Bunbury: STOP fluoridation now!

Residents of Bunbury, unless you take action, next year your water supplier Aqwest and WA Health will add toxic fluoridation chemicals to your drinking water, with minimal community consultation and a blatant disregard for the science showing these hazardous waste chemicals will damage our health and will NOT protect us against tooth decay.

Watch and share our latest YouTube video on the TOXIC chemicals used for water fluoridation

BUNBURY FLUORIDATION MENU

What you can do to STOP fluoridation in Bunbury

People of Bunbury: your apathy and inaction will mean HEXAFLUOROSILICIC ACID, an extremely toxic, hazardous, contaminated waste chemical – a Schedule 7 Poison – direct from the CSBP fertiliser factory in Kwinana, will be added to your drinking water, all day, every day, from June 2023. On the other hand your action and involvement, and indeed your determination, could mean this absurd, unjustified, health-damaging and outrageously expensive intervention is stalled, if not thwarted. It’s up to you!

There are several things you can do to help stop fluoridation in Bunbury next year:

Send an email and/or call the following people (see contacts and letter templates below):
– Mr Gary Hallsworth, CEO of Aqwest
– Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson, WA Minister for Health
– Mr Andrew Robertson, Chief Health Officer
– Mr Don Punch, Labor MP for Bunbury
– Mr Jaysen de San Miguel, Mayor of Bunbury City Council
– Mr Richard Theobald, Secretary, Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Committee (WA)
Follow us on Facebook, YouTube or Twitter (see links below);
Sign up for our newsletters;
Research current international scientific evidence (there’s plenty on this website);
Tell your friends and educate others about the risks, dangers and ineffectiveness of fluoridation and the lack of ethics involved;
Demand more community involvement, including public debates and an extensive independent public survey;
Download our publicity leaflet or request colour printed copies to distribute;
Donate to our Bunbury and South-West advertising campaign here;
Volunteer to help;
If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us: info@fluoridefreeaustralia.org

Contact details – Please send an email and/or call these people

Contact Name	Title	Email	Telephone
Mr Gary Hallsworth	CEO, Aqwest	aqwest@aqwest.com.au	(08) 9780 9500
Ms Amber-Jade Sanderson	Minister for Health	minister.sanderson@dpc.wa.gov.au	(08) 6552 5900
Dr Andrew Robertson	Chief Health Officer	andrew.robertson@health.wa.gov.au	(08) 9222 4222
Mr Don Punch	MP for Bunbury	bunbury@mp.wa.gov.au	(08) 9791 3636
Mr Jaysen de San Miguel	Mayor BCC	mayor@council.bunbury.wa.gov.au	(08) 9792 7021
Mr Richard Theobald	Secretary, FPWSC	richard.theobald@health.wa.gov.au	(08) 9222 2000

If you would like to contact all of the Councillors on Bunbury Municipal Council, their contact details are available HERE.

You may also like to contact these Members of the Legislative Council (for the South West Region)

Contact Name	Party	Email	Telephone
Mr James Hayward	IND	james.hayward@mp.wa.gov.au	(08) 9724 1181
Ms Jackie Jarvis	ALP	jackie.jarvis@mp.wa.gov.au	(08) 9757 9555
Ms Alannah MacTiernan	ALP	minister.mactiernan@dpc.wa.gov.au	(08) 6552 6200
Ms Sophia Moermond	LCWA	sophia.moermond@mp.wa.gov.au	Currently N/A
Dr Sally Talbot	ALP	sally.talbot@mp.wa.gov.au	(08) 9725 3711
Dr Steve Thomas	LIB	steve.thomas@mp.wa.gov.a	(08) 9792 5628

Follow us on social media

Fluoride Free Australia

Children’s Health Defense (Australia)

Fluoride Free Bunbury

Fluoride Free WA

Donate to our campaign

The main reason this damaging and ineffective intervention is going ahead in Bunbury is because the public are largely unaware of the facts about fluoridation. Our role is to change that by educating the public and informing them of the lack of safety and lack of effectiveness of the toxic waste chemicals that will be added to our drinking water. You can make a big difference by donating to our advertising campaign. (See green button right).

Use our letter templates to write your own email

It is best if you write your own email to send to our suggested list of influential people, however you may like to use in part, or in whole, our letter templates below.

LETTER TEMPLATE A: General summary letter for generic use

Dear

Re: The Fluoridation of Bunbury’s Drinking Water

I am writing as a resident of Bunbury, with serious concerns over the scheduled fluoridation of Bunbury’s drinking water using fluorosilicic acid – a highly-toxic waste chemical that will come direct from the CSBP fertiliser manufacturing plant in Kwinana.

The decision to fluoridate Bunbury was made without the consent and adequate consultation of the residents of Bunbury. There is no resident representation on the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Advisory Committee. Can you tell me why that is? It is the residents who will be consuming and paying for the water after all.

In 2018, a survey of 601 residents showed only 51% agreeing to water fluoridation. However, 89% of them did not know correctly whether the water in Bunbury had been fluoridated. This shows that most of the population did not know about the status of water fluoridation.

I encourage you from an ethical stance, to seriously look at the substantial body of scientific evidence showing fluoridation chemicals in our water damage our health. I am particularly concerned about the level of fluoride that accumulates in our bodies, including fluoride found in our processed foods, salt and beverages, which authorities are ignoring. We have no control over the amount of fluoride we consume, leading to potentially chronic damage to our health.

Why are many rigorous scientific studies being ignored?

