Send a letter to politicians

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on email
Email
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Send an email letter to Federal and State politicians and let them know why it’s time to stop adding toxic, contaminated fluoridation chemicals to our drinking water.
Fluoride: It doesn't belong in our water!
This facility can help you to send an email to the following
Federal and State politicians:
  • 1. The Federal Minister of Health
  • 2. The Federal Senators representing your state
  • 3. Your local Federal Member of Parliament
  • 4. Your State Minister of Health
  • 5. One or more Sate Members of Parliament for your local electorate
BEFORE YOU START, PLEASE:
  • Only send individual, personalised emails rather than group (CC or BCC) emails. Make sure each email is personally addressed to an individual politician and your full name and address are included in the email;
  • Don't send duplicates (your State Minister of Health may also be the State MP for your local electorate);
  • Make sure all recipients are appropriately addressed as "Dear Minister" or "Dear Senator";
  • Always comply with appropriate communications protocol; be professional at all times and never use rude, aggressive or threatening language.
Now follow these three simple steps:
1. Use the contact list and the links provided on the RIGHT HAND SIDE of this page and copy/paste a politician’s name and email address into your own new email:
  • Use the email addresses provided or use the links to find your local MP’s contact details;
  • Copy/paste the name and email address into the “TO:” field in your email;
  • Or use the web form provided to make a submission;
  • Hyperlinks are lost in web forms so you might consider attaching a Word version if there are hyperlinks included;
  • If an email address or web form are not available you can send a hard-copy letter to their mailing address.
2. Copy/paste the content from one of these letter templates

Click on one of the following letter templates, copy paste the content into your email, or use the content from one or more templates to write your own version. Some letters contain hyperlinks so make sure these links copy across to your email.

Dear

Re: Neurological damage from fluoridation chemicals

Are you aware that twenty years of research has shown the damage fluoridation chemicals cause to the developing brain of the foetus and infant? Are you aware that 54 individual studies have shown the link between ingestion of fluoridated water and reduced IQ in offspring? These Mother-Offspring studies continue to confirm the foetus is the most vulnerable to fluoride’s neurotoxicity.

In particular, six studies show that fluoride levels in in the urine of pregnant mothers significantly impact the IQ of the offspring.  The largest and most recent study by Green et al. (2019) is extremely important as it included mother-offspring pairs in fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities in Canada where fluoride levels are less than Australia.

1. Green et al. (2019) reported lower IQ at between 3 and 4 years of age.
Published in JAMA Pediatrics, this study took place in six Canadian cities with 512 mother-child pairs. Women living in areas with fluoridated tap water compared with non-fluoridated water had significantly higher mean urinary fluoride concentrations. A 1-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride levels was associated with a 4.49-point lower IQ score in boys. A 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score in boys and girls.

2. Bashash et al. (2017) reported lower IQ at 4 years of age and between 6 to 12 years of age.
Published in Environmental Health Perspectives this study followed up to 299 women-offspring pairs in Mexico during a 12-year period and reported that the fluoride levels in the urine of the pregnant women was the factor for a loss of 5 to 6 IQ points in the offspring at ages 4 and 6 to 2 years of age. The fluoride levels in the urine of the pregnant women are similar to what is found in adults in fluoridated communities in the US. This study and the following by Thomas et al., were funded by the US National Institutes of Health, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

3. Thomas et al. (2018) reported lower IQ in children between 1 to 3 years of age.
This study by Thomas et al., was presented at a conference on epidemiology in Germany in March 2018. An abstract, published in the journal Occupational & Environmental Medicine, reported that pregnant women’s fluoride exposure is linked to lower IQ in their children at ages 1 to 3 at levels commonly found in US women. The authors of this study said their findings “suggest higher in utero exposure to fluoride has an adverse impact on offspring cognitive development that can be detected earlier, in the first three years of life.”

4. Valdez Jiménez et al. (2017) reported lower IQ between the ages of 3 to 15 months.
This study, published in Neurotoxicology, was the first mother-infant pair study performed by a team from three universities in Mexico.

