorides effect on the brain. They said “ On the basis of information largely derived from histological , chemical and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means…. Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease."

The NRC panel recommended “additional animal studies designed to evaluate reasoning” The NRC panel also recommended that studies of populations “exposed to different concentrations of fluoride” be undertaken to “evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia,” adding that “consideration be delayed or occur late-in-life, and individual susceptibility”

Based on the IQ related studies they had access to back in 2006, they concluded “A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant and enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.”

The NRC panel recommended that future research “should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short and longterm memory”; However, the Australian government has invested nothing in any such research, therefore there is nothing for the NHMRC to go by, other than fit in line with the current Government policy, and declare there to be 'insufficient evidence, which they equate to being 100% safe.

The NHMRC is ignoring the advice given by Dr Grandjean, and Dr Landrigan in their 2014 paper 'Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity'. "These new approaches must reverse the dangerous presumption that new chemicals and technologies are safe until proven otherwise. They must also overcome the existing requirement to produce absolute proof of toxicity before action can be started to protect children against neurotixic substances. Precautionary interpretation of data about developmental neurotoxicity should take into account the very large individual and societal costs that result from failure to act on available documentation to prevent disease in children. Academic research has often favoured scepticism and required extensive replication before acceptance of a hypothesis, thereby adding to the intertia in toxicology and environmental health research and the consequent disregard of many other potential neurotoxicants. Additionally, the strength of evidence that is needed to constitute 'proof' should be analysed in a societal perspective, so that the implications of ignoring a developmental neurotixicant and of failing to act on the basis of available data are also taken into account.

With regard to the evidence statement for chronic kidney disease it should read 'since there is not enough study been done to a level that meets our criteria (only one) more research is recommended and the precautionary principle should be applied before subjecting the entire population to any risk.

With regards to the evidence statement for skeletel fluorosis and musculoskeletal pain it needs to say that not enough research has been done, including no research in Australia, on Australians. There should be a reference to the publication by the ‘National Academies Press’ called ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water : A scientific review of EPA’s Standards (2006). It states ‘Skeletal Fluorosis is a bone and joint condition associated with prolonged exposure to high concentration of fluoride. Fluoride increases bone density and appears to exacerbate the growth of osteophytes present in the bone and joints, resulting in joint stiffness and pain. The condition is categorized into one of four stages: a preclinical stage and three clinical stages that increase in severity. The most severe stage (clinical stage lll) historically has been referred to as the ‘crippling’ stage. At stage ll, mobility is not significantly affected, but is is characterized by chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments and osteosclerosis of the cancellous bones.’
Where is the proof that water with 1ppm consumed over a lifetime, will not result in stage ll skeletal fluorosis? Is it not possible that in the next few decades the prolonged exposure to fluoride in drinking water in Australia may be the cause of people suffering from joint pain as a direct result of the fluoride. This cannot be proved or disproved as we are still in the experimental stage of this mass human experiment without consent, and requires research to be done! Declaring something as safe, because you simply haven't done the research is hardly science!

Other useful resources

2017 Chilean review: fluoridation is ineffective & harmful

A team of experts from Chile--including doctors, biologists, a lawyer, a civil engineer, a toxicologist, an environmental expert, and a chemist--have published a damning review of water fluoridation in the Medical Journal of Chile, February 2017. The review was financed by the Medical College of Chile.

Chile is considered a pioneer in the fluoridation of drinking water, starting in 1953 when Curico was fluoridated. By 1958, nearly 60% of the country was fluoridated, and constant expansion has led to a current rate of 82.5%.

Despite the long history of national support for the practice, the article entitled, "Consequences of Fluoridation of Drinking Water on Human Health," concludes that artificial fluoridation of drinking water and milk has not only been ineffective at reducing dental decay in children, but is likely harmful to health. According to the researchers:

"A) The effects of fluoride intake pose risks of various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems. Dental and skeletal fluorosis are signs of chronic and excessive ingestion of fluoride.

B) Infants, children and adolescents are at high risk of diseases due to over-intake of fluorides, through drinking water and / or fluoridated milk, as the deterioration of health is proportional to the dose and the time of exposure .

C) The fluoridation of drinking water does not significantly impact on caries prevention. For their effectiveness is rather a topical and non-systemic effect, as demonstrated by countries that do not fluoride drinking water, and do not use milk or fluoride salts, decreasing dental deterioration at the same rate as those that fluoride drinking water."

The research team based their analysis on a review of all available studies that included control of confounding variables. They discuss fluoride's ability to cause bone, thyroid, neurological, and skin damage. There is also in indepth analysis of WHO data that shows, "fluoridation of drinking water and salts have no incidence at all in reducing dental [decay]."

