The mountain after which the district is named, Mt Ruapehu, is the highest in New Zealand’s North Island (2797 m – 9175 ft) Source: myfathersworld.net.nz (cropped from original)
I discovered just a few weeks ago that in 2011, after a presentation from some anti-fluoride activists, my local council stopped putting fluoride in our water. Their presentation went unchallenged, but was supported by one councillor, and by the end of the meeting these idiots had managed to put a stop to community water fluoridation in Taumarunui. I knew nothing about this until I happened to notice an article in our weekly community newspaper, the Ruapehu Press, that the Waikato District Health Board (the WDHB is the health board responsible for this area) appeared before the council to ask them to put it back.
(Full disclosure – I worked for the WDHB from 1993-2005.)
Most of the time I worked for the WDHB, I lived in Hamilton. During that time anti-fluoride activists were trying to get it taken out of the water there. The anti-fluoride propaganda, which is all misrepresentation, misinterpretation, or mendacity, was thick on the ground. There were also attempts to discredit anyone who spoke out in favour of fluoridation, or at least discount their comments. For example, a prominent GP wrote a letter to the editor supporting fluoride in the water – the anti-fluoride activists said his comments weren’t to be trusted as his wife was employed by the WDHB – he was clearly only writing, they said, as a favour to her.
There was a referendum, which showed the community strongly supported the retention of fluoride in the water. This wasn’t good enough for its opponents though, and they carried on their campaign. Eventually, after a change of mayor, they managed to get fluoride removed from the water anyway, in opposition to the result of the referendum. There has since been another referendum in Hamilton (2013), showing the community wants fluoride back. The Hamilton City Council continued to refuse to take notice of their constituents, and said they’d wait until the outcome of a court case taken by the anti-fluoride fools in another district – a majority of councillors were clearly in thrall of the activists. The “antis” lost that court case – Hamilton is still waiting for fluoride in its water.
I moved back to Taumarunui in 2007, and I thought I was moving somewhere that had the sense to have fluoride in its water . Yes, because of what was happening in Hamilton, I consciously thought that at the time. Now I’ve discovered that it was removed from the water here four years later.
They seem to have done it by stealth, but to be fair, I don’t know for sure if that’s true. There was certainly no referendum, and no-one ran for council on a platform of removing fluoride. However, I’m not that good at noticing what the local council gets up to, so it’s possible I just didn’t notice that they sought community input on this decision. I do think it unlikely they sought the community’s opinion though; since I discovered this, I have been asking people, without revealing my own opinion until afterwards, what they think. So far, every single one has wanted fluoride back in our water. Not a scientific study to be sure, but likely indicative.
Diane Pevreal, WDHB Oral Health Manager
So we come to 6 May 2015, and Stephanie Rangi’s article in the Ruapehu Press that alerted me to the fact that we have a majority on our council that don’t understand science. Diane Pevreal, WDHB Oral Health Manager, made a presentation to the council on the benefits of fluoridation. I spoke to Mrs Pevreal by phone a few days later. Pevreal clearly cares deeply about the many in this area who are suffering needlessly because of this decision by local council. “It’s frustrating,” she said, “because this should be a no-brainer. Fluoridating the water would benefit the entire population, over and above any other actions they’re already taking, including a good oral health regimen and low-sugar diet.” As I discussed with Mrs Pevreal, the science is settled on this. However, the council seemed not to recognize this fact.
Councillor Rhonda Wood
Rangi’s article came from her reporting on the Ruapehu District Council’s 30 April long-term planning meeting. She noted that the fluoridation issue generated considerable discussion. However, it seems it was not the sort of discussion that was likely to lead to an informed decision, and in fact, a decision is still pending. Councillor Wood went off on a tangent about whether the government should provide dental surgery at the local hospital and how difficult is was for the elderly (and presumably plenty of others too) to get up the stairs at the only local dentist. Important issues to be sure, but completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not there should be fluoride in our water.
(More disclosure: I worked with Mrs Wood at both the Taumarunui Gazette and King Country Radio in the 1980s, and I voted for her.)
Rangi’s report of Councillor Broderson’s comments give me the impression he’s swallowed the playbook of the anti-fluoride crowd:
Councillor Bruce Broderson
Bruce Broderson, councillor for the Taumarunui ward pointed the finger at another culprit.
‘‘In all the reports, it says fluoride is needed more because of this diet of sugar intake. So aren’t we attacking the wrong thing? Why aren’t we fixing the sugar problem rather than making everybody have fluoride?’’
Broderson added that they could decide to put fluoride back into the water supply, but that would be giving people in Taumarunui no choice.
‘‘They have to drink it. They have no choice. That’s against human rights, surely?’’
For goodness sake! Using that argument, you could say just about anything was against human rights. In order to have a cohesive society we have laws. Some of those laws mandate certain behaviour, and are designed to improve society as a whole. Most parents want their children to get a good education and do everything they can to bring that about – for those that don’t, we insist their children go to school anyway. There are thousands of other examples of laws that it could be argued breach an individual’s human rights, but we have them for the good of society. We follow road rules, health and safety regulations, building regulations, and we don’t walk down the middle of Hakiaha Street naked and pissed on a Saturday night after an evening at the Cossie Club.
Moving the target to sugar is just a ‘bait and switch’ tactic. This, of course, is also irrelevant to the argument. Fluoride in the water improves dental health whether or not diets are too high in sugar. Fluoridation is a bigger issue for those whose diet is high in sugar, but it helps everybody. Broderson says, “Why aren’t we fixing the sugar problem …?” However, I have seen absolutely no proposals, let alone actions, by council, before or after the 2011 decision, to tackle the level of sugar in diets. And, to use his own argument against him, wouldn’t any action to control diets breach the human rights Broderson says he’s trying to protect?
Further, children have little choice in their diets. Surely it is incumbent upon the council to protect them to the extent they can by at least giving them some protection in the form of fluoride in the water if their parents or caregivers don’t enforce a good diet and oral hygiene regimen. And as I’ve already pointed out, fluoride provides protection in addition to other factors.