Since the cut-off date of October 2014, for studies included in the NHMRC 2017 Fluoridation Review, more than 400 new human and animal studies have emphasised the toxicity of fluoride. Hence, the NHMRC review is more than outdated. This is not acceptable.

The effects of fluoride on our physiology are pervasive: once it enters the blood stream it can reach every cell and organ in the body. Around 50 per cent of fluoride accumulates in the body of a healthy person and around 80 per cent accumulates in the developing bones of an infant or young child.

Other disadvantaged sub-groups are diabetics, people with impaired kidney function and thyroid diseases, the elderly, those with poor nutritional status, those hypersensitive to fluoride, and many people with high water consumption such as sportspeople and outdoor labourers. Yet, these subgroups continue to be ignored. This is also not acceptable.

Twenty years of research shows that fluoride is:

A developmental neurotoxin – a chemical that can negatively affect nerve cells during brain development in utero, in babies, and in children. There are 58 studies, including the recent Green et al (2019) study, showing an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children.
An endocrine disruptor, with the ability to suppress thyroid hormone production. In 2006 the US National Research Council NRC fluoride review reported that ingesting between .05 and 0.13 mg/kg/day of fluoride (or as low as 0.01 to .03 mg/kg/day in a person with inadequate iodine intake), decreases the production of thyroid hormone. Several large studies since the last NHMRC review show the link between fluoride and hypothyroidism.
A nephrotoxin, with the ability to increase the risk of diabetes. In 2006 the NRC review stated; “In general, impaired glucose metabolism appears to be associated with serum or plasma fluoride concentrations of about 0.1 mg/L or greater in both animals and humans.”

Fluoride also accumulates in and damages the pineal gland, which produces melatonin to modulate sleep patterns, regulate the onset of puberty in females, and protect the body from cell damage caused by free radicals. “Fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans,” said the NRC review.

Several studies have also shown that fluoridation chemicals:

damage our bones, causing skeletal fluorosis and osteoarthritis;
can cause osteosarcoma, a rare form of cancer;
can damage the male reproductive system;
result in hypersensitivity reactions in one to five per cent of people.

In addition to these and other health risks, many politicians are not aware of the substantial body of science showing fluoride is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. In fact, despite no fluoride added in Bunbury’s water, the dental caries has decreased! You must know that there are far more effective means to prevent tooth decay such as reducing sugar and soft drink consumption with regular brushing and flossing of the teeth.

With all this evidence of harm, why do our governments continue to allow 90 per cent of the Australian population to be exposed to this toxic industrial waste by-product every day, in our public water supplies and processed foods?

As an Australian citizen, taxpayer, elector and resident of Bunbury, I am urgently requesting from you to do whatever you can to:

Suspend all capital works on Bunbury’s new fluoridation system, at least until a detailed Risk Assessment has been conducted by the water supplier, Aqwest;
Force WA Health to conduct independent safety studies on water fluoridation, as NHMRC can clearly not be trusted on this matter as such studies have NEVER been conducted;
Conduct a large independent survey (to be organised by the local residents) with the Bunbury, Dallyelup and Gelorup residents regarding their vote on water fluoridation;
Have a public debate where both sides of the argument are presented on water fluoridation with full media coverage;
Offer an opt-out option for those who do not want fluoridation such as subsidizing reverse osmosis and triple filter systems and rainwater tanks;
Reveal the names of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Advisory Committee. Why are their names being suppressed?

I look forward to your response to this extremely important health issue.

Kind regards,

Name:
Contact details:
Date:

LETTER TEMPLATE B: Another general summary letter for generic use

Dear

Re: Water Fluoridation of Bunbury’s drinking water

As a resident of Bunbury, I strongly oppose the addition of “fluoride” to Bunbury’s drinking water supplies next year and I am asking for your urgent attention to stop this extraordinary intervention from proceeding.

Here is a summary of the major reasons behind my opposition:

