Australia - Consider both sides of fluoride debate - but be informed

I wish to respond to an inflammatory letter (March 23) to the Port News by Conjoint Associate Professor (University of Newcastle) Phillip Geary, Ph. D.

He attacks Mayor Peta Pinson for proceeding "with a vote to remove fluoride from the water supply", and claims...... "there should be absolutely no continuing debate about this!"

If challenged, I would hope Dr. Geary agrees that a fairly conducted scientific debate is essential to keep science honest.

Dr. Geary has unfairly attacked Mayor Pinson without providing a shred of evidence to support his proposition that, "The science is settled and fluoride must continue to be added to our water supply as it has been clearly shown to reduce the rate of tooth decay."

Geoff Pain, Ph.D. (chemistry) spoke convincingly against fluoride at the Westport Bowling Club in November, 2017.

Mayor Pinson and Deputy Mayor Lisa Intemann, Ph.D., were in attendance.

Dr. Pain presented scientifically valid examples of fluoride harms demonstrating that fluoride is a bio-accumulating, endocrine disrupting, neurotoxin and carcinogen.

Long-serving dentists and vigilant citizens will have observed an overall reduction in tooth decay over the period 1970 to 2010.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) reports significant reductions in decay rates over this period for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries.

The downward sloping trend lines show extensive overlap indicating factors other than fluoride are in play.

Clearly, residents should consider both sides of the debate before voting.

John Lusk, M.Sc., Ph.D.