There was also a brief discussion on the legal aspects of water fluoridation, which found the following:

"The fluoridation of drinking water in Chile forces citizens to involuntarly consume a chemical they do not require. For decade the majority of the Chilean population has been overexposed to this potentially unhealthy element, transgressing constitional guarantees."

In response to their findings the research team made the following recommendations:

" 1. To amend Decree No. 735 of November 7, 1969, updating it with Supreme Decree No. 131 of 2006, and the Regulations for Services for Human Consumption of 2007, to avoid fluoridation of drinking water and avoid fluoridation Of milk, in all regions of the country.

2. Prioritize the use of dental hygiene products containing the necessary, but minimal, amounts of fluoride to maintain dental health, strengthen education for better dental care and better nutrition.

3. Educate health and education professionals about the adverse consequences of fluoride intake.

4. To carry out epidemiological studies in Chile, to evaluate the adverse effects on health, through ingestion and use of fluorides, for decades."

How is it, that scientists from Chile, come up with the exact opposite results from their review, compared to Australian Reviewers. Something doesn't add up !!

Question 2

Q2. A. The boxed ‘NHMRC statement’ (page one) in the draft Public Statement is justified and supported by the evidence in the Information Paper: Effects of Water Fluoridation on Dental and Other Human Health Outcomes :

Disagree

Q2. B. If disagree or neutral, please provide recent scientific evidence not previously submitted to NHMRC. Refer to what is ‘Out of scope for this public consultation’ below:

Regarding the statement : NHMRC strongly recommends community water fluoridation as a a) SAFE b) EFFECTIVE and c) ETHICAL way to help reduce tooth decay across the population.

a) SAFE . How can the NHMRC Strongly recommend community water fluoridation as safe, when there is no reference to a detailed margin of safety analysis?

As you would be aware, usually toxicologists take the lowest level or dose at which toxicity is observed (Lowest observable adverse effect level) and divide by 10 to set the margin of safety. This needs to take into account those with poor diet, the old, the young, those with poor kidney function (which reduces the ability to excrete fluoride) those who consume above average quantities of water (athletes, diabetics etc) and infants who are fed formula that has been reconstituted with fluoridated water. Since the level of fluoride in Australia has been set at between .6 and 1.1 ppm, this would mean the LOAEL would be between 6 and 11 ppm. A claim that water fluoridation is safe can only be made with an accompanying detailed margin of safety analysis.

The NHMRC statement declares fluoride at 1 ppm safe to be used to reconstitute baby formula, however there is no reference as to how this conclusion came to be. I could not find any studies in the NHMRC 'Evidence Evaluation report'. A baby drinking formula with floridated tap water is getting up to 250 times more floride than a breast fed baby. The Lancet medical journal published a study that included Fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin, and yet the NHMRC declares it safe for babies, based on what? What studies have been done to see how many of the children who have severe dental fluorosis were bottle fed?

check out the Australian Dental Journal 1996.Feb;41(1):37-42. by authors Slivia M, and Reynalds EC. The abstract says '..if reconstituted with water containing 1.0 ppm F they should all provide a daily fluoride intake of above the suggested threshold for fluorosis with intakes up to 2-3 times the recommended upper 'optimal' limit of 0.07 mg/kg body mass. Under these conditions the water used to reconstitute the formulae would provide 65-97 percent of the fluoride ingested "

Based on this, I would expect the duty of care for the various Departments of Health across Austraila, would be to stop fluoridation, and fund their own studies to determine whether or not it is a development neurotoxin at the current levels. The NHMRC is remiss if it fails to warn the Government that the precautionary principle needs to be adopted and there is currently too many unknowns to declare it safe.

Based on the IQ related studies they had access to back in 2006, they concluded “A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposes to fluoride at 2.5 to 4mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant and enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.”

The NRC panel recommended that future research “should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short and longterm memory” Since the Australian Government has never done any such research in followup to the millions of people subjected to water fluoridation, how is it that the NHMRC can so confidently declare it as 'Safe' ?

The city of Geelong has had fluoride added to its public water supply since 2009. Since then, there has been not even a single follow up study regarding any side effects, or to monitor and check for adverse health effects or benefits.

The most recent Australian data from the National Child Oral Health Study 2012-14 (NCOHS)102 shows that in Australian children aged 8 to 14 years:

16.8% have signs of any dental fluorosis (TF1+)
nearly all dental fluorosis is very mild (TF 1 or 2)
only 0.8% have mild fluorosis (TF 3)ad
very few children (0.1%) have moderate to severe dental fluorosis (TF 4+).ad

Based on this dental fluorosis data, and the latest cencus data for numbers of children, there will be approxmiately 234727 children with dental fluorosis between approx ages 10 to 14. But because fluorosis does not fade or go away, this number will be increasing as the children become adults.