The “fluoride” or fluoridation chemicals intended for Bunbury’s drinking water are actually a highly-toxic, hazardous, contaminated waste by-product, resulting from the manufacture of superphosphate fertiliser. This waste chemical, hexafluorosilicic acid, is a Schedule 7 Poison and is one of the most toxic, dangerous and acidic chemicals known to man. It will come directly from the CSBP fertiliser factory in Kwinana and NO processing or treatment will occur prior to dosing our drinking water;
There are hundreds of rigorous, published, peer-review studies showing fluoridation chemicals damage many aspects of our physiology, including the developing brain, bones, joints, kidneys, eyes, teeth, thyroid and pineal glands, cardiovascular system, and also damage cell proteins and contribute to iodine deficiency.
In particular, fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. To date there are 58 studies, involving more than 25,000 children, showing fluoride damages the developing brain of the fetus, infant and child. Amongst these studies, 25 were rated high quality by the US National Toxicology Program and 11 of these studies involved fluoride exposures at or below those used in Australia. These include several large, rigorous, multi-million-dollar US-Government-funded studies, confirming the neurological damage fluoride does to our young.
An infant drinking baby formula made with fluoridated tap water will consume around 200 times more fluoride than mothers’ milk.
Fluoride accumulates in and damages the bones. For a healthy adult the accumulation rate is around 50 percent, but for an infant or child, it’s around 80 percent. One recent large, high-quality study from Sweden, involving a cohort of more than 4,000 older women, found that post-menopausal women consuming fluoridated water at 1mg/L fluoride or less and from other sources, were at least 50 per cent more likely to experience hip fractures and therefore have a higher risk of death.
Fluoride also accumulates in and damages the pineal gland, which produces melatonin to modulate sleep patterns, regulate the onset of puberty in females, and protect the body from cell damage caused by free radicals. “Fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans,” said the US National Research Council review.
In the last 70 years, global tooth decay rates have fallen just as dramatically in non-fluoridated regions as they have in fluoridated regions and many large-scale, population-based studies confirm there is no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, cities and regions. Also, less than five per cent of the world is fluoridated and 98 percent of Europe has ceased, rejected or banned fluoridation, based on lack of safety, lack of efficacy and lack of ethics.
Apart from the harms caused and the ineffectiveness in reducing tooth decay, fluoridation is very expensive and extremely inefficient. Less than one percent of fluoridated water is consumed and more than 99 percent of that does not even touch the teeth. Instead it passes through our tissues and organs and damages our physiology. The idea that fluoride needs to be swallowed has been thoroughly disproven; why should we risk swallowing a toxic chemical at any dilution with all the damming evidence?
The National Health and Medical Research Council has egregiously omitted numerous important toxicity studies from their Fluoridation Reviews and they have NEVER – in 70 years of endorsing fluoridation – conducted or funded ANY health safety studies! This is unbelievable! Hundreds of rigorous studies showing fluoride’s harm have also been published since NHMRC’s last Fluoridation Review cut-off date in 2014. NHMRC also relies on extremely poor-quality studies to defend and promote fluoridation – studies that were not even good enough for the relaxed inclusion criteria for the Cochrane Review (2015), the most comprehensive review of fluoridation ever conducted. It is blatantly obvious our national health body’s role is not to provide unbiased reviews, safety studies or risk assessments of water fluoridation, but rather to protect this popular, entrenched policy, and the reputations of all those involved.

With overwhelming evidence against fluoridation, it is staggering ANY government is proceeding with existing fluoridation programs, let alone investing millions of dollars to implement new fluoridations systems, such as the system being implemented for Bunbury; especially without any community consultation or involvement.

For the safety and wellbeing of all Bunbury residents, please take a stand now and urgently help to stop this absurd intervention from proceeding,

Sincerely

Name:
Contact details:
Date:

LETTER TEMPLATE C: Use for Minister for Health, Chief Health Officer and Richard Theobald

TO:

Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson BA MLA
Minister for Health; Mental Health
By email: Minister.Sanderson@dpc.wa.gov.au

Mr. Andrew Robertson
Chief Health Officer, WA Department of Health
Andrew.Robertson@health.wa.gov.au

Dear Minister Sanderson and Mr Robertson

RE: Fluoridation of Bunbury’s water supply

I am writing on behalf of many Bunbury residents with extreme concern regarding the intentions of WA Department of Health (WA Health) to fluoridate Bunbury’s water supplies next year. It is astounding that a major decision to commence a highly-controversial “health” intervention can be made while ignoring a substantial body of scientific evidence clearly showing fluoridation is neither safe nor effective in reducing tooth decay.

Following is a list of relevant facts that you should be aware of, followed by questions to which I request a response:

