OurSay

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

Winning Questions

247 votes Why does the EPA not blow the whistle on the destruction of the environment as well as human health by the addition of Fluoride to water supplies? 99% of the polluted water is not consumed, but carries the toxin into our groundwater, rivers and oceans. If the British Soil Scientists oppose fluoridation on environmental grounds, what is the EPA excuse for not monitoring and reporting the damage? After all, the Victorian EPA has shown Fluoride emissions from industrial processes are killing wildlife. See www.fluoridealert.org. - Geoff Pain 153 votes The HRL 300mw dual gas (coal fired) power station that the EPA authorised will make burning brown coal equivalent to a burning black coal. Described by the EPA as best practice, it's been claimed that the average emissions intensity will be between 0.73 and 0.78. The average emissions intensity of power plants in the OECD is about 0.45 tonnes, it will emit up to 4.2 million tonnes of CO2 additional to the 117mt Victoria already emits annually, because it isn't replacing any current generators. How can the EPA be protecting the environment when the HRL decision will so clearly damage it? . - Wayne Heywood 91 votes How will EPA protect residents adversely affected by living within 1 km of Hepburn Winds' turbines at Leonards Hill?. - John Kowarsky

More about this

You can see the full list of questions asked for this OurSay here.

00:00 Noisy wind farms at Hepburn Springs 02:00 HRL vs Protecting the environment 05:26 Fluoride poison? 07:05 Your thoughts 07:48 John's thoughts

Sort by: Time

Colin Bishop 7 months ago

I have heard some bullcrap answers in my day but nothing compared to this! Not finding something is dependent on looking for it - thousands of tonnes of silicofluoride is dumped into our environment each month and the EPA (frankly) just does not give a stuff because they are controlled by the government. The EPA is a waste of public money.

Anthony Halpin 4 months ago

NEW STUDY - .... ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND DEMENTIA - IMPORTANT NEW STUDY SHOWS GRAVE IMPLICATIONS FROM INTERACTION OF ALUMINUM AND LOW DOSE FLUORIDE.... LOSING YOUR MIND?..... The latest edition of the peer-reviewed medical journal, Brain Research, (vol.784:l998), reveals that aluminum-induced neural degeneration in rats is greatly enhanced when the animals were fed low doses of fluoride. The presence of fluoride enhanced the bio-availability of aluminum (Al) causing more aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier and become deposited in the brain. The aluminum level in the brains of the fluoride-treated group was double that of the controls. The pathological changes found in the brain tissue of the animals given fluoride and aluminum-fluoride were similar to the alterations found in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. The authors stated that "While the small amount of AlF3 in the drinking water of rats required for neurotoxic effects is surprising, perhaps even more surprising are the neurotoxic results of NaF (sodium fluoride) at the dose given in the present study (2.1 ppm NaF)." (2.1 parts per million NaF equals about l.0 milligram fluoride ion per litre of water- the same level found in 1.0 ppm "optimally" fluoridated drinking water.1). This study confirms what the authors of a 1995 study, published in the Journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology, predicted when they found fluoride-induced behavioural disruptions (related to drug-induced hypeide-fed rats, damage could be expected in the hippocampus of the brain (central processor which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, etc.). The new study also confirms the work of scientists in China, published in 1996, which showed fluoride to adversely affect children's IQ. When contacted by phone, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, one of the authors of the l995 study, said that she is "not at all surprised" that the new study found pathological brain changes in fluoride-treated rats. She added: "They came up with the evidence which made our prediction come true." The latest paper is yet another study which shows that even low levels of fluoride may have serious health implications for people and that the effect is enhanced in the presence of other neurotoxins like aluminum. 1 The formula for converting NaF to fluoride ion is ppm x 45%. Thus, 2.1 ppm x 45% = .95 ppm (ppm =mgs /litre). Contact: Ellie Rudolph, Director, Pennsylvania Chapter, Health Alliance International Phone/Fax 412-828-5096 http://www.fluoridation.com NOTES FOR EDITOR: TITLE REFERENCE: Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity; Julie A. Verner, Karl F. Jensen, William Horvath, Robert L.Isaacson, Brain Research, Vol.784:l998, Elsevier Science. This is the latest edition to the hundreds of studies showing the adverse effects of fluoride. • Recently declassified documents,obtained under the U.S Freedom of Information legislation, show that central nervous system (CNS) effects caused by fluoride were known to, but concealed by, the US government during the l940s. • Fluoride is a cumulative, protoplasmic poison, more toxic than lead. It is being deliberately added to the drinking water of MILLIONS of people in the United States, whether they want it or not- for the stated reason that "it can reduce tooth decay in children." Adverse health effects published over the decades are consistently DENIED by the government's advisers on water fluoridation.

John Wilson 4 months ago

Anna Bligh has been ill advised and apparently knows nothing about our Commonwealth Constitution, or she would not be trying to impose mandatory fluoridation. I believe that the States Fluoridation Acts are not legal despite being passed in State legislation. Firstly, they breach the Nuremburg Code; the Helsinki Declaration as well as our own medical and other Acts whereby it is illegal to force medication on a person/s. I believe it also contravenes the Commonwealth Constitution by attempting to take away our Common Law rights, especially our right of choice. It also contradicts the European High Court Ruling. From an engineering point of view, it is impossible to calibrate or calculate an accurate dose that will reach people of all levels of health, size, ages, etc. It is acknowledge that since fluoridation there has been a marked increase in brittle bones in the elderly. I have asked question about when the authorities consider this symptom commences and they will not provide an answer. I have asked as an advocate for testing to be researched into the ages effected. We can look at footballers and the amount of injuries and broken bones suffered today. When I was young, I believe we played just as rough but did not suffer as many injuries as today's footballers. Perhaps the answer might be that the brittle bone syndrome commences much earlier than we would be led to believe but as the government or authorities are reluctant to undertake the research we can never be sure. Australia uses data that is many years out of date and refuses to cook at the latest research Europe has almost totally 98% stopped research. The most logical consideration is: There are alternatives if you wish to ingest fluoride, i.e. tablets gels, toothpaste rather than force it on people who do not wish to ingest it. It is not even a medical or pharmaceutical quality but a waste product used directly from the scrubbers and includes heavy metals and other toxic substances. The method of calculating does not take into account the fluoride given off by industry, agriculture, etc. Not one of the authorities is willing to give a written guarantee that the ingesting of fluoride will not damage the health of the individual or their family. They are not willing to pay medical or legal cost involved when someone is injured because of fluoridation. Vested interests have virtually bought the government that has no interest or concern about the citizens of our country. I could say a lot more but believe until there is a class action taken against the governments we will get no satisfaction. Class action is starting to happen in other countries. Do our governments resist following what is happening in other countries believing the people will do what they consider they need. Few politicians are qualified to make that sort of judgement. Many department heads may have qualified years ago but have not updated their knowledge and may also have qualified in a different field and as a head of department carry out a policy and administrative function

Or see all comments at once