I was greatly looking forward to the poll results on this highly controversial topic.

But the very idea of the poll and its cost had so angered some people, that I doubt any sane person would want another three months of that sort of community division when so many other worries are already at hand.

Most councillors supported my proposal for a different approach, involving direct talks with NSW Health and all councillors being invited to submit questions to be asked.

My questions will focus on the published peer-reviewed studies that are now available from around the world, which show fading dental benefit and growing evidence of potential harm to general health.

I find it hard to believe that supporters of fluoridation in NSW Health are intentionally ignoring the emerging evidence, but we shall see when it is put directly to them.

With fluoridation now shown to offer only around a one cavity saving in children, and no demonstrable benefit to adults or disadvantaged sectors of the community, the forced injection of fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) into our drinking water now has virtually no data to back it.

I understand that fluoridation once seemed like a great idea, adopted by Australia in 1953 with great gusto.

But there have been no studies of lifelong effects, and no health safety studies on fluoride consumption ever conducted in Australia.

Those are facts that defy the principle of precaution.

From a policy perspective, we are operating completely in the dark, and failing to take notice of the global science - which is without doubt an abject failure in bureaucratic duty of care.

Port News has now generously offered a reader poll open to all readers, not behind a paywall so do have your say.

Read more: Reader Poll: Your chance to answer the question about water fluoridation in Port Macquarie-Hastings

However, the question being posed is the bureaucracy's same old preferred push poll - Do you agree with adding fluoride to the water supply to try and prevent tooth decay?

Based on wishful thinking, even I could support that question.

But the science is now clear, and is widely available for those willing to see.

For example, just last weekend a newly published mainstream science journal put it this way: "We now know that topically applied fluoride works much better and more effectively than when swallowed. By using it topically and spitting out what you don't need you're not going to get that systemic toxicity."

Use fluoride topically if you wish, but don't swallow and do not support its addition to drinking water, because the science and fact shows it is toxic to the body and to health.

Cr Intemann's opinions are not necessarily council's.