5. Li et al. (2004) reported significant differences in the behavioral neurological assessment score in 1 to 3 day-old offspring.
This Chinese study was first published in 2004, translated into English and re-published in 2008 in the journal Fluoride 41(2):165–170.

6. Chang et al. (2017) reported significant differences in the mental development index and psychomotor development index of the offspring at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of age.
This study was conducted in China and published in the  Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 32(8):872-873.

More details of these six studies are available here.

Considering this scientific evidence and recent reports of a drop in IQ among Australian children, why is this archaic, harmful, ineffective and unethical fluoridation program still continuing? How many of our children – and therefore our whole economy – will continue to be harmed?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Dear 

Re: Damaging fluoridation chemicals in water, food and beverages

There is a substantial body of scientific evidence showing fluoridation chemicals in our water and food damage our health. New studies are published almost every week showing the health risks of regular consumption of fluoride in our water, processed foods and beverages, such as soda, tea, alcohol, beer, and wine. Why are these 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 54 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.

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?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Dear

Re: Water fluoridation – NOT an effective method for reducing dental decay

A common claim that fluoride has contributed to a decline in dental decay is completely erroneous.  Statistics show that the prevalence of dental caries (tooth decay) has declined across both fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries equally. In fact, there is no reliable, scientific evidence that fluoridated water reduces dental decay. 

The original fluoride-efficacy studies from the 1940s and 1950s are such poor quality that they are virtually fraudulent.  H. Trendley Deans, who conducted the famous 21-city “Deans Study”, admitted under testimony that his data was not valid.

The highly respected Cochrane Review (2015), the largest meta-review ever conducted on the effectiveness of fluoridation, provided an invaluable insight into the conspicuous lack of quality of pro-fluoride studies conducted in Australia and elsewhere. Of the 277 studies deemed eligible by the Cochrane team, only 107 were suitable for quantitative analysis. From these only 19 studies published between 1951 and 2015 met the inclusion criteria for dental caries.  All 19 of these included studies were judged to have a high risk of bias overall and all 19 were deemed to have a high risk of bias specifically due to a lack of control for confounding factors.

Not one single published Australia fluoride efficacy study met the relaxed inclusion criteria for the 2015 Cochrane Review. Also, the Cochrane team did not regard the studies claiming to show that water fluoridation reduces decay in children as applicable to today’s society because nearly all the studies reviewed (dating back to the 1940s – 1960s) had a high risk of bias and were conducted prior to the availability of fluoride toothpaste. Thus, how can anyone base a fluoridation program on this remarkably weak and fraudulent evidence?  Not to mention the lack of consideration for harm being caused.

Also, endorsements and recommendations by various bodies are not scientific studies.

The NHMRC and state health department’s claims of reduced tooth decay are extremely misleading because of the deceptive methodology they use. More details are available here.

Why are health authorities relying on both deceptive and very poor-quality studies to support fluoridation, while ignoring numerous major, large-scale, population-based studies showing there is no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, regions, or cities? 

In the 1980s and 1990s John Colquhoun – an ardent advocate of fluoridation and a former Chief Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, conducted a study on 5 year olds, comparing the trends in tooth decay rates before, during, and after the introduction of both water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste in New Zealand.  Even he found that there was no measurable effect on the nation’s downward trend in tooth decay. In fact, he found that decay rates were slightly better in non-fluoridated areas. “It is my best judgement, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers,” John Colquhoun (1997).  Please review some of the other large-scale studies here.

For the past 50 years, a large percentage of Australia’s population has received fluoridation chemicals in their drinking water, which makes us one of the most heavily fluoridated countries in the word.  And yet, according to AIHW (2018), 42 per cent of Australian children experience decay in their primary teeth; and 90 per cent of adults have some form of tooth decay.  Australia has what is often referred to as a “dental decay crisis.”  Clearly, fluoridation is NOT working! 

Please read more quotes from professionals here.

When are you going to help put a stop to this costly, harmful, highly unethical, archaic policy?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Dear

Re: Toxic industrial waste chemicals used for water fluoridation

Most politicians are completely unaware that the chemicals used to fluoridate our drinking water are a highly-toxic, hazardous industrial waste by-product from the processing of phosphate fertiliser.

