1. Fluoridation is a safe and easy way to help protect teeth

Fluoridation allows everybody to benefit from improved oral health outcomes, regardless of age, education or income levels.

Water fluoridation provides a topical benefit for existing teeth and a foundation benefit for developing teeth, which has lifelong implications as more people retain more of their own teeth through their lifetime.

Alternative fluoride supplements are expensive and require strict adherence, which is difficult for most to maintain over time. Fluoride tables are often unavailable and only help the small number of children taking them regularly.

Even for those people with good dental hygiene and sensible diets, water fluoridation will increase the effect of their efforts resulting in time and cost savings.

Fluoridation can be likened to vaccination programs, or adding vitamin D to margarine or folic acid to cereals. Such programs provide an overall benefit.

Thousands of Queensland children undergo general anaesthetics (which is not a risk-free procedure) for dental treatment every year. Much of this traumatic dental treatment could be avoided if fluoridated water was available.

A 2002 cost-benefit analysis found fluoridation returns $6-$20 in improved dental care for every $1 spent. The Victorian Government estimates that water fluoridation has saved the state more than $1 billion in the 30 years since it was introduced. back to top ^

2. Queenslanders have the worst teeth in the nation

Queensland spends $132 million on public dental services annually, compared with its nearest rival New South Wales which spends $100 million/annum. Despite this, public health waiting lists have ballooned to up to five years in some parts of Queensland.

Comparisons in 5-12 year old children in all Australian states show Queensland (only 5 percent water fluoridated) had the highest rate of dental caries in 1999 (the most recent figures available).

Surveys repeatedly show that children living in fluoridated areas have less tooth decay than children living in non-fluoridated areas. Victorian surveys show six-year-old children in fluoridated areas have 45 percent less decay in baby teeth compared with those living in non-fluoridated areas and 12-year-olds have 38 percent less.

Comparisons within Queensland show that Townsville (fluoridated) children aged 5-12 have a rate of tooth decay 45 percent less than children living in Brisbane (non-fluoridated). (click here to read more about this study)

A 2005 study of 973 Australian army recruits aged 17-51 showed that recruits with no exposure to water fluoridation had 36 percent more decay experience than recruits who had grown up with water fluoridation. back to top ^

3. Most Australians have benefited from fluoridation for 25-50 years

The majority of Australians have access to this cost-effective means of providing oral health benefits to the entire community.

The percentage of Australians who have access to fluoridated water are: 90 percent in NSW, 100 percent in Australian Capital Territory, 77 percent in Victoria, 91 percent in Tasmania, 80 percent in South Australia, 86 percent in Western Australia and 70 percent in the Northern Territory.

In Queensland, only 5 percent of the population has access to fluoridated water. Worldwide research over many years has consistently shown that water fluoridation significantly reduces tooth decay in both children and adults.

Water fluoridation has the ringing endorsement of health experts in Queensland and around the world. It is supported by the Australian Dental Association as well as more than 100 of the world's leading health and scientific authorities including the following:
. Australian Medical Association
. World Health Organisation
. UK Medical Research Council
. The Royal College of Physicians (UK)
. US-based Centers for Disease Control
. American Medical Association
. US Public Health Service
. Australian Public Health Association
. Queensland Health
back to top ^

4. There is no valid evidence to support anti-fluoridationists' disease claims

Anti-fluoridationists regularly claim fluoridation causes bone cancer (osteosarcoma), kidney disease, diabetes, thyroid disorders, hip fracture, osteoporosis, dental fluorosis, skin conditions etc - but their comments are not backed up by credible scientific evidence.

The only negative consequence of fluoridation is dental fluorosis, which is white flecks on the teeth that may result from excessive ingestion of fluoride while teeth are developing. Fluorosis only affects the look of the teeth, it can and does occur in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, and is more likely to result from inappropriate use of fluoride toothpaste or fluoride supplements rather than from water fluoridation.

Australia's fluoridated cities report low levels of aesthetically significant dental fluorosis. Only about 2 percent of a fluoridated population will have cosmetic effects, which are entirely treatable.

Regarding all other health conditions supposedly linked to fluoridation - there has never been a single legitimate laboratory or epidemiological study that has shown that drinking water with fluoride levels at 1 ppm caused cancer or any of the other multitude of diseases variously claimed to be caused by fluoridation.

No reputable health or scientific authority has any evidence of any adverse health affects from optimal water fluoridation despite extensive research and research reviews.

Some examples of this lack of evidence are:

In January 2006, the British Thyroid Association endorsed this statement from the British Fluoridation Society: "The available medical and scientific evidence suggests an absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders."

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology in 1971 (and again endorsed this in 2000) said that: "There is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies."