Since NHMRC’s cut-off date of October 2014, for its last Fluoridation Review (published in 2017), more than 400 studies have shown the damage caused to our physiology from ingesting fluoridation chemicals.
Q1: Why has WA Health not considered these toxicity studies or requested NHMRC to conduct another Fluoridation Review PRIOR TO the fluoridation of Bunbury’s water supplies?
There are currently 58 studies, involving more than 25,000 children, showing fluoride damages the developing brain of the fetus, infant and child. Amongst these studies, 25 were rated high quality by the US National Toxicology Program and 11 of these studies involved fluoride exposures at or below those used in Australia. These include several large, rigorous, multi-million-dollar US-Government-funded studies, confirming the neurological damage fluoride does to our young.
Q2: Why has WA Health ignored this extensive and steadily-growing body of neurotoxicity science?
The ground-breaking Grandjean study, published in 2021 in the journal Risk Analysis, employed the US EPA’s preferred Benchmark Dose Analysis method (BMD), and confirmed that even very low fluoride exposure of the mother during pregnancy impairs brain development in the fetus. [1] The study concluded that fluoride consumption may be causing more damage to our population than lead, mercury, or arsenic?
Q3: Why has WA Health ignored this extremely relevant study using the preferred BMD method, confirming 20 years of science showing fluoride damages the developing brains of our young?
In fact Grandjean’s findings confirm fluoridation will result in a lowering of around 5 IQ points on average per child, thereby shifting the intelligence Bell Curve leftwards, resulting in significantly fewer geniuses and significantly more mentally challenged children over a whole population.
Q4: As the Minister for Health and the Chief Health Officer of this State, do you really feel that a 5-point lowering of IQ across a population or community is not relevant?
Q5: Do you intend to inform pregnant mothers and parents to be of the risks associated with fluoride ingestion?
It has long been known that fluoride damages the bones, even at small doses. For this reason, in 1991, NHMRC recommended that measurements of fluoride levels in bone be collected at specific autopsies, so as to monitor fluoride accumulation if any, and possible damage being caused from fluoride ingestion over time. That action was deemed especially important for certain population sectors, such as high-volume water consumers, or individuals with impaired renal function.
Q6: Thirty one years after this recommendation, despite continuing emerging evidence of fluoride’s damage to the bones, do you feel it is appropriate to commence fluoridation of Bunbury, when NHMRC has still not conducted or funded ANY such studies or trials?
New studies regularly emerge concerning the association between fluoride ingestion and bone health. Recently, a Swedish study, Helte et al (2021)[2] reported at least 50 percent higher rates of hip bone fractures in post-menopausal women who consumed drinking water containing up to 1 mg/L of fluoride. This large, high-quality, longitudinal study with a cohort of in excess of 4,000 older Swedish women, extended for 13 years from 2004 to 2017. The concentration levels and total fluoride exposure levels of this study mirrored WA levels of fluoridation.
Q7: In making the decision to fluoridate Bunbury, why have you and WA Health ignored the major body evidence, including the recent Helte study (2021), showing the damage fluoride causes to our bones?
It is astounding that NHMRC has publicly denied that fluoridation chemicals accumulate in our body, and yet there is overwhelming evidence showing that bioaccumulation occurs at around 50 percent for a healthy adult and around 80 percent for an infant or child.[3]
Q8: Do you condone NHMRC’s false or incorrect public statements regarding the bioaccumulation of fluoride and do you feel this phenomenon is relevant to the fluoridation of Bunbury’s water supplies?
An infant consuming baby formula made with fluoridated tap water will consume around 200 times more fluoride than found in mother’s milk. This clearly shows that nature intended for our young to receive as little of this enzyme-inhibiting, endocrine-inhibiting, protoplasmic poison as possible. [4]
Q9: Do you feel it is relevant that infants consuming fluoridated water will receive many times more fluoride than mother’s milk?
Q10: Do you intend to warn bottle-feeding parents in Bunbury of the risks?
Despite the international acceptance that fluoride levels for infants and children should be zero or as low as possible, it is absolutely staggering that in November 2016, NHMRC substantially INCREASED or DOUBLED its recommended Upper Level of Intake for infants and children up to 8 years of age. This means Australia’s recommended upper fluoride intake limits for infants and children are now significantly higher than or double the upper limits used in the United States and elsewhere.
Q11: Do you personally feel this doubling of upper limits for infants and children was/is justified?
Q12: Do you feel these Upper Levels of Intake are appropriate for Bunbury children?
It is well documented that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, with the ability to suppress thyroid hormone production.[5] In 2006 the US National Research Council Fluoride Review reported that ingesting between .05 and 0.13 mg/kg/day of fluoride (or as low as 0.01 to .03 mg/kg/day in a person with inadequate iodine intake), decreases the production of thyroid hormone. Since the last NHMRC review, several large studies have confirmed the link between fluoride and hypothyroidism.
It is also highly relevant that i) more than 800,000 Australians are affected by impaired thyroid functioning; ii) very low natural iodine levels are contained in our soil, and iii) more than 50 percent of children and pregnant or breastfeeding women in Australia re iodine deficient.[6] [7]
Q13: Especially given the low iodine levels in Australia and the already high incidence of impaired thyroid functioning, why has WA Health ignored these major studies in deciding to fluoride Bunbury?
Q14: Will WA Health warn Bunbury women and older men of the risks of hypothyroidism as a result of ingesting fluoride?
Over the last 60 years, numerous large-scale, population-based studies have revealed there is little or no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, cities and regions. During this time, rates of dental caries have fallen just as dramatically in fluoridated regions as they have in non-fluoridated regions. Also, more than 95 percent of the world does not receive fluoridated water and 98 percent of Europe has rejected fluoridation based on lack of safety, lack of efficacy ad lack of ethics.[8]
Q15: Do you feel these statistics are relevant to the decision to fluoridate Bunbury and do you feel the people of Bunbury should be made aware of these statistics?
NHMRC has been endorsing and recommending water fluoridation for nearly 70 years, yet during this period, apart from research on dental fluorosis, NHMRC has NEVER conducted or funded ANY health safety studies on fluoride or fluoridation. NHMRC’s own fluoridation reports of 1991 and 1999, make extensive recommendations of the need for general health safety studies, but again, such studies have NEVER been conducted.
Q15: Do you think a decision to fluoridate Bunbury is reasonable without any health safety studies?
Q16: Will you suspend all capital works on Bunbury’s fluoridation program until such studies have been conducted and the results are available?
Fluoride is known to damage many elements of our physiology. In fact fluoride is also frequently referred to as a ‘protoplasmic poison’ or general poison of cells.
Q17: With the absence of health safety studies from NHMRC, in deciding to fluoridate Bunbury, what measures has WA Health taken to study and assess the potential for adverse health effects from fluoride consumption; and to ensure the safety of lifetime fluoride consumption from fluoridation ad all other sources, for all sectors of the community?
NHMRC has conducted egregiously poor fluoridation reviews, and yet in their 2007 and 2016 Reviews and Reports, they deemed water fluoridation to be unconditionally safe for all people. In particular, NHMRC has actively excluded or omitted high-quality published research showing evidence of risks to health from fluoride ingestion due to water fluoridation – studies that were readily available to NHMRC. If those omitted studies had been included and considered, it would have been unconscionable for NHMRC to conclude there is no risk to human health from fluoride and fluoridation.[9]
Q18: Do you now realise and accept that NHMRC cannot ‘reasonably’ be relied upon for evidence-based advice on the safety or not of fluoride consumption?
Q19: What actions will WA Health now take to independently assess the potential health risks from fluoride consumption?
Q 20: In view of the now obvious potential risks from fluoride consumption due to fluoridation and other sources, on what grounds can WA Health guarantee that fluoridated water in Bunbury will be safe for all sectors of the population and fit for purpose for everyone?
Q 21: Are you prepared to give your personal assurance and guarantee that fluoridation at 0.8 mgF/L is safe for every person in Bunbury?
It has long been accepted that if there is any benefit of fluoride, it is via topical application, not via systemic ingestion. As several countries have demonstrated, there are other more effective ways to ensure good oral health without risking the ingestion of toxic fluoridation chemicals. Scotland’s Child Smiles program, for example, has been remarkably successful.
Q22: Did WA Health take reasonable steps to investigate and consider other dental health alternatives before deciding on fluoridation for Bunbury?
In the years preceding WA Health’s announcement in January 2021 to fluoridate Bunbury, it would appear there was minimal community consultation by WA Health on this controversial subject.
Q23: As the heads of this state health department, do you really believe there was adequate community consultation prior to the decision and announcement to fluoridate Bunbury?