This also means that approximately 1397 (0.1%) children will have moderate to severe dental fluorosis. This is shocking when you look at the impact it will have on their quality of life, and their personal costs in dental work to try and rectify their unnecessary suffering. There is currently no research being done in Australia to see if those with the bio-marker of overexposure to fluoride (ie dental fluorosis) have any other side effects such as arthritic sympotms in their bones. How can you declare something as safe when such a high number of children are suffering as a result, and the research is not being done to determine any side effects?

b)EFFECTIVE

Since over 60 years of water fluoridatiion there has yet to be a single randomized controlled trial to demostrate its benefits. Therefore the statement should read 'There is no good evidence at this stage to suggest any benefit through community water fluoridation.'

There is only sub standart studies done. For example in Health effects of Water Fluoridation: Evidence Evaluation Report by the NHMRC in 2016 table 1 on page 8, Titled - ‘Summary of findings for dental caries in deciduous teeth’ the quality of evidence ranges from ‘We are not confident about the reported associations’ to ‘Our confidence in the reported associations is limited.’ There is not a single study is classified as being 'very confident in the reported associations’ or not even a single ‘moderately confident’ report.
The same is for table 2 called ‘Summary of findings for dental caries in permanent teeth'.

On page 20 of the NHMRC Evidence Evaluation Report they say regarding the quality of evidence:

"QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE

Overall, the quality of the evidence for dental outcomes was low or very low. This was largely due to the limitations of observational studies, however restricting the inclusion to studies which adjusted for known confounding factors resulted in most of the included studies for caries being assessed as of acceptable quality. Any individual studies assessed as being of low quality were generally considered to be at risk of selection bias.

So the quality of evidence is low or very low, and yet the NHMRC are 'Strongly Recommending' water fluoridation as effective. How is this good science?

The Cochrane review in 2015 concluded ' There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, evaluating the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.'

c) ETHICAL

Community water fluoridation is breaking the Victorian human rights charter, section 10 which states that ‘people must not be subjected to medical treatment or experiments without their full and informed consent.

In the Information Paper - Water fluoridation : dental and other human health outcomes, it states that Regulatory bodies (like the Therapeutic Goods Administration) does not even consider fluoridated drinking water to be a therapeutic good or medicine. (this may be due to the fact that it is actually toxic waste from the fertiliser industry riddled with all types of toxic substances)

It is a breach of human rights to mass medicate a community through the water supply, (and to do it using a non regulated substance.)

Water fluoridation is unethical because it is an experiment on the human population without their consent.

Who knows, in the next few decades as people reach the period of having drunk fluoridated tap water for 80 years, the prolonged exposure to fluoride in drinking water in Australia may be the cause of people suffering from joint pain as a direct result of the fluoride. This cannot be proved or disproved yet, as we are still in the experimental stage of this mass human experiment without consent, and require research to be done.

Is there a need for water fluoridation? No. Based on data provided by the World Health Organisation, since water fluoridation has been introduced, there has been a decline in dental caries in countries that fluoridate, as well as those who don't. It would seem that general better dental hygene is the real key to lowering cavity rates. Therefore it would be unethical to impose something unneccessary upon an entire population.
Is water fluoridation at current Australian levels effective in reducing tooth decay? No. There is not a single randomised controlled trial to demonstrate its benefits. It is well accepted that any benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic, therefore the best practice would be for people to choose to use fluoridated toothpaste, instead of ingesting it into their body which is no benefit.
Is water fluoridation at current Australian levels harmful? Not enough research has been done to determine the degree of harm, although thousands suffer from severe dental fluorosis. Therefore it is not ethical to force water fluoridation on a population.
Does water fluoridation affect individual choice? Yes. Water fluoridation does make it more difficult for people who wish to drink non- fluoridated water. It may be difficult and/or expensive for people to avoid fluoridated water in areas with water fluoridation programs.
Are the values of equity and solidarity important in the Australian community? Yes. Australians expect Governments to abide by the Human Rights Charters, and not to mass medicate a whole community, with no control of the dose, and no follow up as to any adverse side effects or health issues.
Is water fluoridation a proportionate response to the problem of tooth decay? No. It is a waste of taxpayers money
What would happen if we stopped providing water fluoridation? A more pure form of water, which is what a Government should aim to provide the population. On the 21st April 2015 , Erin Brockovich wrote 'After a great deal of research and personal thought, I am opposed to the continued policy and practice of drinking water fluoridation; I believe this harmful practice must be ended immediately. Public drinking water is a basic human right; and its systematic use as a dispensary of a substance for medical purposes is deplorable.'