The anti-fluoride position was supported by teacher Shannen Neal, who, according to Facebook, moved to Taumarunui from Hamilton in January this year. She is a graduate of Waikato University, but judging by her anti-fluoride stance, that hasn’t helped her ability to understand science. Rangi’s reporting of Neal’s comments:
‘‘It should be a personal choice. It’s not natural,’’ Shannen Neal said. ‘‘If you want to take a supplement that helps you then that’s your choice.’’
View north from Piriaka Hill Lookout
The good ole “it’s not natural” argument. What I call, “the argument from stupidity”. Actually fluoride is natural. It occurs in our water naturally. Treatment takes the natural fluoride out. When you fluoridate water, you’re just putting it back in, although usually at a different level than it occurred naturally (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) because scientists have discovered the best level to give protection without causing fluorosis i.e. 1mg/L. If you want natural water, why bother to treat it at all? All the things taken out in treatment, like harmful bacteria, are completely natural. By the anti-fluoride argument, chlorinating water is also unnatural. All those who religiously go out to Piriaka to get their water from the spring on the side on the hill are getting fluoride in their water – whether or not that fluoride is at the level recommended by health professionals is another question.
The 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey conducted by the Ministry of Health found that children have a 40% lower incidence of decay in fluoridated regions than in unfluoridated ones. Given this fact, it is unconscionable that our council is not fluoridating our water. As the Ruapehu district is one of the most socio-economically deprived areas in the country, their failure is only compounded. As the World Health Organisation pointed out in it’s 2009 report on the fluoridation of milk:
In the vast majority of countries, dental caries is highly linked to socio-economic status and prevention by automatic administration of fluoride through water, salt, or milk is documented to be most equitable.
The US think tank, the Institute for Science in Medicine, prepared a white paper in 2012 to respond to those who attack water fluoridation. They stated their motives for producing the report were:
Declared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be one of the ten greatest public- health achievements of the Twentieth Century, community water fluoridation has been under attack by a small band of critics since its inception. The scientific consensus over fluoridation’s health benefits, safety, social justice, and economies has been firmly established over six decades of widespread use in the United States and elsewhere. Nevertheless, anti-science critics have never relented in their opposition — recycling previously disproven charges of harm, inventing new ones out of whole cloth, misrepresenting scientific facts and research, exaggerating risks, understating benefits, inappropriately invoking the precautionary principle, and accusing public health officials of corruption, conspiracy, and ‘mass medication’ of whole populations.
Anti-fluoride campaigners will try to tell you that fluoride isn’t essential. This is incorrect. As the ISM points out, “fluoride is a micro-nutrient essential to the development and maintenance of teeth and bones. Fluoride-fortified teeth are significantly resistant to dental caries [decay].” Fluoridating the water supply is also extremely cost effective. For every US$1 spent on fluoridation, US$38 – US$80 is saved every year on dental treatment, and it “… lowers the rate of tooth decay by 20-40% in children, over and above the effect of toothpaste and other sources of fluoride.”
The ISM also exposes the tactics used by the anti-fluoride movement in the United States. The same tactics are used by Fluoride Free NZ. For example, they state that “97% of European countries do not fluoridate their water supplies”. This is both misleading and inaccurate. Great Britain and Ireland both fluoridate their water, but when this is pointed out to campaigners, they change their statement to “continental Europe”. Spain and some smaller countries fluoridate their water, and most others don’t, however, this is too misleading. Germany, Switzerland, Austria and France use fluoridated salt instead in the same way we have iodized salt. Several countries fluoridate their milk instead of their water, including Switzerland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Russia. (Switzerland has some of the best oral health in the world.) The main reason other countries don’t fluoridate their water is because it occurs naturally. Some of them have to take fluoride out because the natural rate is too high. I suspect this is where the fear of fluoride originally came from.
Children in India with skeletal fluorosis. Source: India Natural Resource and Economic Management Foundation
Anti-fluoride campaigners use scare tactics about the risk of fluorosis, caused by too much fluoride, and show photos of sufferers who have a severe form of the disease. They then fail to mention that these people do not have this disease because their water is part of a managed water treatment program – it is because their untreated water supply has natural levels of fluoride up to fifteen times that of proper water fluoridation programs, and is extremely rare.
I read the “facts” provided by Fluoride Free NZ. They claim a link between fluoride and low IQ. Seriously? You’d have to have a low IQ to be taken in by their claims. If you choose to read their “facts”, please make sure you also click on the link to the Institute to Science in Medicine’s white paper above. Some will say this is just two competing claims. No. Just no. The conclusions in the ISM’s paper are supported by real peer-reviewed science – those on Fluoride Free NZ’s website are not.
The science is clear, no matter what anti-fluoride campaigners try to tell you – adding fluoride to drinking water is a good thing. It is recommended by the following people and organizations – this is not a conspiracy theory folks:
World Health Organisation
World Dental Federation
New Zealand Dental Federation
New Zealand Ministry of Health and all District Health Boards
New Zealand Medical Association
American Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Sir Peter Gluckman – Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister
National Fluoridation Information Service
and more
Those opposed to the fluoridation of water belong with those who oppose vaccines (for other than medical reasons), don’t accept that climate change is real, think homeopathy has a scientific basis, and think “maybe there’s something to” astrology.
In all surveys carried out in informed communities in New Zealand, the majority have always chosen fluoridation. There are ways to avoid fluoridation for those who do not want it, and they can use those measures if they choose. The rest of us want to take advantage of living in the modern world where public policy decisions are evidence-based.
Great article Heather.
It is sad that those who do not understand science can hold so much sway.
We need to have flouridated water to improve the health of people in our area – especially the young!
Cheers Martin! I’m about to e-mail it to the Ruapehu Press – I hope they’re interested.
Councillor Broderson needs to read the finding from Justice Hanson ,in the south Taranaki court case.
