Legislation has been introduced to enable DHBs rather than local authorities to decide whether community water supplies are fluoridated.
The government believes increasing access to fluoridated water will improve oral health and mean fewer costly trips to the dentist.
Health Minister Dr Jonathan Coleman says New Zealand still has high rates of preventable tooth decay.
'We know that children have up to 40 per cent less tooth decay in fluoridated areas compared to areas without fluoride.
'This change would benefit over 1.4 million New Zealanders who live in areas where networked community water supplies are not currently fluoridated.”
Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne says moving the decision-making process from local councils to DHBs recognises water fluoridation is a health-related issue.
'Decisions would be based on the assessment of health-related evidence and local needs. Recognition that fluoridating water is the single-most important initiative to improve dental health, particularly child dental health, is long overdue and I'm sure this move will be welcomed by the wider community.”
Tauranga fluoride-free advocate Ken Evans says the city rejected fluoride in 1992, and he intends to fight if the government forces it on communities.
'They're going to empower the DHBs to make the decision, but they need the council to implement it, because they own the equipment, filtering stations, etcetera,” says Ken.
'It would be an interesting day when they can compel the council to medicate the water supply. This is going to be a major issue in the upcoming election, and we'll certainly shake the cage in Tauranga.”
He points to dental health statistics showing the percentage of cavities in children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated are almost the same.
'There's only four per cent of the world that is fluoridated,” he says.
'Nations everywhere have abandoned it.”
Bay of Plenty District Health Board chief executive Helen Mason says the board remains committed to the fluoridation of water supplies.
People can learn more about the different perspectives on fluoride here and here in order to make up their own minds.
48 comments
At last
Posted on 21-11-2016 09:11 | By Papamoaner
A sound common sense decision. Hopefully that will be the end of the extreme emotive grizzle industry
Mass medication misery
Posted on 21-11-2016 09:41 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
On principle I oppose fluoridation. Nobody has the right to force me to take medication, unless I am deemed insane. This is a basic human right.
Poison
Posted on 21-11-2016 10:19 | By namxa
Yeah brilliant, lets put a poisonous industrial chemical in the drinking water.Can't see any problem with that
@ Papamoaner
Posted on 21-11-2016 10:34 | By Crash test dummies
I think you are off in lala land here, the fact is that fluoride is beneficial, the problem is that the version that is being put in drinking water is not the same one and is to many harmful, some severely. So your view is indeed simplistic. To have the DHB decide the "fate" of a community when many (over 90%) have decided against fluoride makes it very clear where the public view stands. In end result a DHB decision to "impose" this on all of NZ is indeed a very bad signal, that despite public views the are ignored. Funny thing is that dentists are not government subsidised. However GP's are, so the effect/consequences of these chemicals will add to GP's work and so Government costs, how ironic it is.
It should not be FORCED upon us
Posted on 21-11-2016 10:43 | By kurgan
don't be misled by the fear-mongering panic merchant's hysterical rhetoric at the DHB.
read the facts on fluoride
Posted on 21-11-2016 11:04 | By Captain Sensible
Fluoride makes people docile and dumbs them down...the nazis used it in prisoners water supplies....but that is just how the government wants us to be. It is a poison. How dare anyone force people to drink a poison.
You don't get to have an opinion on facts.
Posted on 21-11-2016 11:30 | By flashmedallion
"a community when many (over 90%) have decided against fluoride" - If it were up to the community to decide on medical and safety issues we would never have had seatbelts, helmets, speed limits... we definitely wouldn't have drink-driving laws. All these things have been enforced against public sentiment after consensus from experts in the field. It's saddening that people are more skeptical of the water they're drinking from health professionals than the BS they're swallowing from vague anti-expertise agitators.
truthtalker
Posted on 21-11-2016 12:13 | By Wise Chief
I knew elderly driver of tanker which carried Aluminium Sulphate/Flouride to Hunua & Waitakere Dam who never drank Auckland Cities water and carried his own glass flagons of water taken from his home rain water-tank. As an ex war veteran he informed us of what the real purpose of flouride was, the mellowing out of prison populations to accept indocrination programming via media to conform and carryout dictates of ruling political class. Thus it is a GREAT EVIL to allow such a well known proven poison to be introduced into public water supply in today modern era when we NOW have microwave and ultraviolet treatment system that completely negate any proposed need for pouring it in water to supposedly kill bacteria. Ask local inventor Ken Pedlar as he developed first rotating permanent magnet treatment to kill all pathogens in water in behalf of several governments.
