Professor Phillip Geary (Port News, 1 April) is a staunchly avowed pro-fluoridationist, and I am his opposite in that sense.
In his letter, Prof Geary attacks me personally with wrongful claims, which I take as suggesting he has no solid science supporting his position.
I have now communicated with many fluoride supporters and with some, such as Prof Geary, quite extensively.
They tell me the science is settled and debate is over.
In reality, science is intentionally open-minded, following the evidence and never dogmatically settled.
The evidence since 2000 is a veritable explosion of new fluoridation research showing potential adverse health effects (especially neurotoxicity) and fading dental benefit, which evidence fluoridation supporters such as NHMRC seem determined to ignore. Why?
Water fluoridation is currently forced on the entire community without choice, potentially affecting all friends and loved ones for a lifetime wherever you live, even the unborn.
If fluoridationists are justifiably confident of their product, they should have no problem taking the red pill on this matter, and open up to an independent review of safety and effectiveness.
Council's Community Poll on 4 September will ask whether you'd prefer local fluoridation stopped.
A solid 'Yes' vote would justify council pushing for an independent review of water fluoridation, to get all published evidence openly on the table.
Cr Lisa Intemann PhD BA(Hons) BAppSc DipSocSc