While producing superphosphate, a “scrubbing” process captures two extremely toxic gases, preventing them from entering the atmosphere and causing enormous damage to humans and the environment. The resulting chemical solution is called hexafluorosilicic acid – a Schedule 7 Poison that is so hazardous and toxic it cannot be disposed of in any body of water and cannot be disposed of on any body of land without very expensive treatment.

This liquid chemical is also contaminated with traces of lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, arsenic and sometimes even uranium and does not undergo any further treatment or processing. Instead, in its raw form, it is given the name “fluoride” and is transported directly to various water dosing plants around Australia to be added directly to our drinking water.

Sodium fluorosilicate, a derivative of the liquid acid is also imported from China where fluoridation is banned and where many millions of dollars are spent removing natural fluoride from drinking water. Even sodium fluoride, used in toothpaste, is a toxic substance.

Do you think it is acceptable for our health authorities to use misleading and even false statements to cover up this unbelievable practice? They often say because calcium fluoride is found naturally occurring in plants, rocks and seawater, the highly-corrosive synthetic waste chemicals are safe. This is absurd! There is plenty of scientific evidence showing even moderate levels of natural fluoride in water causes a range of health problems. Also, to say fluoride is an “essential nutrient” is not only ridiculous it’s deceptive.

Each year more than 8 tonnes of toxic-waste fluoridation chemicals are added to our drinking water. The overwhelming majority of this goes straight into the environment. In fact less than one per cent of the water dosed with artificial “fluoride” is used for drinking water and more than 99 per cent doesn’t even touch the teeth, instead it is ingested through the organs, bones and tissues.

And this occurs despite an enormous body of evidence showing fluoride is not effective in reducing tooth decay, along with thousands of studies also showing that fluoridation chemicals damage the brain, kidneys, bones, thyroid, pineal gland, cardiovascular system, eyes and other organs and tissues.

No warning is given by water suppliers of the potential risks of ingesting fluoridation chemicals – a warning that is especially relevant for pregnant mothers, bottle-fed infants, the elderly, individuals diagnosed with diabetes or impaired kidney function and others with fluoride sensitivities. People with undiagnosed pre-diabetic and pre-renal-function impairment may also be more susceptible and therefore should also be warned. Given all the evidence, do you personally believe an absence of any warning is acceptable?

In addition to all the medical and dental (e.g. cosmetic, orthodontic) costs involved, the average cost nationally per fluoride dosing plant ranges from $700,000 to $1.8 million before any synthetic fluoridation chemicals are added to our drinking water. Then there’s the substantial ongoing cost of fluoridation, which is inevitably passed onto every Australian. In essence rate payers are paying to dispose of this highly toxic waste chemical into our drinking water and damaging their health and future generations in the process! This is not only environmentally irresponsible, it defies all logic and reveals major incompetence and ignorance at best and negligence at worst.

With all this evidence, how can any government continue to support this absurd, out-dated and highly unethical fluoridation program?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Dear

Re: Water fluoridation – a clear violation of ethics

Are you aware that using the public water supply as a vehicle to deliver fluoridation chemicals as a treatment for tooth decay is a serious violation of medical ethics?  