Thank you for your time in considering this extremely important matter and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely

Reference notes

Please be aware that references below to articles on the Fluoride Free Australia website, also contain detailed references to scientific studies and trials.

[1] Grandjean P. “Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: an updated review”; published 19 December 2019 in Environmental Health. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0551-x#citeas

[2] Helte E, et al “Fluoride in Drinking Water, Diet, and Urine in Relation to Bone Mineral Density and Fracture Incidence in Postmenopausal Women,” published 6 April 2021, in Environmental Health perspectives. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7404

[3] The bioaccumulation of fluoride: Fluoride Free Australia; https://fluoridefreeaustralia.org/bioaccumulation/

[4] Fluoride ad our Young: Fluoride Free Australia; https://fluoridefreeaustralia.org/young/

[5] Fluoride and the endocrine system: Fluoride Free Australia; https://fluoridefreeaustralia.org/thyroid/

[6] Hypothyroidism; Hormones Australia; https://www.hormones-australia.org.au/endocrine-diseases/hypothyroidism

[7] Australian Thyroid Foundation: https://www.hormones-australia.org.au/endocrine-diseases/hypothyroidism

[8] Summary of water fluoridation: Fluoride Free Australia; https://fluoridefreeaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Summary-of-water-fluoridation.pdf

[9] Can the NHMRC be trusted? Fluoride Free Australia; https://fluoridefreeaustralia.org/nhmrc/

LETTER TEMPLATE D: Use for Gary Hallsworth, CEO of AQWEST

Mr Gary Hallsworth
Chief Executive Officer
AQWEST
5 MacKinnon Way, Bunbury WA 6230
By Email: aqwest@aqwest.com.au

Dear Mr Hallsworth

Re: Fluoridation of Bunbury’s water supplies

I am extremely concerned about the intention of WA Department of Health and Aqwest to add toxic fluoridation chemicals to our drinking water next year and I am writing to urgently express my opposition to this reckless and unjustifiable intervention.

Here are some points that I would like to highlight:

I have not and will not give my consent to this unacceptable intervention and I do not agree to any change in contract for the supply of water containing fluoridation chemicals. Why then should I pay my water bills post fluoridation?
If you and your fellow directors of Aqwest are not willing and able to provide a personal guarantee that the fluoridated water you intend to supply next year will be 100% safe for me, even though I may have personal health issues or hypersensitivities that are affected or exacerbated by fluoridation, why should I pay my water bills post fluoridation?
Water fluoridation is a clear violation of medical ethics, as it does not involve informed consent, control for dosage, personal consultation, prescription or an ongoing medical expert’s monitoring and because it is mandated without my say. Fluoridation is also in breach of Australian medical ethics. Why then should I pay my water bills post fluoridation?
I believe WA Health, Aqwest or NHMRC have not conducted any Due Diligence, including health safety studies or Risk Assessments regarding the health safety of fluoridated water. If you are not prepared to conduct such Due Diligence, safety studies or Risk Assessments, especially in light of the substantial body of evidence showing fluoridation chemicals cause various harms to our physiology, why should I pay my water bills post fluoridation?
With the existing fluoride levels in some of the bores supplying Bunbury, and the total exposure of fluoride (including fluoridated water, processed foods and beverages and other sources), I am not confident that you will be monitoring the total fluoride exposure levels in individuals. If you do not intend to conduct a comprehensive total fluoride exposure monitoring program amongst residents of Bunbury, why should I pay my water bills post fluoridation?
There is a substantial body of large-scale evidence showing that water fluoridation does not in fact reduce tooth decay. If fluoride is not effective, why should I pay my water bills post fluoridation?
If I have to buy an expensive Reverse Osmosis water filter to remove fluoridation chemicals for the whole of my house, why should I continue to pay my water bills post fluoridation?
There are many studies in particular showing that fluoride damages the developing brain. If you are not prepared to warn pregnant mothers, intending mothers and bottle-feeding parents of the risks of consuming fluoridated water, why should I pay my water bills post fluoridation? In fact if you are not prepared to warn everyone of the risks of damage to our bones because of consuming fluoridated water for a lifetime, why should anyone pay their water bills post fluoridation?
I have never been informed or consulted about the risks of fluoridation and I have heard that the minimal consultation efforts by WA Health have been appalling. Without adequate information and community consultation, why should I or any resident of Bunbury pay our water bills post fluoridation?

In summary, as a customer of Aqwest, I do not consent, agree to or accept fluoridated water from you, and given the above circumstances, I ask why any resident of Bunbury should pay their water bills after fluoridation commences?

I look forward to your response to my questions.

