Gift for the Man who has everything!
Water was a big thing 60 years ago when a Judge in Victoria, Australia, found in favour of a Postal Worker who took legal action to stop Fluoridation in Sale.
I find many lawyers are unaware of this Legal Precedent and why it has not reulted in a nationwide Ban on Fluoride Industrial Waste Disposal.
Let’s look at how it was reported in The Bulletin newspaper on 4 April 1964, but first a commercial from one of their sponsors:
Now on page 8, check out the bottom right hand corner “Kelberg Wins”.
The rest of the article appeared on page 10.
Here is the transcript
FLUORIDATION
Kelberg Wins
S. 690: only to purify
From a Melbourne Correspondent
"Postal worker Charles Albert Kelberg has won a victory in his campaign to stop the City of Sale from fluoridating the local water supply.”
Recently Kelberg started Supreme Court proceedings, claiming that a Council decision to fluoridate the city’s water went beyond the Sale Council's powers under section 690 of the Local Government Act. He also challenged a bylaw which the Council had passed under another section of the Act relating to health.
Last week Mr Justice Gillard upheld Mr Kelberg on both points and granted an injunction restraining the Council from proceeding with its plans to fluoridate. TheJudge said that section 690 concerned the powers of Local Governments to provide water supply. There was power to add substances, but only to make the water supply purer. From the evidence, Mr Justice Gillard said he believed fluoride had nopurifying effect, even though its effects on dental health were beneficial.
The Judge said he accepted evidence showing that children who had spent all their lives in areas with fluoridated water showed 60 per cent less than normal dental decay. However, he said, he did not consider he needed to rule on whether or not introduction of fluoride to water supplies was good or bad for the community. He also upheld Mr Kelberg's second challenge. He said the bylaw which Sale Council had passed under the health provisions of another section of the Local Government Act was too wide in its terms.
Sale Council will consider the situation on April 6. It may decide to re-draft the by-law framed under the health regulations of the Act, or approach the State Government to have the Act itself amended. The Minister for Local Gov-ernment, Mr. Porter, has indicated that an application from Sale for anamendment to the Water Act would be considered. However, with State elections in June, the Government is most unlikely to help Sale or any other fluoride-minded municipalities before the poll.
The issue is a political unknown into which the Bolte Government does not wish to steer itself. There has already been controversy on the Metropolitan Water Board, which recently deferred for six weeks a motion to endorse fluoride in principle. The motion came from Mr J. J. Ginifer, an ALP Councillor from Altona Shire, but it met solid opposition from Mr A. R. Roberts of Brighton, who attacked fluoridation as an infringement of the rights of the individual.
The secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Dental Association, Mr A. L. Proud, said the decision pointed to the need for State action to tidy up the legal position.
The decision leaves Bacchus Marsh as the only Victorian centre with fluoridated water.
What a great find!
I thought the answer to the question "What to give the man who has everything?" was Penicillin