  1. Fluoridation deprives the individual of their basic right to informed consent to medication. Everyone has a basic right to give or withhold their consent to a medical treatment or therapeutic intervention. Even a doctor cannot force a patient to take a particular medicine.
  2. Fluoridation provides an uncontrolled dose. The dose depends entirely on two factors beyond the water supplier’s control: (i) the amount of water consumed by the individual, and (ii) the individual’s body weight.
  3. Fluoridation does not involve a personal prescription, tailored for the individual’s circumstances. Medical science understands well that individuals respond very differently to the same dose of a given medication. In fact the dose of a medication that is safe for one individual may be toxic for another and this applies very much to fluoride. Those most susceptible to fluoridation chemical harm are:
  • Diabetics and pre-diabetes patients;
  • Individuals with poor kidney function;
  • Individuals with hypersensitivity to fluoride’s toxic effects;
  • Infants and bottle-fed babies;
  • Individuals with iodine deficiency;
  • Individuals who are deficient in calcium, vitamin C, and/or vitamin D;
  • The elderly and very-low income groups;
  • Individuals who drink large quantities of water, including athletes, manual labourers, tradesmen and those with polydipsia (excessive thirst or excess drinking);
  1. Fluoridation does not involve a medical expert’s ongoing monitoring. A doctor will never prescribe a medication and say “just keep taking these for the rest of your life and you work out the dose.”
  2. Fluoridation effectively robs people of their choice. It is unacceptable that many individuals, who informed authorities they do not consent, are still subjected to the medical treatment of fluoridation regardless.
  3. Fluoridation has never been proven safe. A Randomised Controlled Trial has never been conducted for fluoridation chemicals and thousands of studies show the damaging effects of fluoridation chemicals.
  4. Fluoridation is arrogant, disrespectful and an abuse of power. Fluoridation promoters argue that “fluoridation ensures that fluoride gets to those that need it most”. No one “needs” to ingest fluoride, and the people they claim “need it most” are actually the people who are most likely to suffer most from its toxic effects.

In addition to the above breach of medical ethics, health authorities and fluoridation promoters often engage in other unethical behaviour by using a host of misleading or false statements. Endorsements and recommendations are not scientific. For More details see this article.

It is perplexing why some health professionals endorse fluoridation simply to follow established protocol. Any credible professional would investigate this matter objectively and thoroughly and act with transparency and integrity, rather than following their peers and making anecdotal, unscientific statements.

How can our governments continue to promote an ethically bankrupt fluoridation program “for the good of the people” when there is enormous evidence to show fluoridation chemicals are 1) not effective in reducing tooth decay; and 2) damaging to our health?

How can any responsible, ethical government completely disregard the precautionary principle and all the evidence showing harm?

And how can any government condone the consistently misleading tactics and the arrogant lack of transparency used to defend and promote fluoridation?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Dear

Re: Water Fluoridation – a reckless medical practice

In 2006 the US National Research Council published its comprehensive 3-year review of the toxicology of fluoride in water, concluding amongst other things that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body” and recommended more human brain studies be conducted. 

Are you aware that this major review was ignored by NHRMC’s fluoridation review process?

In 2012, a team from Harvard including Professor Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, co-editor of Environmental Health, author of more than 500 scientific papers and one of the world’s leading scientists on neurotoxicity, published a meta-analysis of 27 fluoride IQ studies (Choi et al., 2012). While Choi et al. noted weaknesses in the methodology of many of the studies they were struck by the remarkable consistency of the findings – 26 out of the 27 studies found a lowered IQ in the children in the high-fluoride village compared with the low fluoride village in each case. The average lowering of IQ was 7 IQ points. Grandjean concluded; “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.”

Are you aware that this Harvard review was also ignored by NHMRC?

Fluoride promoters attempted to dismiss these studies stressing methodological limitations and the “high concentrations” of the fluoride. However, the key parameter is not concentration but total dose of fluoride in mg of fluoride consumed per day. When such calculations are made it is apparent that the dose range experienced in some of these lowered IQ studies overlap the dose range experienced by children in fluoridated communities – especially in Australia where our fluoride concentration is higher than the US.

In September 2017 the Bashash et al., study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives. This 12-year study was funded by several US agencies and involved researchers from prestigious universities and research institutions including Toronto, McGill, Indiana, Illinois, Harvard and Mount Sinai. The study examined 299 Mother-infant pairs in Mexico City, and found – after controlling for many potential confounding factors – a strong relationship between fluoride exposure (as measured in their urine) of pregnant women and lowered IQ in their offspring at aged 4 and again at age 6-12. This was a rigorous, well-designed, high-quality study.

In August 2019, the Green et al., study was published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics. This study was funded by the Canadian government and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The study essentially replicated the findings of the Bashash et al., 2017 study using the Canadian MIREC cohort, finding that a 1 mg per litre increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.5 point decrease in IQ among boys.