Sincerely

LETTER TEMPLATE E: Use for Mayor and Councillors of Bunbury Municipal Council

TO:

Mr Jaysen de San Miguel
Mayor, City of Bunbury Council
mayor@council.bunbury.wa.gov.au

Dear Mayor de San Miguel and all CBC Councillors

RE: Fluoridation of Bunbury’s water supply

As a resident of Bunbury, I am writing to you and all CBC Councillors with extreme concern regarding the intentions of WA Department of Health to fluoridate Bunbury’s water supplies next year. I believe it is appalling that a major decision to commence a highly-controversial “health” intervention can be made while ignoring a substantial body of scientific evidence clearly showing fluoridation is neither safe nor effective in reducing tooth decay.

Although, as Councillors, you do not have the power to stop this intervention, you do represent the views and wishes of the people of Bunbury and you also have a duty to ensure the health and safety of your constituents. Given the health risks involved, especially to several sub-population groups, you may also have a duty to ensure adequate information is provided and community consultation is involved so the Bunbury community is properly informed about a highly-controversial health intervention, before it is implemented.

Following are some extremely relevant facts that you and all CBC Councillors should be aware of:

The word “fluoride” is associated by many people as something positive. But how many residents of Bunbury know the “fluoride” that will be used to fluoridate Bunbury’s drinking water will be hexafluorosilicic acid, an extremely toxic, hazardous, contaminated waste product resulting from the processing of phosphate fertiliser? This waste chemical – a listed “Schedule 7” Poison, will come from the CSBP fertilizer factory in Kwinana and will be added to Bunbury’s drinking water without any processing or treatment.

The National Health and Medical research Council’s last Fluoridation Review had a cut-off date of October 2014. Since then, more than 400 studies have shown the damage caused to our physiology from ingesting fluoridation chemicals. How can Bunbury be fluoridated without the investigation of many crucial toxicity studies showing various harms from fluoride ingestion?

There are currently 58 studies, involving more than 25,000 children, showing fluoride damages the developing brain of the fetus, infant and child. Amongst these studies, 25 were rated high quality by the US National Toxicology Program and 11 of these studies involved fluoride exposures at or below those used in Australia. These include several large, rigorous, multi-million-dollar US-Government-funded studies, confirming the neurological damage fluoride does to our young. Pregnant mothers should therefore be warned about the neurotooxic damage caused by fluoridation chemicals?

It has long been known that fluoride damages the bones, even at small doses. New studies regularly emerge concerning the association between fluoride ingestion and bone health. Recently, a large, high-quality Swedish study (Helte et al, 2021), involving more than 4,000 elderly women over 13 years, reported that post-menopausal women who consumed fluoridated water are at least 50 percent more likely to experience hip bone fractures. The concentration levels and total fluoride exposure levels of this study were the same as WA levels of fluoridation.

An infant consuming baby formula made with fluoridated tap water will consume around 200 times more fluoride than found in mother’s milk. With this in mind, it is staggering that in 2016, NHMRC substantially INCREASED or DOUBLED its recommended Upper Level of Intake for infants and children up to 8 years of age. This means Australia’s recommended upper fluoride intake limits for infants and children are now significantly higher than or double the upper limits used in the United States and elsewhere. Do you feel Bunbury parents feeding their babies using fluoridated water should be warned about the neurotoxic damage caused by fluoridation chemicals?

Fluoride reduces the production of thyroid hormone. Since the last NHMRC review, several large studies have confirmed the link between fluoride and hypothyroidism. This is all the more relevant given that, according to the Australian Thyroid Foundation, more than 50 percent of children and pregnant or breastfeeding women in Australia re iodine deficient and therefore are even more susceptible to thyroid damage from fluoride.

Over the last 60 years, many large-scale studies have revealed there is little or no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, cities and regions. During this time, rates of dental caries have fallen just as dramatically in fluoridated regions as they have in non-fluoridated regions. In fact despite no fluoride added to Bunbury’s water, the incidence of dental caries has also decreased!

More than 95 percent of the world does not receive fluoridated water and 98 percent of Europe has rejected fluoridation based on lack of safety, lack of efficacy ad lack of ethics.

NHMRC has been endorsing and recommending water fluoridation since 1953, although during this period, apart from research on dental fluorosis, NHMRC has NEVER conducted or funded ANY health safety studies on fluoride or fluoridation. NHMRC’s own fluoridation reports of 1991 and 1999, make extensive recommendations of the need for general health safety studies, but again, such studies have NEVER been conducted. Neither WA Health or any other health department in Australia have conducted any health safety studies. Mayor and Councillors, do you feel it is appropriate to fluoridate Bunbury’s drinking water without ANY health safety studies?

In their Fluoridation Reviews, NHMRC has also excluded or omitted high-quality published research showing evidence of risks to health from fluoride ingestion due to water fluoridation – studies that were readily available to NHMRC. If those omitted studies had been included and considered, it is very unlikely they would have concluded there is no risk to human health from fluoride and fluoridation.

There are many risks associated with the total consumption of fluoride, including from fluoridated water and all other sources. And it has long been accepted that if there is any benefit of fluoride, it is via topical application, not via systemic ingestion. As several countries have demonstrated, there are other more effective ways to ensure good oral health without risking the ingestion of toxic fluoridation chemicals. Scotland’s Child Smiles program, for example, has been remarkably successful.

The decision to fluoridate Bunbury was made with almost no community involvement or consultation and with no information about the risks of fluoridation provided. Nevertheless, in 2018, a survey of 601 Bunbury residents showed only 51 percent agreeing to water fluoridation. A massive 89 percent did not actually know if Bunbury was already fluoridated, indicating a very poor knowledge and awareness of this subject. The main reason this flawed intervention is proceeding is the Bunbury community are not aware of the facts; if the facts were known about the damaging effects of fluoridation there would be substantially more opposition.