Mass medication dictatorship
Posted on 21-11-2016 13:06 | By sobeit
We are with "big ted".We will decide what goes into our bodies. John Key and his national Party (who we supported last election) will go the way of Hillary Who if they do this. It's called third term arrogance.They've been in power so long they know what's best for us peasants.Helen went down the gurgler when she tried to tell us what showerheads and light bulbs to use.And other dictates ! God help NZ if a Greens / Labour coalition got to power but that's where we are headed.
Great news.
Posted on 21-11-2016 14:39 | By jed
This means we will finally get fluoridation in Tauranga. About time. Those against fluoridation really don't trust the same science that makes jumbo jets fly.
Where is fluoride found?
Posted on 21-11-2016 14:51 | By Petrolhead
Fluoride is found all over the place, in water/minerals/soil and creatures big and small where it is required for healthy teeth and bones. The parent material for the fluoride added to municipal water is likewise bones, ancient fish bones to be exact - hardly "man made", "man extracted" yes.I wonder how many anti Fluoride people drink tea, or even worse green tea? It can have in excess of 50ppm fluoride in it, 50-70 times the level used in municipal supplies. Likewise most seafood is comparatively high in fluoride.Don't stop drinking tea or eating snapper, like most things, danger comes with excess. What does need to stop is people putting the needs/desires of the few ahead of the many - think anti vaxer's now reintroducing disease to a population, or iodine in salt. Mass medication works, your all proof of it.
Mass medication
Posted on 21-11-2016 16:07 | By rastus
The fact is that because some parents do not teach their kids oral hygiene then the rest of us are now threatened with mass medication. It is almost impossible to purchase a 'fluoride' free toothpaste so providing parents have their children regularly cleaning their teeth then this whole argument would simply disappear - 'BUT' as usual we will all suffer, just as we do with the abuse of children by those who are supposed to take care of them - what a twisted world.PS Three cheers for Ken Evans - one who cares about the important things in life - in this case freedom to choose.
Yes, but which fluoride?
Posted on 21-11-2016 16:12 | By Cydifor
Calcium fluoride is the 13th most common element found in the earth's crust - and then there is the one they put into our water which is Hydrofluosilic Acid, a by-product of super-phosphate which lodges in the organs of the body and is not excreted. Two completely different things - one natural and one as far from natural as you can get, in fact a Class 8 poison.The reason for misguidedly putting this poison in our water is because there are bad parents who ignore their children's dental hygiene. Perhaps fluoride tablets could be given out at school if they really feel the need but do not dose us all. I remember a few years ago when stats. came out of Christchurch. They did not fluoridate their water and the kids in town had better teeth than the ones who had fluoridated water. Give it a miss!
Easy solution
Posted on 21-11-2016 16:14 | By simple.really
Install a water filter - having ours fitted next week. Refuse to let anyone enforce medication down my familys throats. Still don't understand why the Government won't allow people to have free fluoride tablets - that way people have a choice. To get the so called benefit of fluoridated water, you have to drink at least 3 litres per day - not going to happen. I grew up with fluoridated water which tasted disgusting, and I have a mouth full of fillings. My children have never had a single filling, yet we have unflouridated water - go figure!
National Health and Medical Research Council AU
Posted on 21-11-2016 16:25 | By chris price
Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.Effects of water fluoridation on dental and other health outcomes 2016
What about the rules
Posted on 21-11-2016 16:49 | By astex
If I am a patient at one of the BOPDHB hospitals I need to give an informed consent before I can be given medication. I also have the legal right at any stage to refuse any medication, treatment or food. Providing that I am mentally stable no one can change that fact. I hereby refuse to accept this medication and hope that someone with more money than I will take legal action against this enforced medication. To all those that support the administration of poison to themselves buy it yourself and self administer. Come on DHB, these are the legal guidelines that you are bound by law to comply with so back off.
Come on guys, we are waiting, and waiting...