The researchers also calculated fluoride exposure based on how much was in the city’s water supply and how much women reported drinking. Using this exposure method they found lower IQs in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7-point IQ deficit among both genders.

David Bellinger, PhD, one of the world’s authorities on lead’s neurotoxicity said when commenting on the size of fluoride’s effect on neurotoxicity, “It’s actually very similar to the effect size that’s seen with childhood exposure to lead.”  After this latest study, Professor Philippe Grandjean also said “I think the time has come for us to ask the CDC to reconsider fluoridation.”

Are you aware that these major studies have also been ignored or dismissed by NHMRC and other Australian health agencies? 

Do you personally feel it is acceptable for these major reviews and studies to be consistently ignored?

Unfortunately, many dentists and doctors have supported fluoridation because they are only provided with one side of this debate in dental and medical school. Fluoride therefore becomes part of their “belief system” early in their career. We need more scientists and medical professionals who are not trapped by such a belief system to investigate the research on fluoride’s impact on the brain objectively and for the benefit of our whole society, this harmful, costly, highly-unethical practice must end.

I look forward to your response to my concerns and questions.

Sincerely,

Dear

Re: Water fluoridation – a critical health issue for all Australians

It is with enormous concern that I write to you about your water fluoridation policy and specifically about the following five issues. I ask that you read them carefully and respond to each with a personal, detailed, non-generic reply.

1. Physiological damage
Twenty years of research and 54 individual studies have shown the damage fluoridation chemicals cause to the developing brain of the foetus and infant. In an attempt to find weaknesses in each individual study, you are ignoring the consistent and obvious fact that fluoridation chemicals cause neurological damage, especially to the developing brain?

Since the cut-off date (October 2014) of NHMRC’s 2017 fluoridation review, more than 400 new human and animal studies have emphasised and reinforced the toxicity of fluoridation chemicals. I do not understand, along with many Australians, how you can continue to dismiss or ignore these studies, many of which are substantial.

Hundreds of studies show fluoride is not only a developmental neurotoxin, but also an endocrine disruptor, an enzyme inhibitor and a nephrotoxin. These studies also show that fluoride:

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

As you may know, 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. Surely you don’t think this is acceptable?

It would be unconscionable for anyone to continue to ignore disadvantaged sub-groups such as the foetus and infants, diabetics, people with impaired kidney function and thyroid diseases, the elderly, those with poor nutritional status, those hypersensitive to fluoride, those deficient in iodine and many people with high water consumption.

2. Lack of effectiveness

It reveals a low standard how anyone can continue to rely on extremely poor quality Australian fluoride efficacy studies when there is overwhelming evidence to show fluoridation is not effective?  You should be aware that:

i) The original fluoride efficacy studies from the 1940s and 1950s were fraudulent, with a specific agenda to promote fluoridation;

ii) The Cochrane Review, 2015 (the largest, most comprehensive metta-review of fluoridation ever conducted), found no good-quality research showing that:
– Fluoridation provided any benefit to adults
– Fluoridation provided additional benefits over and above topically applied fluoride
– Fluoridation reduced inequalities among children from different socio-economic groups
– Tooth decay increased in communities when fluoridation is stopped

iv) The Cochrane review did not regard the studies claiming to show that water fluoridation reduces decay in children as applicable to today’s society, as nearly all the studies reviewed (dating back to the 1940s – 1960s) had a high risk of bias and were conducted prior to the availability of fluoride toothpaste;

v) NOT ONE published Australia fluoride efficacy study met the relaxed inclusion criteria for the Cochrane Review, so NHMRC included very poor-quality Australian studies to defend our fluoridation program. How can you condone this?

Also, you cannot continue to:

vi) Ignore many large-scale, population-based studies showing there is no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, regions or cities. To continue relying on endorsements and recommendations by various bodies that are NOT based on quality scientific studies only discredits you.

vii) Refer to relative percentage differences in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas that grossly exaggerate and distorts the real situation.

viii) State publicly that fluoridation is an effective means of reducing dental decay when nearly half of Australian children experience decay in their primary teeth and 90 per cent of adults have some form of tooth decay. Australia is one of the most fluoridated countries in the world and yet these AIHW statistics reveal fluoridation is clearly not working!