Mayor de San Miguel and all CBC Councillors, despite what you may have thought, there is overwhelming evidence, especially relatively new evidence, against fluoridation. And it is clear WA Health (and NHMRC) have not considered or investigated this evidence adequately, or at all, before deciding to fluoridate Bunbury’s drinking water.

I therefore urgently ask you to become more aware of the science and the risks of ingesting fluoridation chemicals and to convey the serious concerns of many Bunbury residents about this health-damaging and ineffective intervention and the appalling manner in which it has been handled by WA Health.

As our representatives, I am appealing to you to become involved in this extremely important matter, to ensure the health and safety of all Bunbury residents, and to do whatever you can to stop this unacceptable intervention from proceeding.

Sincerely

LETTER TEMPLATE F: Use for Minister Don Punch, ALP Member for Bunbury

Dear Minister Punch

RE: Artificial fluoridation of Bunbury’s water supply

I am extremely concerned by the intentions of WA Health and Aqwest to add toxic fluoridation chemicals – a very dangerous waste product and listed “Schedule 7 Poison” from the processing of phosphate fertiliser – to our drinking water next year and I implore you to become more aware of the facts behind this highly-controversial intervention.

Despite wat you and other politicians may think, the results of many substantial scientific studies and trials on the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation are obviously not reaching important decision makers.

WA Health relies on the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), to investigate and assess both the safety and effectiveness of public water fluoridation objectively and thoroughly. I think you should know why NHMRC is failing to address public water fluoridation.

Despite endorsing water fluoridation since 1953, NHMRC:

Has NEVER conducted or funded ANY health safety studies or trials (other than for dental fluorosis).
Has NEVER conducted ANY Risk Assessments.
Has ignored their own extensive recommendations made in their fluoridation reports of 1991 and 1999 for the need for general health safety studies.
Has excluded many crucial toxicity studies in their reviews, the inclusion of which should have resulted in the suspension of fluoridation or at least highlighted the urgent need for appropriate health safety studies or Risk Assessments.
Has relied on poor to extremely poor-quality efficacy studies, none of which were acceptable for the relaxed inclusion criteria of the comprehensive Cochrane Review (2015) and none of which controlled for all major confounders.
Has made a false and misleading public statement that fluoridation chemicals are not bio-accumulative, when around 50% of fluoride ingested accumulates in a healthy adult and around 80% accumulates in an infant or child.
Has ignored or dismissed hundreds of important human and animal toxicity studies published since the cut-off date of the last Fluoridation Review in October 2014.
Has especially ignored or dismissed the now overwhelming body of evidence showing fluoridation chemicals damage the developing brain of the fetus, infant and child.
Has ignored a substantial body of evidence showing there is no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, cities, and regions. World Health Organization dental data for hundreds of countries show a decline in tooth decay in fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. For Australia, the incidence of decay has increased since 2000. Many large-scale, population-based studies, only show a correlation between fluoridation and dental fluorosis, (which is damage to the teeth!)
Has ignored the decisions made by many European governments to cease, reject, or prohibit water fluoridation based on lack of safety, lack of efficacy and lack of ethics.
Has refused to reasonably consider various well-documented submissions made by the public, expressing concerns over the safety of fluoridation.
Refuses to acknowledge a dental decay epidemic in all fluoridated capital cities. With 90% of Australians receiving fluoridated water, more than 40% of children having tooth decay, is evidence that public water fluoridation is not working.
Despite the growing evidence of fluoride’s toxicity, continues to ignore the success of other fluoride-free dental health programs conducted elsewhere, for example, Scotland’s Child Smile program and Denmark’s Nexø program.

You should know that many studies have shown fluoridation chemicals are particularly damaging to our young. To date there are 58 studies, involving more than 25,000 children, showing fluoride ingestion is associated with impaired cognitive functioning in humans. More than 60 animal studies, even at very moderate dose rates, have also found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals.

Amongst these human studies, 25 were rated higher quality by the US National Toxicology Program and 11 studies involved fluoride exposures at or below those in Australia. These include several large, rigorous, multi-million-dollar US-Government-funded studies, confirming the neurological damage fluoride does to our young.

The effect of this neurodevelopmental toxicity over a whole population should concern you. Please watch this video to learn more: https://youtu.be/hI4kpvW760M

Several other major studies show the link between fluoride and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), thyroid disorders, lowered IQ in formula-fed babies, and sleep disorders. One Canadian study (involving fluoride concentrations lower than Australia) showed teenagers living in fluoridated areas were nearly three times more likely to develop ADHD symptoms.

You should be aware that an infant drinking baby formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water will consume around 200 times more fluoride than found in mothers’ breast milk. Minister Punch, does this sound acceptable to you?

Mr Punch, as Minister for Seniors and Ageing, you should also be particularly aware of the damage fluoride does to our bones – with devastating consequences for the elderly. For more than 70 years, numerous studies have shown the damage fluoride causes to our skeletal system. Recently, a Swedish study, Helte et al (2021), a high-quality, longitudinal study conducted over 13 years, involving more than 4,000 elderly women, reported post-menopausal women consuming fluoridated water containing up to 1mg/L fluoride (the same concentrations as Australia) were at least 50 percent more likely to experience hip fractures. Minister Punch, given the alarming rates of hip fractures amongst our elderly and the intense suffering they endure, do the results of this quality study concern you?

