Mt Gambier, South Australia


I, Alexan James Paul Young, being of sound mind and intellect hereby declare my will and reasons for protest in a manner which compels me to engage in protest on this day 26 July 2010 in a non-violent manner by chaining myself to double gates at the entrance to the ramp leading to the Blue Lake Pumping House near the Aquifer Tours complex are as below.

I declare that my actions are true and purposeful according to my conscience and that if any legal or criminal charges arise for the mounting of such a non-violent protest that such charges are to be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction and conducted impartially with a local jury.

Protesting is a human right. The right for non-violent protest is part of Australia’s common law tradition as well as part of international law. It can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed as a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948 in the immediate aftermath of World War 2:

 “Whereas it is essential, if man [sic] is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

That such right compels me, on behalf of the Mount Gambier Community,  cognizance or otherwise of the issue at hand, that with evidence that this action is indeed an action of last resort towards a Health Minister operating the State‘s Health Portfolio to be in breach of public trust, his reasonable duty of office and South Australian law.

To date the following events, including but not limited to, have occurred which still has not reasonably alerted the conscience of the Health Minister to act in the best interests of our Community to which his office is obligated:

  1. Improper advertisement on 6 July 2005 for State Oral Health Plan meeting as held in Mount Gambier on 8 July 2005 wherein water fluoridation was not mentioned as a key topic, thus excluding members of the greater Community as to the outcome of the meeting.
  2. Invitation to SA Health, SA Water and Australian Research Centre for population and Oral Health (ARCPOH) to attend citizen public meeting in 19 November 2007 and educate the Community – ignored.
  3. Numerous public requests since early 2007 for further public meeting prior to adding a drug whose intentions is to treat a disease without the opportunity for further informed consent – ignored
  4. Wilful ignorance of SA Health to provide logical and satisfactory answers to pertinent questions as sent via email by Choice Mount Gambier since January 2010.
  5. Request for 15 minute meeting with Health Minister during his visit to Mount Gambier on 14 July 2010 – ignored.
  6. Submission of a 6,661+ person Choice petition – ignored (letter dated 16 July 2010 as sent to MP Don Pegler).
  7. Wilful ignorance of SA Health to provide logical and satisfactory answers to pertinent questions as asked to SA Health by Today Tonight as noted on 22 July 2010.

These points are further dealt with in the following pages and attachments.

I declare that those persons who are minders are in no way to be held liable for events arising from the protest unless of their own volition they so engage in a form of protest which harms others. That the purpose of those as minders are only there to ensure safety of myself and others and witness the events that transpire and that I as author of this document shall bear ALL responsibilities which arise as a result of said protest.

The reasons for protest are:

  1. For choice on behalf of the 6,661 persons who signed the Choice Mount Gambier Petition as submitted on 17 May 2010.As of 16 July 2010, with a period of approximately one month before the fluoridation shed is to go online, the Minister has not given any indication in acknowledging or obliging the request of said petition other than usual oft repeated statements for fluoridation. Choice to consume a drug to treat a disease is a different matter needing to be dealt with. 
  2. For the wanting, despite many years of community calls for further public engagement with SA Health and associated institutions and departments behind fluoridation, that  in respect to the following request which has been issued to SA Health numerous times  to the present day:Public Request: Surely if the science of SA Health in implementing the State Oral Health Plan and those who promote fluoridation is tenable, why not meet the needs of the public and scientifically present such reasoning in a controlled public environment so as to publically dispel or to disqualify those who assume fluoridation poses significant risks to human health and the environment?

As of 16 July 2010, and since September 2007, when neither the Minister nor a representative of SA Health having an invitation to attend a citizen town meeting on 19 November 2007 at St Martins Lutheran School, that the Minister did not obliging the invitation at that time or any time thereafter for further public engagement. That neither did Australian Research Centre for Population of Oral Health of Adelaide University as funded by Colgate-Palmolive, who generates the nation’s source of fluoridation statistics, or the A.D.A, did not also attend as a matter of public service to aid in educating the people on the issue of fluoridation.


  1. 3.       The incongruity of the Ministers oft used statements that “fluoridation was supported in a number of submissions” when the number of actual submissions as received as a result of the State Oral Health Plan conducted in Mount Gambier in July 2005, that only one submission advocated support for fluoridation in a single line.As of 16 July 2010 and since January 2010 that the Minister has not provided an answer in any form whatsoever to adequately explain the incongruity of the submissions as made manifest by him.


  2. The incongruity of the relative toxicity and associated maximum contaminant levels (MCL) of fluoride allowed in drinking water in relation to MCL of both lead and arsenic as illustrated in the attachment so entitled – Is SA Health position so weak that they cannot afford to even meet with the South Australian public?

As of 16 July 2010 that neither the Minister nor SA Health has adequately explained the apparent incongruity in the 4 steps as illustrated in said attachment which is in effect wherever fluoridation is implemented.