3. Fluoridation chemicals

How can you personally accept and endorse  highly-toxic, hazardous industrial waste chemicals that are a by-product from the processing of phosphate fertiliser, being added to our drinking water? Hexafluorosilicic acid, a Schedule 7 Poison, is so corrosive it eats through concrete, dissolves metal and burns through human flesh in seconds. Special equipment is required for its storage. Is this personally acceptable to you?

Do you personally feel it is acceptable to use misleading and even false statements to cover up this bad policy? Claims that highly-toxic industrial-waste chemicals are safe because small amounts of “calcium fluoride are found naturally occurring in plants, rocks and seawater” and “fluoride is a nutrient”, are not only absurd they are also misleading and deceptive.

Each year, at a huge cost, more than 8 tonnes of toxic-waste fluoridation chemicals are added to our drinking water and the overwhelming majority of this goes straight into the environment. Less than one per cent of the water dosed with artificial “fluoride” is used for drinking water and more than 99 per cent of that doesn’t even touch the teeth, instead it is ingested through the organs, bones and tissues. Is this really an “effective” means of treating tooth decay to you?

4. Violation of ethics

Are you aware that using the public water supply as a vehicle to deliver fluoridation chemicals as a treatment for tooth decay is a serious violation of medical ethics?  There is no individual consent, no control of dose, no regard whatsoever for individual circumstances or especially disadvantaged groups, no ongoing monitoring or testing and fluoridation chemicals have never been proven safe. A Randomised Controlled Trial has never been conducted for fluoridation chemicals and thousands of studies show their damaging effects. Fluoridation is arrogant, disrespectful and an abuse of power.

Are you personally satisfied that these ethics and the Precautionary Principle have been completely disregarded?

5. Reliance on NHMRC

How can anyone continue to rely on NHMRC’s blatantly biased fluoridation review methodology with a specific agenda to defend fluoridation? Please be sure to read this article along with other damming articles about NHMRC on this web site.

 I look forward to your response, addressing each specific concern in this letter.

Sincerely,

Dear

Re: WATER FLUORIDATION – there is no consent

Numerous letters have alerted State and Federal Ministers of Health and other Members of Parliament to the substantial and steadily-growing body of evidence against the use of industrial waste chemicals for Australia’s water fluoridation program.

These letters have also alerted health officials to the enormous evidence showing how ineffective this process really is, along with the highly-biased and unprofessional manner in which NHMRC has “reviewed” the so-called safety and effectiveness of fluoride.

Anyone who is objective cannot deny there is plenty of evidence to doubt the safety of fluoridation chemicals. And when in doubt the Precautionary Principal should be applied until this highly-unethical health intervention is proven safe beyond doubt.

The most recent “Green study”, conducted by a team of Canadian and American researchers, again links increased fluoride exposure during pregnancy to lowered IQ in their offspring. If this was the first isolated study, responsible health officials should be concerned and should encourage more studies like this. But this is the most recent in 54 studies and 20 years of similar research. The scientists conducting this study concluded the effect of fluoridation chemicals is similar to lead. How can any responsible health official continue to dismiss these recurring neurotoxicity studies along with thousands of other studies showing the physiological damage caused by fluoride?

Equally offensive, forced fluoridation robs an individual of their choice. Fluoridation breaches medical ethics on several grounds: apart from a lack of consent there is no control of dosage, no regard for an individual’s circumstances, no ongoing monitoring and no warning for possible risks. Given the steady stream of science showing fluoride’s neurotoxicity, pregnant mothers should now be warned of the possible damage to their young. Forced fluoridation is incredibly arrogant because there is a complete disregard for a large disadvantaged sub-population group.

NHMRC addressed ethics, stating “The main ethical justification for fluoridating water is that it provides an important dental health benefit across the population.” Are you aware that this statement contradicts the findings of the 2015 Cochrane Review – the largest, most extensive review of the effectiveness of fluoridation ever conducted? Also, the Cochrane team regarded the studies showing reduced dental decay in children as poor quality and too old to be relevant. How can you and health officials ignore these findings? Is it acceptable to you that NHMRC instead relied on very poor-quality studies to support fluoridation?