Also, when discussing the ethics of water fluoridation, the following questions need transparancy. 1. How much is the Government buying the Hydrofluosilicic Acid from the fertiliser industry for or is the fertiliser industry paying the Government to take their Hydrofluosilicic Acid? 2. If the Government stopped buying Hydrofluosilicic Acid from the Fertiliser industry, would the industry still be sustainable, having to spend money to dispose of the toxic waste? 3. If the Government used 100% pharmaceutical grade calcium fluoride to add to the water supply, how much would this cost, and would it still be considered cost effective?

Question 3

Q3. A. For policy makers, the draft Public Statement provides sufficient information to support decision making in your jurisdiction or local area:

Disagree

Overarching/General comments on the Public Statement:

The draft Public statement should show a picture of teeth that have severe dental fluorosis, and then point out that water fluoridation will contribute to thousands of children ending up with severe dental fluorosis.

This will better help decision makers know the consequenses of a decision to fluoridate.

Comments on a particular section of the Public Statement:

Question 4

Q4. How could the Public Statement be effectively disseminated?:

General comments

It should not be disseminated, but a record of it kept for the future, so that when the practice of community water fluoridation is finally put to an end, it can be there as evidence of how bias the NHMRC was to keep in line with Governement Policy.

Question 5

Q5. Is there any other information that may be useful to include in the draft Public Statement? If so, please provide details:

The following is a transcript from the documentry 'An Inconvenient Tooth' in which Peter Van Caulart, a Professor and Training Master in the water treatment training busines is interviewed.

https://youtu.be/sh-oeu2L8yM

He says the following ‘ I had a student come to me and say “you don’t have the right information. You should take a look at some of the new information”. I was just flabbergasted and I wondered how many people in the water treatment industry knew how they had been hoodwinked. So when I started to speak to operators in the last seven years I started to tell them about these hazards and the problems with their systems. And this was echoed in stories told back to me by the operators. A lot of operators came to me clandestinely and said ‘You know, I also have observed health effects because I’ve been handling the concentrated forms of these chemicals. I have problems with arthritis like symptoms, I can’t work in fluoride rooms, because when I do there’s a sensitisation and I have to be removed. And I felt the treatment plant operators as a whole, weren’t being represented. Nobody was listening to them, so I started to survey them, and I found out that overwhelmingly once they found out the truth about the hazards of the substance they were dealing with, and the fact that it really doesn’t do what it is supposed to do, that is dental decay prevention when ingested, many of them questioned whether or not we should be putting that substance in the water. In fact, emphatically most of them said ‘Lets get it out!”

Every time I speak at a public hearing, I’m not seen as some nut-job. I’m seen as someone who teaches their plant employees, the guy who their people get instruction from, and those are the same people in their communities that they rely on to provide safe drinking water. So there’s a bit of credibility when I speak, but more importantly there’s ‘awe’ when they find out the truth of what’s going in the drinking water. : Hydrofluosilicic acid , the chemical waste product from the phosphate fertiliser industry. This is a substance that simply goes from the processing plant, into a tanker truck and is delivered to a water treatment plant in my community and my councillors at the time were astonished that this product could even exist and when they asked their own municipal engineers whether this was so, those engineers confirmed the fact. Believing that the substances going into the water supply was somehow a pharmaceutical grade or some well prepared purified extract is completely false. This stuff comes filled with heavy metals. I have one certificate of analysis that shows upwards of 34 parts per million of lead in the shipment that was delivered to a municipality…not mine, but just down the road. Lead is a prohibited substance in the province of Ontario from being added to drinking water. It doesn’t matter that it gets diluted 180 thousand times in the process. Who would stand at the top of a water tower and deliberately add lead, a known human carcinogen into the drinking water? If I had done that even as a certified operator, I would have been arrested immediately. There’s no difference, except for the argument of dilution.