Justice Hansen made this argument in his recent judgment on the fluoridation issue [Hansen 2014] South Taranaki court case
“Providing it does not have consequences for public health, a person has the right to make even the poorest decisions in respect of their own health. But where the state, either directly or through local government, employs public health interventions, the right is not engaged. Were it otherwise, the individuals right to refuse would become the individuals right to decide outcomes for others. It would give any person a right of veto over public health measures, which it is not only the right, but, often the responsibility of local authorities to deliver”
Justice Hansen [Hansen 2014] has said in the Kapiti court case ruling “fluoride is not mass medication”
Interesting. Thanks Chris. 🙂
I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.
http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/
Fluoride does not accumulate in the body. It is either deposited in the teeth or bones or excreted via the kidneys: http://fluorideinfo.org/FAQ.html#anchor7
and you’ll find we’ve answered him many times… But hyperbole is more his style, consistent with someone that hides behind an internet pseudonym instead of actually engaging in intelligent discourse.
So where are these answers? It’s telling that you can’t actually provide any examples. Playing make-believe is your standard mode of operation.
I have deleted the comment where you called me a “liar”, and suggested I was “playing dumb”. This comment is also sailing extremely close to the wind. Please read the “Comments Guidelines“. If you are unable to debate the issue respectfully, you will be permanently banned.
I have asked many anti fluoride fanatics to name one person who has gotten cancer, skeletal flurorosis, or any ill health from drinking water with 0.7 ppm of fluoride in it. So far not one of them has been able to answer.
Interesting article. Never mind that just about everything that has been said is incorrect. The fact that the word “idiot” has been used twice in the first sentence would have alerted the reader to the fact that a closed mind was about to spew forth. Anybody who looks at the science honestly and intelligently will come to the conclusion that fluoridation does more harm than good. There are so many errors in the article it’s difficult to know where to start. Perhaps when I have some time I’ll debunk the claims made. Won’t be very difficult. (Hint: Doctors and Dentists featured in cigarette ads eg “38,381 Dentists say smoke Viceroys”)
I have looked at the science, and came to my conclusions honestly and intelligently. The fact my conclusions are different from yours does not make them wrong. It is easy to say my post is has errors, but you haven’t named one. If anything I have said is incorrect, I’d be happy to retract it.
Pete, hoe can your claim that “anybody who looks at the science honestly and intelligently will come to the conclusion that fluoridation does more harm than good?” What planet do you lkive on?
Pete, are you unaware of the recent review of the health issues around fluoridation by the Office of the PM’s Chief Science Advisor and the Royal Society fo NZ gave community water fluoridation an “all clear.” perhaps you should actually read the document (Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence. Royal Society of New Zealand and Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Wellington.(p. 74) download here http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/papers/yr2014/health-effects-of-water-fluoridation/).
In my experience people who say “when I have some time I”; debunk the claims you made” and refer to doctors advocating smoking have an anti-science ideological bent and really are unable to justify it.
The report you refer to is just a literate review. It’s not a safety clinical trial none of which has ever been done. To give the all clear means they must be clairvoyants. The report also involves shocking cherry picking. All evidence of any harm or risk has been ignored and now here comes the best part. FOI requests revealed emails between Gluckman and Skegg conspiring to produce a report supporting fluoridation. They had already decided fluoridation was safe before the literature review even started. They then produced a report to suit their own pre-conceived bias. The report has no credibility whatsoever. The emails are all on the Fluoride Free NZ site for perusal at your leisure. Thanks Ken for bringing up that report and the opportunity to blow the whistle. It’s a perfect example of how the wool is being pulled over people’s eyes.
Ahh I see our Osteopath friend is out and about plying his trade yet again. Pete is actually “David Thomas” who has a snake oil consultancy in Hamilton.
We’ve asked David to provide us with a peer reviewed paper that suggested smoking was safe. It has been a 3 year wait.
The scary part about this is the school he trained in.
“The BSO also offers an Access to Higher Education Diploma (Osteopathic Sciences & Health Care) programme. This is a one-year further education course leading to a nationally recognised award. It is designed specifically for students over the age of 18 who wish to become osteopaths or to study a related health care discipline at degree level with little or no academic qualifications beyond GCSE level”.
So you can go in with no qualifications and walk out 12 months later and start a practice with a loosely described “medical qualification” That says a lot for the quality of the “qualification”
Most apprenticeships require 4-5 years study, so what does that tell you
…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_School_of_Osteopathy
I’m not David Thomas by the way. It is a good example however, of the dishonesty that fluoridation activists resort to. They just invent stuff such is their love of control.
Please do not make such attacks on other commenters. The sentence, “They just invent stuff such is their love of control.” is not a tactic considered acceptable on this website. I welcome robust debate and you can disagree with anyone, including me, but personal abuse is out. Please read the Comments Guidelines.
Hi Heather, one of the things missing in this debate is reasonable and respectful discussion. As much as you may look down on those that don’t hold the same opinion as you, the fact is, probably around 50% of New Zealanders who don’t. Referenda in unfluoridated communities in New Zealand just about always oppose fluoridation and half of New Zealanders do not have fluoridated water.
Fluoride Free New Zealand would be happy to participate in an open, public discussion where both sides could be heard. So we therefore challenge you to such a discussion. Details can be worked out so both sides are happy.
If you are not prepared to front for a debate then you really should stop the name calling and put-downs of people you don’t even know.
Please reply to [email protected]
p.s. There are really good programmes overseas that have been reducing severe dental decay by 50%.
p.s.s. Are you taking fluoride tablets since it is not added to the water supply? Do you know the Ministry of Health no longer recommend fluoride tablets?
I don’t look down on those opposed to fluoridation, I think they’re wrong. I am not in a position to participate in a public debate for personal (health) reasons.
Avoid fluoridated water. It’s so toxic that some people can experience side effects even at low levels.
http://www.waterloowatch.com/ffw%20brochure%202%20references.html
Waterloo watch is not, or ever will be a quality site for research
the point that is not mentioned is fluoride use is on the rise the latest data from the CDC in the USA
CDC has released the latest statistics on community water fluoridation for the nation on its Web site (www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2012stats.htm).