As I’m sure you know, this is not the first time a toxic substance has been protected by science and health professionals and politicians. For more than 30 years the evidence that lead was neurotoxic – especially to our children – continued to mount, while decision makers worldwide obstinately ignored the evidence. Today there is far more evidence of fluoride’s toxicity than there was for lead, and our decision makers are even more obstinately protecting this toxic substance!

Fluoride is protected simply because we believe it is protecting us. And as long as the public, politicians and our “health” decision makers remain ignorant of the facts, this ‘blind-faith’ protection will continue. Unless of course there are politicians like you who have the courage and the wisdom to examine the evidence objectively and to stand up against this entrenched policy.

Minister Punch, I am urgently appealing to you to become more aware of the unpopular facts behind this reckless, flawed and outrageously expensive intervention. As our state representative for Bunbury, I am asking you to at least stand up and question the status quo of fluoridation and the appalling manner in which this scientifically and ethically defunct intervention for Bunbury has and is being handled.

Sincerely,

LETTER TEMPLATE G: Use for Members of the Legislative Council

Dear Minister

RE: Artificial fluoridation of Bunbury’s water supply

To make such a decision, despite a host of science showing the damage fluoride causes various aspects of our physiology, without ANY health safety studies, with NO information about the risks and absolute minimal community consultation and involvement, is not only arrogant, it is potentially negligent.

Of course our politicians rely on our national health body, NHMRC, to investigate and assess both the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. But if you look closely, NHMRC cannot be trusted on this matter. Although this may be difficult for you to accept, I ask you to seriously consider the following:

Despite endorsing water fluoridation since 1953, NHMRC:

Has NEVER conducted or funded ANY health safety studies or trials (other than dental fluorosis);
Has NEVER conducted ANY Risk Assessments;
Has ignored their own extensive recommendations made in their fluoridation reports of 1991 and 1999 for the need for general health safety studies;
Has excluded many crucial toxicity studies in their reviews, the inclusion of which should have resulted in the suspension of fluoridation or at least highlighted the urgent need for appropriate health safety studies or Risk Assessments;
Has relied on poor to extremely-poor-quality efficacy studies, none of which were acceptable for the relaxed inclusion criteria of the comprehensive Cochrane Review (2015) and none of which controlled for all major confounders;
Has made a false and misleading public statement that fluoridation chemicals are not bio-accumulative, when in fact around 50 percent of fluoride ingested accumulates in a healthy adult and around 80 percent accumulates in an infant or child? (Please refer to this article for a detailed response to this false public statement);
Has ignored or dismissed hundreds of important human and animal toxicity studies published since the cut-off date of the last Fluoridation Review in October 2014;
Has especially ignored or dismissed the now overwhelming body of evidence showing fluoridation chemicals damage the developing brain of the fetus, infant and child;
Has ignored a substantial body of evidence showing there is no difference in tooth decays rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, cities and regions, including and especially World Health Organization dental data for hundreds of countries and many large-scale, population-based studies, several of which show the only correlation between fluoridation is dental fluorosis, or damage to the teeth;
Has ignored the decisions made by a great majority of European governments to cease, reject or prohibit water fluoridation based on lack of safety, lack of efficacy and lack of ethics;
Has a completely pro-fluoride and therefore biased fluoridation committee?
Has refused to reasonably consider various well-documented submissions made by the public, expressing concerns over the safety of fluoridation;
Refuses to acknowledge that with 90 percent of Australians receiving fluoridated water, more than 40 percent of children having tooth decay, 90 percent of adults experiencing tooth decay at some stage, and with a dental decay epidemic in every fluoridated capital city, that fluoridation is obviously not working?
Despite the growing evidence of fluoride’s toxicity, continues to ignore the success of other fluoride-free dental health programs conducted elsewhere, for example, Scotland’s Child Smile program?

The effect of this neurodevelopmental toxicity over a whole population should concern you. Please watch this video to learn more: https://youtu.be/hI4kpvW760M

You should also be aware of the damage fluoride does to our bones – with devastating consequences for the elderly. Recently, a Swedish study, Helte et al (2021), a high-quality, longitudinal study conducted over 13 years, involving more than 4,000 elderly women, reported post-menopausal women consuming fluoridated water containing up to 1mg/L fluoride (the same concentrations as Australia) were at least 50 percent more likely to experience hip fractures. Given the alarming rates of hip fractures amongst our elderly, does this study concern you?

As I’m sure you know, this is not the first time a toxic substance has been protected. For more than 30 years the evidence that lead was neurotoxic – especially to our children – continued to mount, while decision makers worldwide obstinately ignored the evidence. Today there is far more evidence of fluoride’s toxicity than there was for lead, and our decision makers are even more obstinately protecting this toxic substance!

Minister, I am urgently appealing to you to become more aware of the unpopular facts behind this reckless, flawed and outrageously expensive project. I am asking you to stand up and question the status quo of fluoridation and indeed the appalling manner in which this scientifically and ethically defunct “health” intervention for Bunbury has and is being handled by WA Health.

Given the substantial body of toxicity science, especially the recent and emerging developmental neurotoxicity science since NHMRC’s cut-off date (in 2014) for their last Fluoridation Review, I am also asking you to call for an immediate and unbiased review of water fluoridation by NHMRC – before any further work continues on the Bunbury fluoridation project.

Sincerely,

Please donate to our campaign

Watch this short video “Fluoride is a neurotoxin”, currently screening on YouTube

Watch our 4-minute video “Top 10 reasons to STOP fluoridation in Bunbury”, currently screening on YouTube.