  1. For the wanting of requested purity certificates which Dr David Cunliffe of SA Health stated on ABC radio on 19 February 2010 that existed for the products used to artificially fluoridate South Australian public water supplies and that upon request for such certificates none was forthcoming. We were directed to SA Water which in turn directed us back to SA Health.
  2. For the wanting of answers to reasonable questions best asked and answered by SA Health in a suitable public forum (see Point 2) whereby such the weight of answers can be decided by the Mount Gambier Community in a balanced manner, some of those being as follows:a) Fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay. A 30 April 2010 NZ Health Ministry study concluded that children in non-fluoridated areas had 1% less tooth decay than children in fluoridated areas, yet despite this study the NZ Health Ministry brazenly stated benefits of up to 30% from fluoridation for NZ children.   This echoed a Queensland study in which Queensland as a state was only 5% fluoridated which found that there was no appreciable difference in tooth decay rates compared to other fluoridated states (77-92% fluoridated). Other factors such as lifestyle, hygiene and access to dental health services are present which account for variances between regions.

    b)   How water fluoridation can provide the same effective degree of topical application of the fluoride ion compared with delivered by fluoride toothpaste or mouthwash. The ineffective method is expected to be swallowed the effective method is not.

c) When water will be treated at a rate for 2.33 kg (for sodium fluoride) for every 1 million litres of Blue Lake passing through the premix tank in the fluoridation shed soon to go online. Mount Gambier uses 10 million litres of water a day. This equates to some 9 tonnes of sodium fluoride p.a. to maintain a fluoride concentration of 1.0mg/L. Yet even as SA Health admits 99.85% of total water used every day is not even consumed by humans. That’s 99.85% by relative weight of the product used not reaching the consumer. And the products typically cost $4000 per tonne.

d) That regulations exists regarding each of the three toxic fluoridation products used as to their transport and disposal into the environment, yet when metered slowly in public water supplies (99.85% which is not consumed), this method of delivery effectively bypasses all regulations as fluoride becomes allowed as a “protected pollutant” to be discarded at a maximum of 1.5 mg/L into public water supplies. 1.5mg/L is the “desired” concentration as stipulated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and this number is reflected as such in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG).

e) That the State Oral Health Plans in each state in implementing the National Oral Health Plan 2004 – 2013, to call for each town with a population over 1,000 people to be fluoridated. SA Health admits that the same % of 99.85 of total daily water used is never consumed across populations. In consideration of the slow metering of fluoride into public water supplies at each location, Mount Gambier – 9 tonnes, Adelaide some 192 tonnes etc – one can visualise and add up the total tonnage for all those towns over 1,000 persons across the nation.

  1. That the Minister in conducting the Health portfolio of South Australia, in relation to water fluoridation, has failed miserably in respect to honourable public service and is guilty of purposeful subversion of truth and actioning of elements as shown by other fluoridation promoters as exemplified in the memorandum with the letterhead of State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services also attached.


  1. That the Minister is guilty of ignoring sound scientific principles in sanctioning fluoridation much the same way as the NZ Health Ministry and despite the NZ report which concluded that fluoridation was not effective for NZ children and other similar studies performed overseas, that fluoridation is endorsed contrary to good science.


  1. That the Minister is guilty of ignoring legitimate process for change via the Choice Petition as submitted 17 May 2010 and that fluoridation is endorsed contrary without consensus of the People via an appropriate community poll or referenda as so requested in the Petition.
  2. That the Minister in consciously ignoring these issues is in direct contravention of s.6.3 of the South Australian Health Care Act 2008 which states that:The Minister cannot give a direction concerning the clinical treatment of a particular person”


That water fluoridation being a state health measure is implemented into public water supplies with the express intention of reduction of dental caries experience (tooth decay) is indeed clinical in both intent and scope.

That the Minister in enforcing this measure without public engagement and with the knowledge of 6,661 persons expressing their wills and conscious in a legal and proper and legitimate process, through a community petition of same number of persons, yet unwilling to action it, is guilty of directing clinical treatment upon more than 6,661 persons.

That all the elements arising from the issue of fluoridation for Mount Gambier and the rest of the State, including this non-violent protest, be taken into consideration in the light of the Minister’s actions and inactions on the matter.

That this document and its attachments herein shall constitute as evidence for the motive for protest in the light of possible criminal charges to be weighed up on the balance of probabilities in consideration of the whole and all the issues surrounding water fluoridation.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Young

Choice Mount Gambier, SA
26 July 2010


We have recently stopped the building of 5 dosing plants in our area Northern Rivers with a summons against Rous Water for the Land and Environment Court.

As the council wanted to consider the effect of the fluoridated water onto the receiving environment staff at council got legal advice and basically threatened the bee jeebers out of them and they folded.

The Department of Health mismanaged the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act by providing a one page letter with references that just magically appeared as though drawn out of a hat that actually state it does effect terrestrial and aquatic biota.

Our Barrister strongly believes council or councillors where never under threat, that the approval was not compulsory as it had an expiry date, and  the EP&A Act is ground of significant public interest and has the capacity to change the way assessment is treated under the Act.

Warm regards,