The latest data show that in 2012, 74.6% of the U.S. population on community water systems, or a total of 210.7 million people, had access to optimally fluoridated water. This is significant progress from the Healthy People 2020 baseline of 72.4% (2008) towards the target of 79.6%. Since 2008, an additional 15 million people have received the benefit of fluoridated water. Evidence shows that the prevalence of tooth decay is substantially lower in communities with water fluoridation.
Mary, I would be keen to participate in this debate you are suggesting. As you know Paul Connett and I had a very fruitful on-line debate on this issue in which we looked closely at the scientific claims (see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/). It would be good to repeat this exercise with local spokesperson(s) for fluoride free NZ.
We could use the same format as last time – which was on a local blog and was open. (Heather may even wish to host it here).
Please respond (hopefully positively) to this suggestion – after all if you have confidence in your position what have you got to lose?
I’d be happy to host this on Heather’s Homilies.
“Hi Heather, one of the things missing in this debate is reasonable and respectful discussion.”
Yes, Mary, which could be undertaken online but you’ve blocked Ken and I from every one of your various facebook pages.
Note how we have not banned you, Mary – not here not anywhere. We’re quite happy to have a discussion with you about the science. But this seems to have little to do with science and more to do with your ideology.
Until that changes I think you’ll find very few people with science on their side that will be willing to give you a public platform in which to spout your ill informed nonsense.
Important public health decisions require persons suitably qualified NOT snake oil peddlers coalescing with abusive internet trolls such as “Danger Mouse”.
Or burger kings !
Mary Byrne says: “Fluoride Free New Zealand would be happy to participate in an open, public discussion where both sides could be heard. So we therefore challenge you to such a discussion. Details can be worked out so both sides are happy.”
Ken Perrott picked up the gauntlet, Mary. He would like to have an open public discussion where both sides could be heard. Is there now some kind of a problem?
I have emailed Mary with this response:
“Hi Mary,
Just in case you didn’t check back, Heather has offered her blog as a
venue for a debate. I am happy to participate and have suggested you and Stan do so too.
regards
Ken”
She responded with:
“Hi Ken,
I’ve been forgetting to email you back.
I do not want to have a debate with you as I don’t see the point. For one thing, I think you say things that aren’t true and secondly, it would basically only be us that would be interested so I really don’t see the point.
Mary”
So much for their debate challenges. Surely if she really thinks the things I write are untrue whe would welcome the chance to show this and rebut my claims.
Mary Byrne requested a debate to discuss the issues surrounding CWF. Ken took up that challenge. I offered this website as a venue. Now Mary Byrne has refused because she says Ken lies and no-one would be interested.
1. In a debate, the speakers make points, and are required to back up those points. If Ken makes untrue statements, there would be plenty of opportunity in a debate to refute his claims. In an open forum like this, he would not be able to lie that without exposing himself publicly. Nor would his opponent.
2. Plenty of people are interested. I am interested for one. It has been suggested that my analysis of the information, which led me to deduce CWF was a good thing, was wrong. I would change my mind if convincing evidence was provided that I am incorrect. I have yet to see any, but if you have the confidence to suggest a public debate, I assume you consider you have some. The entire community of Taumarunui is also interested. I still have not met anyone who does not want fluoride, but we do not have it because of a political tactic by a few.
I must say I’m very disappointed in Ms Byrne’s response to this offer. My website has always been a place where ideas are challenged, not people. The only time where that spirit has been missing is when I wrote this article. I’ve had to warn people before, but have never had to ban anyone from commenting altogether. We have some extremely spirited debates here on a variety of topics, but it was only with this subject that someone became nasty and personal. The only conclusion I can make is that those who oppose CWF do not have evidence to support their view that stands up to scrutiny.
I asked Fluoride Free New Zealand several times why they would challenge Heather Hastie to a debate, but not take up the offer when Ken Perrott took up the challenge. For that question I was banned from their facebook page.
If Heather ever looked at fluoridation science, or even read systematic reviews such as the York Review 2000 or NRC review 2006, which she most obviously has not, perhaps her article would be a little better informed and less riddled with inaccuracies. It is understandable that for many people it is sufficient to accept endorsements without question, and to act as if they are well informed because they can parrot ridiculous mantras like “the science is settled”, and arrogantly deride civilians who oppose fluoridation.
The role of DHBs is to promote and enforce public health policy, not to understand or question it. The newly (Key government) created role of the PMs chief science advisor also appears to be one of PR. It is not immediately clear how much expertise Professor Gluckman has in the area of fluoridation, but judging by OIA correspondence around last year’s Royal Society review not much. The people who Heather describes as “idiots” actually appear to have a much better grasp of the science and the facts than do people like Heather, who appears to have very little to offer in the way of accurate facts. This is why public health representatives refuse to participate in public debates in the interests of transparent public information. This is why any council which holds a tribunal process to assess submissions from both sides will inevitably agree that there is no valid evidence that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in today’s communities, and there is a lot of evidence that fluoride affects health.
I have looked at the science, and my post is not “riddled with inaccuracies” you have failed to identify.
I suspect the reason some refuse to hold public debates is because it gives credence to the views of anti-fluoride protesters. It’s like having a public debate with those who think creationism is science (although I admit I do have a higher opinion of those who oppose fluoride than creationists).
Stan, you know as well as the rest of us that government institutions do not get involved in public debates which are often no better than street fighting. Your challenges in the respect are empty because you, yourself, refuse to debate with others who understand the science behind the community water fluoridation issue. I do not have the disadvantage of institutional disciplines like this and have several times offered to debate with you and even offered a right of reply to articles where I have criticised you claims. You have alway refused.
So what about it, Stan. Why not put your money where you mouth is and participate in the debate I am offering (some might even say challenging 🙂 ) to Mary Byrne above. We could then put the claim in your last sentence to the test.
Who the hell is Stan Litras? He speaks as if he is some kind of authority, and yet he cites the 2006 NRC Review as though it had something to do with the concentrations of fluoride that exist in Community Water Fluoridation, which it does not. He cites the York Review which concluded little more than CWF is effective against dental carries and can be associated with dental fluorosis, a cosmetic effect which is far less damaging than dental decay. Who is this clown?