A United Kingdom review on osteoporosis concluded that " . long term exposure to fluoridated water does not increase the risk of osteoporotic fractures among elderly people (UK Department of Health, 1999).

"There is no evidence for either an osteoporosis risk or benefit from water fluoridation (Australia's NH&MRC, 1999).

The NHMRC (1991) concluded that evidence of fluoride as an allergen remains unconvincing. The weight of evidence indicates that fluoride is unlikely to produce hypersensitivity or other immunological effects.

In 1991, the National Cancer Institute found "no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water".

A 1999 report by the Centers for Disease Control concluded that studies to date have produced "no credible evidence" of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer.

The controversial research by PhD student Elise Bassin at Harvard University has claimed to demonstrate a link between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma (a rare bone cancer). The first phase of the research examined cases from 1989-92 focusing on patients under 20. But preliminary findings from the second group of cases (from 1993-2000) does not show an association between osteosarcoma and water fluoridation.

Previous investigations by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, National Health and Medical Research Council, York Review, British Medical Research Council and other groups have failed to show a link between osteosarcoma and water fluoridation.

Recent analysis of osteosarcoma rates in Australia does not support an association between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma. During the past 20 years, osteosarcoma rates in Queensland (largely unfluoridated) are actually higher than the Australian average. back to top ^

5. Dentists support water fluoridation in Queensland at < 1ppm.

Dentists support fluoridation of water at a level of 0.6-0.7ppm, which is the optimal level to provide an oral health benefit for all residents of Queensland.

Townsville is the only Queensland city with water fluoridation and has been fluoridating its water since 1964 at a level of 0.65ppm - with only beneficial effects.

Some inland Queensland towns, such as Julia Creek, Thargomindah, Barcaldine, have sufficient naturally occurring fluoride in the drinking water to help reduce tooth decay.

Dentists do not support fluoridation at levels higher than 1ppm. They, and other health authorities, advise communities that have fluoride naturally occurring at higher levels than that to regularly monitor and adjust as necessary their community water supplies.

The fluoride ions in artificially fluoridated water are identical to those found in naturally fluoridated water.

Sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid can all be used to fluoridate water supplies.

The compound more often used in large cities is fluorosilicic acid or its salt, sodium hexafluorosilicate. These dissolve completely and harmlessly in water, breaking down into hydrogen ions, fluoride ions, silica (sand) and water. back to top ^

6. Why is Queensland different?

About 75 percent of Australians have safely enjoyed the oral health benefits of water fluoridation for between 25-50 years. Australians living in every other capital city except Brisbane have had fluoridation for decades - with only positive effects.

The fact that only five percent of Queenslanders have access to fluoridated water is entirely political - it has nothing to do with any science-based reasoning and more to do with timing, circumstances and the nature of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act (1963).

Fluoridation remains paralysed in a domain between local authorities and the state government, and this issue was still being used as a political football in 2005.

Late in 2005, the Forster Report put fluoridation back on the agenda by recommending that Queensland Health, in conjunction with local government, engage the community on the feasibility, cost and consequences of introducing fluoridation to the drinking water.

Forster said trends indicate Queensland Health is unlikely to remain in a situation where it can continue to fund free public dental health services without increasing waiting times to an unacceptable level.

The report pointed out that informed choice requires a full appreciation of the consequences of such a choice. For example, if a local community rejects fluoridation, is it willing to pay for the significant additional cost of oral health services for the young and the aged?

The ADAQ remains extremely concerned at the poor state of dental health in Queensland, with nationwide surveys repeatedly showing that Queenslanders have the worst teeth in Australia despite Queensland spending more than any other state on public dental health.

That is the direct consequence and cost of non-fluoridation in this state.

After the Forster Report was released last year, the three major political parties in Queensland all announced in-principle support for water fluoridation and the ADAQ hopes that they can work together to make this a reality in the not too distant future.

The migration of residents from southern states who have grown up with fluoridation is highlighting Queensland's lack of fluoridation. Incoming southerners have to be briefed by doctors and dentists about what the lack of fluoridation means to their oral health. back to top ^

7. Of mass medication, rat poison, fertiliser conspiracies and other myths

Fluoridation can be likened to vaccination programs, or adding vitamin D to margarine or folic acid to cereals. Such programs provide an overall benefit which is trivialised when it is referred to as being medication for the masses.

Dentists support water fluoridation because it is a safe, easy and effective way of providing an oral heath benefit for people of all ages, income levels and education.

They don't want Queenslanders to have unnecessary drilling and filling, or pain and suffering, or lost time and self-esteem.