NHMRC referred to the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), as a reason not to require individual consent for public health interventions. However there is substantial evidence to show that fluoridation is not “for the protection of public health,” that it is in fact detrimental to public health. NHMRC also refers to the UNESCO report titled “On Consent” (2008). Section 56 provides examples of the need for public health interventions such as compulsory immunizations against contagious diseases. Neither of these UNESCO reports specifically refer to public water fluoridation as an acceptable public health intervention.

In 2005, UNESCO also published a report titled “The Precautionary Principle”. Once again, there is more than enough evidence for this to be applied in this case.

You cannot deny that fluoridation chemicals are specifically added to the water supply as a treatment for human teeth. Mandatory water fluoridation is clearly mass medication with a dangerous and unethical ‘one-size-fits-all’ protocol. Therefore it is not only ludicrous, it is illegal. Do you personally accept and endorse this?

I look forward to your personal response to my detailed concerns and questions.

Sincerely,

3. Optional: download one of these postcards and attatch it to your email

Click on one of the galleries below then right-mouse-click on the image you want and choose “save image as”. Download the JPG file then attach it to your email. Otherwise you can copy/paste the image into the body of your email.

4. Send

Send your email and wait for a reply. If you receive a standard, dismissive, “safe and effective” reply you may wish to forward it to us: info@fluoridefreeaustralia.org

CONTACT DETAILS

The Hon. Greg Hunt
Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au

Ayres,  Tim
<senator.ayres@aph.gov.au>
Bragg, Andrew
<senator.bragg@aph.gov.au>
Davey,  Perin
<senator.davey@aph.gov.au>
Faruqi,  Mehreen
<senator.faruqi@aph.gov.au>
Hughes,  Hollie
<senator.hughes@aph.gov.au>
Keneally, Kristina
<senator.keneally@aph.gov.au>
McAllister,  Jenny
<senator.mcallister@aph.gov.au>
O’Neill,  Deborah
<senator.oneill@aph.gov.au>
Sheldon,  Tony
<senator.sheldon@aph.gov.au>
Sinodinos,  Arthur, AO <senator.sinodinos@aph.gov.au>

Fierravanti-Wells,  Concetta
Web contact form
Payne,  Marise
Web contact Form

Kitching,  Kimberley
<senator.kitching@aph.gov.au>
Carr,  Kim
<senator.carr@aph.gov.au>
Di Natale,  Richard
<senator.dinatale@aph.gov.au>
Hume,  Jane
<senator.hume@aph.gov.au>
McKenzie,  Bridget
<senator.mckenzie@aph.gov.au>
Paterson,  James
<senator.paterson@aph.gov.au>
Rice,  Janet Elizabeth
<senator.rice@aph.gov.au>
Van,  David
<senator.van@aph.gov.au>
Walsh,  Jess
<senator.walsh@aph.gov.au>

Ciccone, Raffaele (Raff)
Web contact form
Ryan,  Scott Michael
Web contact form

Canavan, Matthew
<senator.canavan@aph.gov.au>
Chisholm, Anthony
<senator.chisholm@aph.gov.au>
Green, Nita
<senator.green@aph.gov.au>
Hanson,  Pauline <senator.hanson@aph.gov.au>
McDonald,  Susan <senator.mcdonald@aph.gov.au>
McGrath,  James <senator.mcgrath@aph.gov.au>
Rennick,  Gerard
<senator.rennick@aph.gov.au>
Roberts,  Malcolm <senator.roberts@aph.gov.au>
Scarr,  Paul
<senator.scarr@aph.gov.au>
Stoker,  Amanda
<senator.stoker@aph.gov.au>
Waters, Larissa
<senator.waters@aph.gov.au>
Watt,  Murray
<senator.watt@aph.gov.au>