Heather, as a very busy dentist I don’t really have the time to correct every piece of misinformation in your article, I am sure others will help out with that. However, I give you credit for publishing my comment and for appearing open to discussion, so I will forego my lunch to address a few of the glaring ones:
1. Hamilton is fluoridated actually at present, although I believe they had to interrupt it last month due to fluoride damage to the pipes.
2. Only 10% of UK is fluoridated, and only 10% of Spain. Over half the people in the world who drink fluoride water live in the U.S. (what does that tell us?)
3. Salt and milk fluoridation is irrelevant to a discussion on water fluoridation as these delivery methods maintain the human right to choose medication.
4. “The main reason other countries don’t fluoridate their water is because it occurs naturally” This is incorrect. The main reasons are human rights violation and concerns over damage to health.
5. Water fluoridation is not likely to have any benefit whatsoever in high-sugar diets. The use of photos showing rampant child decay and claims of increases in GA admissions due to lack of water fluoridation are inappropriate and unfounded. You suggest the “antis” are scaremongering ?
6. Fluoride which is added to water supplies is not naturally occurring. Naturally occurring fluoride in the water is bound to calcium, added fluoride is sodium fluoride or HFA, toxic industrial waste products.
7. The “optimal level” is not 1mg/L as you claim, but 0.7 mg/L. It is not the level that does not cause dental fluorosis, but the level at which theoretically fluorosis occurs in only 40% of the population. Not very reassuring, as this is a sign of systemic developmental overdose.
8. Health effects resulting from fluoride overdose do not only occur at water concentrations of fifteen times above our levels. They can and do occur at 0.7-1ppm water fluoridation. The largest and most definitive systematic review on this, the NRC review 2006, identified negative effects on the thyroid from 0.01 mg/kg/body weight/ day in iodine deficient people and 0.05 mg/kg/day in others. Exceeding this level also increases risk of bone and joint disease with chronic ingestion, and disrupts the endocrine system. Infants drinking fluoridated water can exceed these levels with the water alone, but when you add fluoride ingested from toothpaste and diet, massive overdose can occur. The 2009 ESR report identified that Maori, Pacific Island and low SES groups were at far greater risk of fluoride overdose. This is why the WHO recommends that when water is deliberately fluoridated, public health authorities must monitor the total fluoride dose the people drinking it are getting. Is this happening in your town, Heather?
9. The 2009 NZ Oral Health survey findings are misrepresented. It was a snapshot in time survey of a small portion of the population, and did not control any confounding factors, therefore inadequate for deducing cause-and -effect. Actual NZ health data show no significant differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, either in NZ or globally. Further, the York review, SHER review and upcoming Cochrane Review cannot identify any reliable evidence that water fluoridation addresses social inequalities or is of any lifetime benefit, and cannot exclude that apparent benefits found in studies of last century may simply reflect delayed eruption times in fluoridated areas.
10. The “antis” are not making unsubstantiated claims about IQ reduction, as you say. There have been hundreds of animal and human epidemiological peer reviewed and published studies which lead to this conclusion, as summarized in the Systematic review published in the Lancet by Grandjean et al last year. This team of Harvard experts have previously identified other substances such as lead and toluene as developmental neurotoxins, and have now added fluoride. I guess that makes them “idiots” in your view, along with the large number of emeritus professors, leading scientists and health professionals around the world who have taken a balanced view of the science and have decided the benefit-risk equation of water fluoridation is not favourable.
11. As you are not one of those idiots, you might like to look at the FIND website http://www.fluoridation.nz and perhaps in future write columns which are more in the public interest.
I,m still waiting for a quality dental or medical institution that does not support Community Fluoridated Water ,or a proven quality peer reviewed paper that says fluoride is a danger to human health at 7PPM. And this does not include some activist website. If you cant, there is no valid argument to be discussed, So why do we need a debate??.
I’m still waiting for just one safety clinical trial to show fluoride is safe and effective. After 70 years not one has been done. You would think one would be done to shut up the tin foil hatters. I wonder why the fluoridator don’t use the ultimate weapon at their disposal? Are they scared of what the results would be. As soon as I get a reply that it isn’t necessary they give the game away. I’m looking forward to Ken coming up with a diversion on this one. The beauty of this it gives the game away. Fire away Ken – should be amusing. Why wouldn’t the authorities use the ultimate weapon at their disposal? I’ve heard just about every excuse under the sun. Interesting.
I’m still waiting for one name of any person who has gotten cancer, skeletal fluorosis, or any other ailment from drinking optimally fluoridated water.
Some corrections, Stan
Point 1: You are correct as I pointed out in my comment. Fluoridation was returned to Hamilton in the middle of last year after a clear expression of citizen preference.
Points 2 – 4: The reasons for choosing to fluoridate or not are complex and are certainly not limited to your political suggestion of freedom of choice. That is the case in only a few countries – and even that gets challenged (consider Israel which is on course to revert to fluoridation after the removal of the previous health minister who acted against expert advice in stopping it.
Point 5: “Water fluoridation is not likely to have any benefit whatsoever in high-sugar diets.” – Not true, Stan. Have a read of recent research which shows benefits from fluoridation even when sugar consumption is taken into account. – for Example Blinkhorn et al (2015) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25913418) – I discuss this in my article here https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/water-fluoridation-effective-new-study/
Point 6: Take it form a chemist ( ) Naturally occurring fluoride in the water is NOT bound to calcium – it exists as the hydrated fluoride anion – as does the fluoride from fluoridating chemicals when diluted in water. In both cases calcium also exists as the hydrated cation in solution – at levels greater than would be contributed by naturalCaF2.