It is a complete furphy for anyone to suggest that dentists have anything to gain from supporting fluoridation except the satisfaction of knowing that all Queenslanders have the potential to live cavity free lives.

ADAQ has no links with fertiliser companies. The ADAQ does not receive payment from the chemical industry or any organisation linked with the production of fluoride.

Regarding the rat poison furphy - there is no doubt that ingesting fluoride (and many other compounds) in large doses is not advised and can be poisonous to rats and other living things.

The anti-coagulant drug warfarin is also a "rat poison" at high doses but many Australians with heart conditions safely take an optimal daily dose of warfarin to ensure their survival. back to top ^

8. Anti-fluoridationist arguments can sound convincing

There are a number of websites containing anti-fluoridation material and several vociferous opponents, but very few of these (if any) have medical or oral health qualifications and are more likely to be chemists or environmental scientists.

Opponents of fluoridation frequently quote statements that are out-of-date, taken out of context, or misrepresent legitimate scientific research. Articles referred to are usually not from recognised peer-reviewed journals.

Photos on anti-fluoridationists websites supposedly showing tooth damage and discolouration as the result of excessive amounts of fluoride are not the result of water fluoridation at the minimal and optimal levels that are the acceptable and recommended standard in Australia.

Many naturally occurring substances are beneficial in small quantities but harmful in large doses - this is where the mischief comes in.

Dentists and other health professionals in Australia are only advocating the use of fluoride at its known optimal levels (0.6-0.7ppm in Queensland) - not levels of 4-8ppm or above at which it does occur naturally in some parts of the world.

The ordinary person/politician/consumer is not usually equipped to properly evaluate the misinformation and misrepresentations contained in the anti-fluoride literature and can be bamboozled by conflicting messages.

According to leading Australian medical experts there is no "scientific" controversy over the safety of fluoridation.

They consider fluoridation at optimal levels - of less than one part per million (0.6-0.7ppm in Queensland) - to be safe, easy, economical and effective.

Therefore the creation and continuation of what amounts to a "fake" scientific controversy is simply quackery being allowed to triumph over science and evidence-based analysis of the facts.

Fluoridation has 50 years of use in Australia and in that time there has been no valid evidence of harm to anyone from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

Community water fluoridation is regarded by the US Centers for Disease Control as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. back to top ^

9. Fluoridation is a worldwide practice

About 400 million people in more than 30 countries around the world benefit from water fluoridation. About 75 percent of Australians – that’s about 15 million Australians – enjoy the safe, easy, cost effective benefits of fluoridation.

The world trend is towards water fluoridation. Water fluoridation is practiced in Ireland, England and Spain. Countries including South Africa, Vietnam, South Korea, Israel and Brunei recently introduced fluoridation schemes, and fluoridation in countries such as the United States and Australia is continuing.

Some countries choose to use fluoridated salt – which is the case in Germany, France, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, and the Czech and Slovak Republics.

The International Association for Dental Research originally adopted the following fluoridation policy in 1979, which it updated in 1999 and annually reconfirms … including in 2006 at the IADR conference in Brisbane: IADR, considering that dental caries (tooth decay) ranks among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide; and recognising that the consequences of tooth decay include pain, suffering, infection, tooth loss, and the subsequent need for costly restorative treatment; and taking into account that over 50 years of research have clearly demonstrated its efficacy and safety; and noting that numerous national and international health-related organisations endorse fluoridation of water supplies; fully endorses and strongly recommends the practice of water fluoridation for improving the oral health of nations.

Contrary to what anti-fluoridationists claim, no country has banned water fluoridation. The European Union allows water fluoridation in any European country and sets a maximum level of 1.5ppm, which is well above the level needed to reduce dental caries.

Most European countries have elected not to fluoridate their water supplies for practical or constitutional reasons, a lack of political will, vocal opposition, or because they already use salt fluoridation.

However, a 1996 conference of dental and public health experts drawn from every member state of the European Union recognized the key role of fluoride – in toothpaste, in salt and in water – in reducing the level of tooth decay. back to top ^

10. One less cavity per person adds up to big savings

Across a state, small increases in cavity rates mean hundreds of thousands of extra cavities and a massive health and financial cost to the community.

Any cavity is costly to repair and traumatic to the patient. When a child’s permanent tooth needs repair, that child is destined to need that tooth repaired and/or restored many times during their lifetime. Repeat restorations are likely to be larger, more complex, more time consuming, create additional trauma for the patient, and incur a much greater cost to the patient and the community.

Directly or indirectly, all Queenslanders – even those fortunate enough to have excellent teeth – are paying for the epidemic of tooth decay in this state.

Queenslanders have the worst oral health in the nation and this is draining the state’s already overburdened public health system. back to top ^