E-Petition calling for a water fluoridation referendum

Please Support the E-Petition calling for a  water fluoridation referendum  in Queensland.

Help fight forced water fluoridation by signing the E-Petition on the Queenland Parliament website ; please click on link below ( or paste into browser if not live )

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_qld/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1007

The petition reads:“Queensland residents draws to the attention of the House the high level of public concern in relation to mandatory Queensland’s potable water supplies.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to give the people of Queensland the opportunity for an informed choice by referendum on mandatory fluoridation, to be held prior to the debate on the bill.”

Whilst this is not everything we would want, because a lost referendum can force people to consume fluoride against their will, it is the best opportunity to tell the Government how we feel. It is also an opportunity for people who believe in the rights of others to have a free choice, to also have their say, by supporting this petition.

The Principal Petitioner is Denis Connolly, 11 Dawson Road, Gladstone, Qld. 4680 and it will be sponsored into the Queensland Parliament by Independent member – Liz Cunningham MP.

This is very important – Please sign the petition NOW. Note:  The closing date is 21st March.  If you are against Water fluoridation, add your signature now.

6 responses to “E-Petition calling for a water fluoridation referendum

  1. Northern Star (Lismore, NSW)
    July 22, 2010

    Rous Water: Legal threat halts fluoride bids

    By Rebecca Lollback

    THE threat of legal action yesterday forced Rous Water to reject all tenders for the construction of its fluoride dosing plants.

    Anti-fluoride campaigner Al Oshlack, of Lismore, says he will commence proceedings against Rous Water in the NSW Land and Environment Court tomorrow.

    This came just as the water authority was preparing to accept a tender for construction work for the plants at Knockrow, Corndale, Dorroughby, Clunes and Marom Creek.

    But at yesterday’s meeting, Rous’s technical services director, Wayne Franklin, said that accepting a tender would not be in the council’s best interests.

    “Entering into a contract that might be delayed or terminated as a consequence of Mr Oshlack’s action places council at a significant financial risk,” he wrote in a last-minute report to councillors.

    “The contractor may have a basis on which to seek damages from council for costs incurred due to delay or termination of the contract.”

    Mr Oshlack said he been considering legal action for about 12 months.

    “I’m going to sign off on it on Friday,” he said.

    “I feel really confident about this.

    “They (the Rous Water councillors) have made a really, really bad decision.

    “Fluoride, even in small amounts, can be dangerous, and the full environmental impacts weren’t considered.

    “Also, the way the decision has been made has been bad because certain councillors were intimidated.

    “This kind of thing is just not on.

    “Somebody has to stand up against it.

    “I’ve had a lot of community support for this action.”

    Mr Oshlack’s proposed summons seeks to stop Rous Water from doing any activity or work related to the construction of the fluoridation plants.

    This includes letters of tenders, execution of capital funding programs, construction of the plants and their operation.

    Instead of accepting a tender for the construction of the fluoride dosing plants, Rous Water will now start negotiations with the preferred tenderer.

    NSW Health will be included in those discussions.

    Mr Franklin said the council was still, at this stage, legally bound to construct and operate the plants.

    The cost of the construction has also skyrocketed.

    It is now expected to cost about $2.087 million, $648,000 more than the original estimate.

    NSW Health has agreed to fund the shortfall.

    Like

  2. Today Tonight Adelaide exposes the bureaucratic misinformation campaign imposing fluoride into Australian drinking water:

    A very good new expose on fluoridation was broadcast last night 23 July 2010 on Today Tonight Adelaide (South Australia).

    The link to watch the story is

    http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au (see bottom of left hand side under Flouride – sic)

    The expose features Prof Susheela who submitted one of the affidavits (you can read hers at http://www.fluoridealert.org/susheela.htm) for the current lawsuit of SAFE WATER ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff vs. CITY OF FOND DU LAC (USA), Defendant.

    Like

  3. A resident of the area affected by Australia’s worst fluoride accident asks: “Can they legally pass legislation to protect private companies?”

    Well, they have indeed legislated that there is “no civil right or remedy against … a person acting under the direction or authority of an authorised person.”

    The Act protects private companies under the following phrases cited from The Water Fluoridation Act 2008 (http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WatrFluorA08.pdf):

    A person does not have any civil right or remedy against a public potable water supplier in relation to the fluoridation of a public potable water supply under this Act…

    An official is not civilly liable for an act done, or omission made, honestly and without negligence under this Act…

    In this section official means—(a) the Minister or the chief executive; or (b) a person acting under the authority of the Minister or the chief executive; or (c) a member of the committee; or (d) a State analyst; or (e) an authorised person; or (f) a person acting under the direction or authority of an authorised person.

    Like

  4. The reply from the Health Minister claiming that fluoridation can reduce tooth decay by up to 40% contrasts with the public statement of the chairman of the British Government commissioned York University 2000 Review correcting blatant misstatements by the British Medical Society and British Dental Association (that misused the findings to promote fluoridation):.“Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit only of the order of 15%”. In fact the WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme (at http://www.whocollab.od.mah.se/euro.html) shows a continuing decline of caries in western industrialized societies irrespective of fluoridation!

    If the Minister for Health’s survey figures showing that 60%-70% of the population wanted fluoridation were accurate then why did the Government need to remove the requirement for a referendum from the legislation in 2008? And why on earth did every referendum ever held on the issue end up with a majority “we don’t want fluoridation” result? In fact the Local Government Association of Queensland did a survey in 2005 and found majority support for a referendum before forced fluoridation was to be enacted!

    Like

  5. Dear mr curr,

    Re: Fluoridation

    The above E-Petition you signed on the Queensland Parliament web site on 06/03/2008
    has been responded to. To view the Ministers response please click on the hyperlink below.

    In accordance with the E-Petitions privacy statement your details have been removed from
    the E-Petitions database.

    Click here for Ministers Response

    Yours faithfully,

    Queensland Parliament

    Click to access 1007.pdf

    Like

    • Forced medication?

      Anna Bligh made all Labor MPs vote for forced fluoridation in 2008, despite all Labor MPs voting against it in 2005.

      Through Freedom of Information we in Queensland know that the NHMRC 2007 review (on which the pro-fluoridation arguments were based) was supposed to look at the effect of fluoride on people with kidney impairment, and we know that this was done, and we also know that all reference to the impacts on kidney impaired people (many diabetics and aboriginals) was removed from the review!

      If Anna Bligh truly believed fluoridation was safe then reference to the impacts on kidney impaired people would not have been removed from the NHMRC 2007 review. If Anna Bligh truly believed fluoridation was safe then she would not have changed the legislation to The Water Fluoridation Act 2008 which removes all liability not only towards the government and its advisors but also towards all companies involved in delivering water fluoridation to Queenslanders no matter what mistakes they make or how severe any Queenslanders’ health becomes as a result of water fluoridation. A scandal totally overlooked by the media!

      A copy of the legislation is available at http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/OQPChome.htm

      Ray Bergmann

      Like

Please keep comments brief (moderated for spam only)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.