Point 7: the optimum level is decided in each country on the basis of dietary intake information. Currently in NZ the target is usually about 0.7 – 1.0 ppm. An upper limit is usually based on the occurrence of medium or serious dental fluorosis (which is known to occur at over 2 pp, You figure of 40% dental fluorosis refers basically to mild and very mild or questionable forms which occurs in both fluoridated and unfluoridated populations. Any increase due to fluoridation is small and often not detected. These very mild forms of dental fluorosis are generally assessed positively in quality of life surveys and are not considered indication of systemic overdose that you claim.
Point 8: The NRC report is very often misrepresented by anti-fluoride propagandists as it filtered through all the literature, including poor quality work and work not confirmed. It is dishonest to claim such mentions as evidence the NRC report “found” something when, at most, they may have said data was unconvincing. The only definite reason they found for lowering the uppr limit of fluoride to below 2 was the occurrence of severe dental fluorosis.
Point 9: You are completely wrong in your claim “Actual NZ health data show no significant differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas” This has been pointed out to you many times but you persist in dishonest cherry-picking and misrepresentation. See for example – Cherry-picking and misinformation in Stan Litras’s anti-fluoride article – https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/cherry-picking-and-misinformation-in-stan-litrass-anti-fluoride-article/
Point 10: The IQ story is not what you claim. Grandjean & Longriden’s paper referred only to their own work – the metareview of Chinese poor quality work by Choi et al (2012). It is significant that in more recent work (Choi et al 2015) they did not find a relationship between IQ and water fluoride – but did find a relationship with serious dental fluorosis. Hardly surprising given these studies took place in areas of endemic fluorosis – unlike NZ. I have commented on t6his in a bit more detail in my peer-reviewed article Perrott, K. W. (2015). Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 48, 78–79. (download at https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/perrott2015.pdf
In addition to what Ken has said (thanks Ken):
Point 5: I said nothing about an increase in GA admissions to hospitals, child or otherwise, and my article includes no photographs of teeth. I’m unsure how your point even relates to my article.
Point 8: I did not say fluorosis occurs at 15 times the recommended level for CWF, I said that the horrific pictures of children resulted from, “untreated water supply [that] has natural levels of fluoride up to fifteen times that of proper water fluoridation programs, and is extremely rare.
Stan You said this I quote “This is why public health representatives refuse to participate in public debates in the interests of transparent public information.”
In this case it is not the public that has refused. It is the activists Funny when they are pushed into a corner without the debating and gish gallop talents of Connett they run and hide
As usual with the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby, they make all the noise about your research being inaccurate, but dont list any that revoke it.Stan put his hand up and mentions the NRC 2006 as if it is relevent He forgets to tell you this, The committee did not evaluate the risks or
benefits of the lower fluoride concentrations (0.7 to
1.2 mg/L) used in water fluoridation. Therefore, the
committee’s conclusions regarding the potential for
adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drinking water do not apply at the lower water fluoride
Then he goes on about the york review
The York review is only one of a half dozen systematic reviews, and their standard was to exclude epidemiologic studies from their systematic review, for which they have been criticized, because comparing communities that fluoridate with those that don’t is key. Nonetheless, the York review still found that fluoridation reduced cavities by 15%. The review also found “no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was found.”
The report also notes that “the best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score.”
So really all this is is scaremongering
He also questions the opinions of the Ministry of health and the Royal society
If he is so sure of his facts maybe he can name a quality dental or medical institution that does not support Community Fluoridated Water at .7PPM?.
There has been over 15 international reviews in the last 20 years and not one has found that fluoride causes any danger to human health at .7PPM
The Lowest observable adverse effect (LOAEL) level should be divided by 10 but preferably 100 to determine a safe level. So the NRC 2006 said 4ppm was not protective of health so that should be divided by at least 10 to give 0.4 ppm. Fluoridated water is 0.7 – 1.0 ppm. As for the York review the Chairman has been scathing of the misrepresentation by supoorters of fluoridation. Note the 15 % benefit is a relative % and is less than 1 tooth surface out of over a hundred which is a real benefit of less than 1 % absolute. Adjust for the damage from fluorosis and overall there is no benefit.
Professor Trevor Sheldon, MSc, DSc, FMedSci.
Chairman of York Advisory Board
Department of Health Studies
Innovative Centre, York Science Park, University Road, YORK, YO10 5DG
December 12, 2000
In my capacity of chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York and as it founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented.
The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal.
It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review’s findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.
1) 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%, is far from “massive”.
2) The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as “just a cosmetic issue”.
3) The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.
4) There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.
5) The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.
6) Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.
7) The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.
(Signed)
Professor Trevor Sheldon, MSc, DSc, FMedSci.
Heather – its a comprehensive article you have written – but an update on Hamilton. Fluoridation was returned in the middle of last year.
Currently, the fluoride free people have been asking the council to proide an alternative unfluoridated source and the council is considering providing an outlet where the water is treart5ed by reverse osmosis. They will get their wish if the costs do not go above a set limit.
That should be considered a win-win situation and the Fluoride Free Hamilton group should then disband itself – or perhaps limit their activity to sugar.
Then again pigs might fly.
Thanks Ken – I was unaware fluoridation had started again in Hamilton, and I will correct my article. It sounds like a good idea that unfluoridated water may be available for those that do not want it.
A few fluoridated taps is a better idea than fluoridating the whole public water supply. 95 % of the world doesn’t fluoridate and their teeth are as good but usually better as WHO data attest to. Interesting that many of the supporters of fluoridation want to stop the installation of fluoride free taps.
Other options may be fluoridated salt or milk giving people choice.
Sure, Pete, there are all sorts of options. But the people of Hamilton have overwhelmingly gone for community water fluoridation rather than the options you mention. It’s a simple matter of democracy.
However, it is a win-win situation as such decisions force nothing on anyone. Those people who have a strong desired to avoid the treated water in hamilton have several alternatives. Filter the water (many do already), use different sources or (as they have done) ask the council to provide the sort of outlet they have.
I don’t begrudge them the small extra on my rates – so they should not begrudge the majorities desire to utilise a proven safe and effective social health policy.
As for the WHO data – you should take what the Connett crow say oin this with a teaspoon of salt (preferably fluoridated) it is dishonestly misrepresented as they do not seperate out the flkuoridated and fluoridated within countries – which is the only real test with that data. See Fluoridation data around the world in my debate with Connett – https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/fluoride-debate-part-1-perrott/
As it’s the majority that want fluoridated water, it should be a few unfluoridated taps available, not the other way around imo.
You can’t just say, “95 % of the world doesn’t fluoridate and their teeth are as good but usually better as WHO data attest to.” There’s no context to your statement such as diet, other health factors, level of fluoride available naturally, and several other factors.
The people who need the support of fluoridated water the most, such as socio-economically deprived children, don’t have a choice. Others with a high need of support like the poor, disabled and elderly, have limited choices. In my experience, the ones who are trying to stop fluoridation are often the ones in the best position to access unfluoridated water if the need arose.
I’m glad you mentioned the disabled and elderly. They are the ones who can’t travel to get unfluoridated water supplies or don’t have the strength to carry bottles. At least you acknowledge lack of choice is unethical. Many low income people don’t want fluoridated water.
The Washington Supreme Court stated that if city water is fluoridated, it will be necessary for residents “to use it for domestic purposes including drinking, because there is no other practical source of supply.” Kaul v Chehalis, 45 Wn.2d 616, 277 P.2d 352 (1954) at 618. Some people cannot afford a distiller or a whole house filter. Some are not strong enough to haul water jugs home. Some do not own a vehicle. Some cannot afford to buy water.
Ete, are you yourself in any of these categories? Are you living in Hamilton. Can you. It afford a cheap filter (the sort many people already have)? Are you disabled and elderly? Do you not have the strength to carry a bottle? Are you of low income? Do you. It own a vehicle? Can you mot affirm to buy cheap water?
If not, what about stepping aside and letting the huge number of people you claim are in these categories speak for themselves. I find you representation of these imaginary people false and inhumane considering most of them probably want CWF and voted for it.
The fact is that many people do not like the chlorine in their water (and the research indicates they may be more justified than those who just don’t like fluoride) and all these theoretical objections apply there.
You are simply Gish galloping, refusing to engage the debate with commenters who have responded to you and moving in.
Do you suggest we not chlorinate our water?
Ken and Chris Price both make very good points in their response to you Stan.
Are you able to respond or are you too busy filling cavities?
It’s interesting that there aren’t 40 % more dentists in non-fluoridated areas and whenever fluoridation is stopped that area doesn’t suddenly need 40 % more dentists. This fact alone demonstrates that fluoridation is a scam. Think I’m joking – just look how the tobacco industry fooled everybody.
Expert on Dental Research: “Water fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of the twentieth century.” – Dr. Philip RN Sutton (1996)
On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not–look at how many years millions of Americans were fooled by the tobacco industries!
“[T]he political pro fluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially anti-scientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues.” – Dr. Edward Groth, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union, 1991.
“Journal editors often have refused for political reasons to publish information that raises questions about fluoridation.” – Chemical & Engineering News, August 1, 1988.
“We are left with compelling evidence that powerful interests with high financial stakes have colluded to prematurely close honest discussion and investigation into fluoride toxicity.” – Dr. Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University, August 16, 2004.
“The Public Health Service, unfortunately, has locked itself into a position where it has made this statement on the record that there is absolutely no hazard to fluoridating public water supplies and the matter is closed. Now, that, of course, is immediately an unscientific approach.” – Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, 1971.
Expert in Chemical Research: “Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide … it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses. It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridation.” – James B. Patrick, Ph.D., antibiotics research scientist at National Institute of Health
No Pete, I don’t think you are joking – just clutching at straws. The tobacco industry used the same approach of manufacturing doubt in the science that the anti-fluoride propagandists, and their backers in the “natural”/alternative health industry, are using.
Out of context quotes are irrelevant and just another example of Gish galloping. Youwould be better employed attempting to get Mary Byrne and Stan Litras to front up – respond to the comments here and enter into a proper open discussion or debate in the scientific and ethical questions related to CWF. Mary has asked for this debate but has has apparently run away when it was offered to her. She would not do that if she had confidence in her claims.
Aha the usual Ken obfuscation by attacking the messenger or author of any comments. My situation is irrelevant to the thousands of people who fall into the following category. “Some people cannot afford a distiller or a whole house filter. Some are not strong enough to haul water jugs home. Some do not own a vehicle. Some cannot afford to buy water.” To say there aren’t people in that category is flat earth stuff. Are you saying they should be thrown under the bus? Stop trying to avoid the issue at hand.
Sigh -I see you have brought up the chlorine canard again. So I’ll just have to repeat. Fluoride does nothing to actually make our water potable (does not eliminate bacteria or viruses or remove any dangerous compounds). Chlorine on the other hand is a water treatment chemical. It is used to make water safe. This is a very different category that the pro-fluoride people find hard to understand – or to be more accurate demonstrate their dishonest approach to matters.
Of course fluoride and chlorine have different purposes. I think the reason that chlorine is often brought up is to illustrate the hypocrisy of anti fluoride activists. You obviously don’t have a problem with putting chlorine into drinking water, as you just said, “It is used to make water safe.” Chlorine is a weapon of mass destruction. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by chlorine. Chlorine is poison. Yet anti fluoride activists continually rant about the “toxic waste” “rat poison” etc. This is hypocrisy plain and simple and it is a concept that the antis have trouble getting their heads around.
Strange you see my questions as an attack, Pete. I was simply asking if you were speaking on behalf of a minority you describe or just pretending to. The fact is you gave no evidence to indicate that there is a minority out there with those characteristics amok Jong such claims. I have yet to hear them, and I am not so naive to foolishly believe claims made by an ideologically motivated opponent of a social although measure with is effective, safe and cost effective. And is preferred by the majority in polls and referenda in Hamilton.
As for chlorination, you fall back position on this is irrelevant. All the arguments you presented would apply to a minority who object to chlorination – and they do exist. Many fluoridation opponents admit they see their attacks on fluoridation as just a first step and they have a similar hang up about chlorine treatment.
And a simple check on the literature actually gives more concern for possible health effects of chlorine that it does for fluoride.
FFS! We don’t train enough dentists for 40% more to turn up anywhere. We don’t have enough now – that’s why they’re so bloody expensive. No government can offer free dental treatment, which would be a vote winner, because there aren’t enough despite the huge incomes. At least half the adult population doesn’t go to the dentist often enough and the main reason is that they can’t afford it. All the more reason for a preventative measure like fluoride.
aha Nice obfuscation and diversion Heather. Anybody can see you have avoided the point I have made. Fluoridation is virtually useless as a public health measure and is unethical as most countries recognize.
There’s only one point that matters David Thomas and that is your business activities as a snake oil peddler suggest a clear conflict of interest.
You’ve spent a considerable time trying to deceive the public as a means to ‘fog the room’ and create scientific doubt, however, everyone involved in this debate now knows you’re a duplicitous person who profits from misleading the vulnerable.
I pity the people who have been hoodwinked into thinking you’d actually help them.
From a recent issue of the newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:
“Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea.
Several countries are unable to introduce water fluoridation programmes due to technical, financial or sociocultural reasons. As an alternative, both salt and milk have been found to be reliable and convenient vehicles for increasing fluoride intake to an optimal level for hard to reach and low socio-economic communities. Studies have found them to be as effective as community water fluoridation schemes.
Some European, Latin American, and Caribbean countries, including France, Switzerland, Germany, Costa rica, Colombia and Jamaica currently use fluoridated salt schemes. Mexico and most Latin American and Caribbean countries (apart from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and French Guyana) have or have had salt fluoridation programmes.
A smaller number of countries currently have fluoridated milk programmes, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom
Some country regions have optimal amounts of naturally occurring fluoride which provides good protection for oral health. examples of countries supplied with naturally fluoridated water at or around the optimum level needed to prevent dental decay include the United Kingdom (estimated 329,000 people), United States of America (estimated 10,078,000 people) Canada (estimated 300,000 people) and Australia (estimated 144,000 people).
It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total.”
I think the ministry of Health has a bit more street cred than a commenter on a website with no citations to back up the rhetoric
Thanks Chris. Your comments confirm what I have suspected. Fluoridated salt and milk programs are alternatives to fluoridating the public water supply. Perhaps you should campaign for that where there is no water fluoridation?
You will find that C.F.W is the cheapest option, That is why is is used extensivly as you well know
All objective reviews of the scientific literature show you are wrong, Pete. They show that fluroidation is far from “virtually useless.” You are out of step with the science with that claim – surely you are aware of that. Have you read the NZ Fluoridation Review, for example?
If not, you should do so instead of attempting to soread misinform win on the subject.
How come some non-fluoridated areas have better teeth than fluoridated? Seems like a lot of cherry picking going on. Remember the claimed 25 % or 40 % is a relative percentage which is actually less than 1 tooth surface or less than 1 % absolute. This 1 % then disappears when you adjust for delayed tooth eruption. Look, even if fluoride turned one’s teeth into gold it shouldn’t be added to the public water supply. As you and your fellow travelers have honestly divulged, fluoride can be added to salt or milk as an alternative. I’m looking forward to hearing you lobbying for this, where no water fluoridation is available. Those people must be “suffering” terribly.
Pete, with biological data it is easy to find situations nlike this to suit your preconceived bias. That is why scientific studies use statsitics to determine the chances of such results happening.
Stan Litras is a past master at cherry poicking such data to produce claims that “some non-fluoridated areas have better teeth than fluoridated?” It is easy to get such results wiuth a small sample – although its a desperate tactic.
Look at the whole data, noit cherry pciked small samples.
See Cherry-picking and misinformation in Stan Litras’s anti-fluoride article (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/cherry-picking-and-misinformation-in-stan-litrass-anti-fluoride-article/)
I see you are a well known anti-chlorine activist. What – do you want untreated water with germs and bacteria in it? Why would you want to inflict that on everybody just to satisfy you own irrational fear of chlorine. Perhaps you could start up CFNZ (Chlorine free NZ)
I wonder what sort of planet Ken is on? He wants evidence that there are people who are invalids, no transport, no strength, no money. That has to be one of the most absurd requests I have ever heard in my whole life. Do you also want evidence that there are hospital patients ! Hilarious.
Pete, IO want evidence that the group of people referred to are compalining about the issues you refer to, and about CWF in particular. You claims are note evidence – let’s hear from them.
from independent sources
Pete, I want evidence that the group of people referred to are complaining about the issues you refer to, and about CWF in particular. You claims are not evidence – let’s hear from them.
Aha. Typical Ken you have now twisted the argument. Remember people who don’t want fluoride come from all walks of life, abilities, health status, financial, status ability to carry water etc etc etc. You’ve really shot yourself in the foot again I’m afraid.
I’m still waiting for just one safety clinical trial on fluoride (not “fake” literature reviews that shamelessly cherry pick.
I am aware of that Pete – people with hangups do come from all walks of life. But the fact is none from the group you mentioned is speaking here – you are putting words into their mouth. And I suggest you are doing so dishonestly as I am sure you don’t have their interests at heart as you oppose a safe, effective social health policy these people benefit from..
If you bothered to read the NZ Fluoridation Review you would have found plenty of citations referring to health studies (that is what the review is about). But your stupid claim that this is somehow a “fake” review is typical of those who refuse to consider evidence.
Talking about cherry-picking – read my article on Stan Litras’s behaviour yet?
And what about getting back to Stan and Mary suggesting they take up Heather’s offer of her blog as a venue for the debate they claim to want? They seem to have run away.
I am extremely disappointed that the Council here made such an important decision as whether or not to have CWF without proper consultation. As I mentioned in my article, everyone I have discussed this with (and I didn’t reveal my opinion first) wants CWF.
I would like to see the community properly informed of all the issues, for a proper debate to be held, and for the community to then decide what they want. If the majority is opposed to CWF, that’s how it should be. If they decide they want it, it should be recommenced.