Posted on 21-11-2016 17:19 | By Papamoaner
For one of you, any of you anti this that and everything, to tell us EXACTLY what is it that is going to happen to us if we drink fluoridated water. But wait, there's more! Can you please all tell us why hasn't whatever it is, already happened to all those masses of people in some places, that have had fluoridated water since the 1950's. Why aren't they all dead for god's sake? Why are they all so damn healthy with no diseases and no false teeth? Seriously, you are more likely to suffer doom by handling treated timber products. They contain arsenic, Chromium, beryllium. Unlike Fluoride, some of these are accumulative poisons - the dose you get today is added to the dose you got 5 years ago. I suggest you approach bishop Tamaki for answers, or take up yoga.
Only yourselves to blame
Posted on 21-11-2016 18:46 | By Taffy
To all you people against fluoridation (some say 90% against) just go back7 weeks to the local body elections.It was widely reported in the media that DHB,s would vote on the adding of fluoride to the water.The media also reported the position on that subject of all candidates for the DHB in addition several corresponders advised to vote for the candidates whether for or against.Well guess what the successful candidates bar one were in favour of adding fluoride so much for the 90% against.We had our chance by voting if you didn,t don,t whine now.
Good sense finally.
Posted on 21-11-2016 19:15 | By Lynne Hewson
What are your teeth like Mr Evans? We couldn't see them in the photo. Fluoride for our children's' dental health is a no brainer.
Paradox
Posted on 21-11-2016 20:46 | By Crash test dummies
@ Petrolhead, actually what you say is the truth about Snapper and green tea, proves in fact why it is not needed. The fact that many foods and so on are readily available means that none need be added to water. The fact is that for many the toxic effect will impede them as it is needed to and for some the effects will be indeed harmful including the degradation of teeth and bones, just what you say is intended to make better. The issue is the contradiction, many a Buera-rat thinks that they know best what everyone needs or wants and they know just what exactly that is despite the obvious "not so" factors.
@ chris price
Posted on 21-11-2016 20:51 | By Crash test dummies
The Aussies are not exactly upfront and truthful about much, just look at there opinion on how well they play rugby, unlucky ... wonderful player and all that, the opposition (who win) were luck, accidental, fortunate or whatever other excuse. It is a waste of time telling me information from Australia. The thing the Aussies do excel at is BS, they are able to manufacture anything for anyone in unlimited quantities, especially when generating it for self gratification.
My grandchildren have perfect teeth!
Posted on 21-11-2016 21:13 | By Cydifor
They are now into their mid-teens and have never had any form of fluoride. Petrolhead - do you know exactly what type of fluoride is in tea etc. A question for simple.really - what sort of water filter are you having installed as not all of them will take out fluoride. I remember hearing that those who put the fluoride into our drinking water used to wear a space type of suit and then had to thoroughly shower afterwards. I also believe it will eat through glass and that a teaspoon in a glass of water will kill you. It will also dissolve the glass - so I am told - someone else may be able to verify this. Many countries in Europe have now discontinued with water fluoridation as they do not want the possible court cases that could arise.
NO
Posted on 21-11-2016 21:35 | By Capt_Kaveman
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
papamoaner
Posted on 22-11-2016 09:59 | By kurgan
your ignorance is evidence of the dumbing-down effect of fluoride on the pineal gland
read the facts on fluoride
Posted on 22-11-2016 10:06 | By chris price
Captain Sensible Andy Hollinger, who handles media relations at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, tried not to laugh as we explained our fact-check. "I can almost guarantee you that is indeed an urban myth," he said. "... That sounds like Conspiracy Theory 101."Most Nazi medical experiments,had two themes: new drugs and treatments for common battlefield ailments, from war wounds to typhus, or the more infamous effort to underpin Nazi racial ideas, such as Josef Mengele's twin studies. None of the experimentation involved fluoride for mind control or for healthy teeth.In fact Between the 1940s and the 1990s, the average IQ scores of Americans improved 15 points.This gain (approximately 3 IQ points per decade) came during the same period when fluoridation steadily expanded to serve millions and millions of additional Americans
Mass medication and Poison
Posted on 22-11-2016 13:45 | By chris price
Maybe between the two of you ,you can post peer reviewed research that state Fluoride at .7PPM is mass medication and poisonA failure to do so will confirm my suspicion that the anti fluoride lobby is all lies and has no scientific credibility
On the issue of cholce vs the common good
Posted on 22-11-2016 14:37 | By Kurt.Ferre
We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.Dr. John Harris, Dept. of Social Ethics and PolicyUniversity of Manchester, UK
Whinging
Posted on 22-11-2016 16:04 | By Kenworthlogger
Seems to be a kiwi thing.....,,,,
Crash test dummies
Posted on 22-11-2016 17:06 | By chris price
So on one side of the discussion we have a quality research facility in Australia Who says fluoride is no danger humans at .7PPM On the other side we have a "Crash test dummie" that has spent 10 minutes on Google and is an expert in the field. Actually the description he gave of the research facility, would suit most of the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby members.Just change one word "The thing the Anti fluoride do excel at is BS, they are able to manufacture anything for anyone in unlimited quantities, especially when generating it for self gratification."
@ Kurgan
Posted on 22-11-2016 17:38 | By Papamoaner
Thanks for drawing attention to my ignorance, but do you think you could stay on topic and answer my questions? Or could it be that you have no answers, so resort to personal attack - always a sure sign of defeat.For the other anti fluoride objectors, could I suggest you read the recently released Royal Society report on all the points raised by objectors - none were upheld! It's published on the net, just google it.
Royal Society report
Posted on 22-11-2016 20:54 | By Papamoaner
The title of the report to the prime Minister is "Health effects of fluoridation" For folk who don't enjoy reading reports, the gist of it can be got by just reading the cover letter at the beginning.This report is peer reviewed.
Do not mass-medicate us
Posted on 26-11-2016 10:16 | By Cydifor
I have read a few books on fluoride and I do not want it anywhere near my body. I remember when the Dutch government tossed it out as they realised they did not want to be paying out massive compensation in the future. Most developed European countries have discontinued it. Why should I have to be mass-medicated because a few crap parents do not look after their children properly. Anyway it has been discovered that fluoride is not the magic bullet, as any more than a tiny spot on the toothbrush is now considered to be dangerous for a child. There is more to this stuff than people realise.
@Cydifor
Posted on 26-11-2016 15:00 | By Papamoaner
But you don't quote your source of information. It quells your argument!The Royal Society are a group of the most eminent scientists, but the majority of objectors ignore them and hinge their arguments on anecdote. "mass medication" is an emotional exaggeration, typical of activists. Iodine in your table salt, vitamin C in some foods, carbon dioxide in your fizzy drinks etc etc, are all "mass medication" by your definition. If you're that worried about what you are absorbing, best to stop breathing every time a car goes past you. Some communities have had fluoridated water since the 1950's. Can you please tell us why they are still healthy and not all dying or growing 3 heads?
@Papamoaner
Posted on 27-11-2016 12:10 | By astex
The point you are missing is that all the products you mention give us the choice of whether to take them into our bodies. For the DHB to administer medication at their facilities an informed consent is needed. I do not care particularly whether fluoridation of drinking water works or not in the case of dental care, but I do care about the possible, maybe unknown as yet, long term affects. It is not disputed anywhere that Fluoride is a poisonous substance and therefore we should, as individuals be permitted to chose whether or not to have it in our water supply. No-one is stopping you Papamoaner from using it. All you need to do is purchase the tablets and add it yourself. The DHB will be in breach of it's own rules on treatment if it goes ahead with this.
As usual !
Posted on 27-11-2016 18:09 | By Papamoaner
iknow completely ignores the main question about the health of those NZ communities who have had fluoridated water since the 1950"s. That's pretty hard evidence, yet you just ignore it and waffle on indignantly about your "rights" Well, it's a fait accompli now, so the argument is dead in the water, thanks to common sense and solid science based decisions made by intelligent professionals. These old boring head-banging arguments with no solid evidence basis, just end up costing the community money. Same philosophy applies to 1080 which is saving our forests and regenerating birdlife. YAWN !
@Papamoaner
Posted on 28-11-2016 17:34 | By astex
We should all be very concerned that people like you don't care about "my rights" or anyone elses as long as the "experts" say that it is good for us. Governments around the world just love people like you that just agree with everything they say and follow blindly without questioning their decisions as long as they claim it's in YOUR best interest. The fact is that I care about keeping MY RIGHTS and the right of everyone else to keep theirs.
@iknow
Posted on 28-11-2016 20:10 | By Papamoaner
Ok, fair enough, there's some validity in that, to a degree, but why, oh why, do you persistently continue to avoid the MAIN QUESTION about the good health of those NZ communities who have had fluoridated water since the 1950's? What is it exactly that will happen to us if we get fluoridated water?? Could it be that you have no answer in face of overwhelming evidence , so go off on other tangents like "mass medication" It's pathetic!
In reply to Taffy
Posted on 30-11-2016 09:50 | By Cydifor
and the comment that we were informed by the media of who on our voting form for the DHB were for or against fluoride - it was too late! Most of us had filled in our voting forms and posted them back by then. I ripped mine open and changed my votes as the envelope was sitting in the car waiting to be posted. Many had already posted theirs in. I remember a few years ago a urologist who quietly told his patients that if they want good health, to never ingest fluoride - and also to never mention his name as it was more than his job was worth! A local is Dr. Mike Godfrey who has said some interesting things about fluoride and I guess it is accessible online,
Papamoaner
Posted on 30-11-2016 09:59 | By Cydifor
I have found an article online simply by googling "Mike Godfrey fluoride" from the esteemed doctor and he backs up the theory with these words "an enhanced deleterious effect of fluoride when combined with arsenic, a confirmed carcinogen. The deliberate addition of arsenic to water supplies however diluted would not normally be tolerated. However, chronic exposures to even sodium fluoride may cause damage to kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, heart, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, bones and teeth" Let me know your continued opinion when you have read what this doctor has to say about it.
@Cydifor`
Posted on 30-11-2016 13:14 | By Papamoaner
More anecdote!Have you even read the Royal Society report yet?? It's PEER REVIEWED. Not just a rant from a medic with a minority view.And you still refuse to address that old question about all the NZ communities that have had fluoridated water since the 1950's and enjoy good health. It's like arguing with a brick wall mate.
papamoaner
Posted on 01-12-2016 08:20 | By kurgan
peer reviewed and manipulated to suit by like minded corporate pro fluoride scientists you mean, not by real scientists without hidden agendas. Also the the results of the Hastings experiment of 50 years ago came back - "Five decades ago, two neighbouring towns, Hastings and Napier, were selected for the first fluoridation experiment in New Zealand: fluoridation was implemented in Hastings, with non-fluoridated Napier acting as the control. This arrangement has not changed. Data shows that even after 50 years, fluoridation has conferred no benefit to Hastings inhabitants, regardless of social status." Besides the point of if it's good or bad it should not be FORCED upon the population based on some DHB official, If people want fluoride then buy the toothpaste (which is a toxic mess anyway), or tablets, It is a person RIGHT to chose for themselves in a so called free society.
know
Posted on 01-12-2016 08:30 | By kurgan
well said mate, some people just don't get common sense
papamoaner
Posted on 01-12-2016 08:37 | By kurgan
The Royal Society has, through its Advisory Panel, indirect links to the fluoridation lobby service, the NFIS.
@kurgan
Posted on 01-12-2016 10:38 | By Papamoaner
Why on earth would you accuse the country's most eminent group of scientists of being corrupt?That is preposterous! Extrapolating other comments, it could be argued that the tiny wee small group of anti fluoride agitators should buy their own bottled water.I note you also put the boot into toothpaste now - more anecdote!
@ Papamoaner
Posted on 15-12-2016 12:50 | By Crash test dummies
There was a time when the earth was considered flat, that was the "science" of the time. Sadly the "science of today is indeed limited by exactly the same two factors: - lack of a grasp of the entire picture, ignorance and prejudice. This pervades event his conversation here. Sadly the DHB are not "health Professionals" in the true sense of the words, they are cogs in a machine intent on the single aim of making citizens dependent upon them. In fact the any decision that expands the ranks is a good on in their mind. Truth and fact will not be allowed to get in the way of that. The sad part is that fluoride the science is based upon is not the same one as they tip into city water supplies. That's where the questions should start.
@testdummy
Posted on 16-12-2016 17:52 | By Papamoaner
Hilarious! What a load of old codswallop. That's why you and your ilk are overwhelmingly outnumbered by normal people.
@ Papamoaner
Posted on 19-12-2016 17:13 | By Crash test dummies
Perhaps I missed something, were you trying to say something? Please do have another go at it as there is nothing of use as yet to be deciphered in your last post?
Flouridation
Posted on 20-12-2016 12:52 | By Crash test dummies
Is nothing less than putting poison in the drinking water and somehow expecting something good to come of it for the population. Looks to be an experiment of the likes of Germany in WW2, but because the DHB does it somehow makes it better? I don't think so.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.