I had spent 25 years teaching students at the point I was ‘enlightened’ and my training was that fluoride was a compound simply added to the water for tooth decay prevention. This was the common thought. The problem with that was all of the books that were used to educate operators on drinking water treatment processes all said the same thing, and it was as is they came from some sort of scripted source. In 1995 I wondered that perhaps we should have more fluoridation in the province and I began an exploration of the possibility of providing courses to teach operators how to fluoridate the water…now it seems incongruous.. but at the time it was something I was exploring. I was one of the few CDC trained water engineers who have been able to provide CDC related training to operators about how to fluoridate drinking water supplies. So I wasn’t speaking from a point of wilderness, I was speaking from a point of authority, with the CDC information fully indoctrinated into my ‘being’ going out and talking to my students who were the treatment plant operators. People tended to trust the expert. The problem with trusting the expert, is that if the expert makes a mistake, those people end up having a mistaken belief. And thats exactly what happened. I used my CDC training to advocate for fluoridation, only to find out from one of my students that I was all washed up, and more importantly that student was graceful enough to tell me that I was full of crap. And better than that, I realised that perhaps I didn’t have everything that I should of had in my armoury of information to teach, that I had to go back and learn more, and when I did, I found out I was wrong. There’s nothing wrong, with being wrong. The greater wrong is not correcting it. And that’s what I am doing now, and that’s why I speak out about this. Like everything else, when you find out a truth that is unsettling, I was deeply embarrassed about the crime I had committed..an educational crime I committed for the previous 20,000 or so students who had heard that fluoridation is fine…and there’s a deep seeded feeling to undo that piece of information in the minds of those individuals. If I could go back in time and extract that chunk of information from their minds and replace it with what I know now, I would feel much better.

Fluoridation tends to be a belief system and in order to have a belief system you have to have a creed and you have to have faith. The creed has been established by the simple words of ‘Safe and effective” The faith is established by ‘Trust us, we’re the professionals, we’re the doctors, we’re the health professionals, we know better’. The reality is once you start to pick away at the basis for the creed, suddenly the faith is eroded. I suppose my job is to change the creed to the point where the faith is eroded enough, that people will abandon the faith, and it will be one of those faith systems that dissolves away in history. I think water fluoridation’s days are numbered. This practice is really a post world war 2 practice. The practice of using asbestos, the practice of thalidomide, the practice of leaded gasoline, the practice of numerous other chemical experiments that came from rapid chemical growth. People accepted these modern technological techno-chemical developments on faith without question.

My argument with fluoridation and dentists is this. First of all, no dental authority that I’ve ever met, is qualified to speak about water quality, and when we’re talking about putting Hydrofluosilicic acid as and ingested fluoride product into our bodies through the stomach, with the faint hope that it’s going to do something through the saliva on the surface of the teeth, without effecting any other parts of the body…this is just wishful thinking. I have said publicly ‘that if you show me a dentist that’s qualified beyond what lies in the human body between the chin and the nose, I’ll be glad to listen to them about water quality, but until that point in time, I’m not going to take my direction from Dental authorities or Dental trade Associations, or Dental unions about water fluoridation. When they step into the realm of water quality they are in my world. They’re not qualified to talk about it.

Ninety nine point five percent of all of the fluoride that gets put in with the purported use of treating teeth passes right through into the waste water stream, and back out into the receiving environment. The main component of Hydrofluosilicic acid is water… 75 % . The other component, the 25% is the actual hydrofluorisilic acid active ingredient. However, there are small percentages also of hydrogen fluoride and heavy metals, and the heavy metals include primarily lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury, and the more alarming thing for me are amounts of radionuclides which are radioactive components that are scrubbed out of the stack gases.

The entire treatment process (for drinking water) is done before Hydrofluosilicic acid gets added and then we deliberately degrade it with this stuff. When we degrade with water quality, we are not delivering the best water quality that we are capable of , we are delivering at some standard that is less and I believe that my neighbours, my family, my friends all deserve the best water quality that of the technology that we can afford. Hydrofluosilicic acid just goes the wrong way. The problem with the stuff is that we can’t dispose of it on the land, we can’t dispose of it readily into a receiving stream so the only other alternative is to find an alternate use for it as a product or treat the waste on site to neutralise its effect. Now the treatment of the waste is expensive. Its far more profitable to take it out and truck it around the country and discharge it through the water treatment plants and the water systems, through people’s guts and ultimately back to the water systems because all of the waste water that is in the community gets washed down the pipes and through the sewerage plants and then out through the receiving streams and lakes. If I had the same tanker truck that rolled across the border and into Canada from a fluoride phosphate plant in Florida and discharge into the Niagara river its entire load, there would be an environmental disaster. There would be a hearing trial for the driver, the discharger, the owner, the owner of the product, the producer etc. But to do in inside a treatment plant is perfectly legal, so we're creating a situation where we are just going to poison everybody slowly because some industry doesn’t want to treat it’s waste.

NHMRC Public Consultations

Draft NHMRC Public Statement 2017: Water fluoridation and human health in Australia submission