Fluoride a State Government responsibility: Council


Redland City Council has passed the decision on fluoridation of the city’s water supply back to the State Government.

Mayor Karen Williams said fluoridation was a health issue and as such was the responsibility of the State Government.

“Fluoridation was forced on councils by the former State Government and the current Government should have accepted responsibility for the issue rather than dumping it in the lap of councils and expecting us to pay to remove fluoride,” Cr Williams said.

“Fluoridation of water supplies has always been – and remains – a health issue, and health is a State responsibility.

“The former Government mandated fluoride in our water without reference to councils so we believe the current Government should decide whether or not fluoride should stay and bear the cost of removing it should councils make that decision on behalf of their communities.

“The cost of removing fluoride is prohibitive to councils – an estimated $32 million in Redland City’s case – so we cannot afford to make the call, even if our community tells us it wants out of fluoride.

“This is an expense we are not willing to force on ratepayers.”

Council today resolved unanimously to write to the Government and ask it to amend legislation to protect councils from the high costs involved in removing fluoride from water supplies.

“We will be asking Energy and Water Supply Minister Mark McArdle to give local government the choice of accepting non-fluoridated water without cost to councils,” Cr Williams said.

“This is a controversial issue with arguments for and against.”

2 thoughts on “Fluoride a State Government responsibility: Council

  1. jwillie6

    The world has learned the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, so only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water. To see why, Google “Fluoride dangers” and read a few of the 800,000 articles.

    Medical professionals should be ashamed to support such a crude and unethical practice which results in cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.
    See “Dangerous Health Effects” at http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/.

    Reply
  2. Hemi Hill

    Passing the buck is what politicians do. Misleading half truths they are also experts at. This $32 million figure is only due to approaching fluoride removal backwards and illogically. Fluoride is added at the water treatment plant. Removal is a simple process of stop adding it, and this is quite literally a matter of turning off the dosage machinery. That is all it takes. I could find a dozen qualified electricians, fitters and Engineers that would complete this task free of charge. But instead of common sense, you approach the task backwards, and assert we need to filter out this class S7 chemical after the dosage point, which will indeed cost $32 Million. So option1 will cost zero, option two will cost 32M, and you go with option 2, and use the high cost as justification for leaving it in. If you worked for me, I would fire you.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *