Australia - Port Macquarie-Hastings fluoridation choice rages against facts
What's right?: Deputy mayor Lisa Intemann raises the concerns over whether scientists should be free to reveal data that contradicts or weakens government policy.
There has been a lot of talk recently about the emerging conflict between science and government policy.
Science and policy are definitely different – science deals in data, objectively measured and repeatable facts; policy concerns what some organisation decides to do to achieve a certain outcome.
Scientists and those supporting them say, in general, the facts should not be compromised and should be available to all.
The exceptions are when safety is threatened – i.e. not revealing how to make a destructive new weapon or virus; not revealing secrets of one’s country’s military defence. Some common sense is presumed.
Apart from the exceptions, the debate concerns whether scientists should be free to reveal data that contradicts or weakens government policy, and whether government should take notice of the facts or be free to just make things up.
A simple example is our government’s policy on water fluoridation – the addition of a fluoride compound to public drinking water on the grounds it helps prevent tooth decay.
I draw my facts from seven internationally recognised documents, published 1990-2015, reporting the same two conclusions that our government is determined not to recognise.
First - fluoride in water might reduce tooth decay by an average of about one tooth per child, but there is no data supporting that small benefit continues into adulthood. Second - there’s growing evidence of harm to general health from the fluoride compounds, but no fluoridating country, especially ours, is monitoring or studying those effects. That’s what the science says.
Australian governments ignore the science and mandate fluoridation at our peril, because it lets them make nice with the chemical companies and avoid proper commitment to dental health. Do you think that’s right?
These are Cr Intemann’s opinions and not necessarily council’s.
There has been a lot of talk recently about the emerging conflict between science and government policy.
Science and policy are definitely different – science deals in data, objectively measured and repeatable facts; policy concerns what some organisation decides to do to achieve a certain outcome.
Scientists and those supporting them say, in general, the facts should not be compromised and should be available to all.
The exceptions are when safety is threatened – i.e. not revealing how to make a destructive new weapon or virus; not revealing secrets of one’s country’s military defence. Some common sense is presumed.
Apart from the exceptions, the debate concerns whether scientists should be free to reveal data that contradicts or weakens government policy, and whether government should take notice of the facts or be free to just make things up.
A simple example is our government’s policy on water fluoridation – the addition of a fluoride compound to public drinking water on the grounds it helps prevent tooth decay.
I draw my facts from seven internationally recognised documents, published 1990-2015, reporting the same two conclusions that our government is determined not to recognise.
First - fluoride in water might reduce tooth decay by an average of about one tooth per child, but there is no data supporting that small benefit continues into adulthood. Second - there’s growing evidence of harm to general health from the fluoride compounds, but no fluoridating country, especially ours, is monitoring or studying those effects. That’s what the science says.
Australian governments ignore the science and mandate fluoridation at our peril, because it lets them make nice with the chemical companies and avoid proper commitment to dental health. Do you think that’s right?
These are Cr Intemann’s opinions and not necessarily council’s.
posted by Bill at
9:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home