Antic,  Alex
<senator.antic@aph.gov.au>
Bernardi,  Cory
<senator.bernardi@aph.gov.au>
Fawcett,  David
<senator.fawcett@aph.gov.au>
Gallacher, Alex
<senator.gallacher@aph.gov.au>
Griff,  Stirling
<senator.griff@aph.gov.au>
Hanson-Young,  Sarah 
<senator.hanson-young@aph.gov.au>
Patrick, Rex 
<senator.patrick@aph.gov.au>
Ruston,  Anne
<senator.ruston@aph.gov.au>
Smith, Marielle <senator.marielle.smith@aph.gov.au>

Birmingham,  Simon 
Web contact form
Farrell,  Don
Web contact form
Wong,  Penny
Web contact form

Brockman, Slade
<senator.brockman@aph.gov.au>
Cash,  Michaelia
<minister.cash@jobs.gov.au>
Dodson,  Patrick
<senator.dodson@aph.gov.au>
Lines,  Sue
<senator.lines@aph.gov.au>
O’Sullivan,  Matt
<senator.matt.osullivan@aph.gov.au>
Reynolds,  Linda
<senator.reynolds@aph.gov.au>
Siewert,  Rachel
<senator.siewert@aph.gov.au>
Smith,  Dean
<senator.smith@aph.gov.au>
Steele-John, Jordon
<senator.steele-john@aph.gov.au>
Sterle,  Glenn
<senator.sterle@aph.gov.au>

Cormann,  Mathias
Web contact form
Pratt,  Louise
Web contact form

Brown,  Carol Louise
<senator.carol.brown@aph.gov.au>
Chandler,  Claire
<senator.chandler@aph.gov.au>
Colbeck, Richard
<senator.colbeck@aph.gov.au>
Duniam,  Jonathon
<senator.duniam@aph.gov.au>
Lambie,  Jacqui
<senator.lambie@aph.gov.au>
McKim,  Nick
<senator.mckim@aph.gov.au>
Polley,  Helen
<senator.polley@aph.gov.au>
Urquhart,  Anne
<senator.urquhart@aph.gov.au>
Whish-Wilson,  Peter
<senator.whish-wilson@aph.gov.au>

Abetz,  Eric
Web contact from
Askew, Wendy
Web contact form
Bilyk,  Catryna
Web contact form

Gallagher, Katy
<senator.katy.gallagher@aph.gov.au>
Seselja, Zed
<senator.seselja@aph.gov.au>

McCarthy,  Malarndirri
<Senator.McCarthy@aph.gov.au>
McMahon, Sam
<senator.mcmahon@aph.gov.au>

Search for your local Federal MP by entering your postcode here.

Then click on the email icon to obtain the email address or use the web form provided.

If an email address or web form are not provided you can send a hard-copy letter by mail with a copy of the A4 flyer.

NEW SOUTH WALES
The Hon. Brad Hazzard
office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au

VICTORIA
The Hon. Jenny Mikakos
jenny.mikakos@parliament.vic.gov.au

QUEENSLAND
The Hon. Stephen Miles
health@ministerial.qld.gov.au

WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The Hon. Roger Cook

minister.cook@dpc.wa.gov.au

SOUTH AUSTRALIA
The Hon. Stephen Wade

ministerforhealth@sa.gov.au

TASMANIA
The Hon. Sarah Courtney

sarah.courtney@parliament.tas.gov.au

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
The Hon. Rachel Stephen-Smith
stephen-smith@act.gov.au

NORTHERN TERRITORY
The Hon. Natasha Fyles
minister.fyles@nt.gov.au

Use these links to search for your local State MPs:

NEW SOUTH WALES
Find your electorate here
Then search for your local State MP here

VICTORIA
Find your electorate here
Then search for your local State MPs by entering your electorate in this form
Click on each member to obtain their email address.

QUEENSLAND
Find your electorate here
Then search for your local State MP here

SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Find your electorate here
Then search for your local State MP by entering your electorate here

WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Find your local State MPs here

TASMANIA
Find your electorate and State MPs here

ACT
Find your electorate here
Then search for your local State MP here

NORTHERN TERRITORY
Find your electorate here
Then find your local State MP here

You can also attach this “Pregnant mum” flyer to your emails or web form, or you can print and send it with your letter. If you would like copies mailed to you, please contact us.