Bay doctor backs fluoride

A Bay of Plenty health official remains hopeful Tauranga City can break a 21-year drought and bring fluoride back to the city's water supply

Bay of Plenty District Health Board medical officer of health Neil de Wet says there is more than 60 years of scientific evidence showing water fluoridation is safe and effective in helping prevent tooth decay.

Bay of Plenty District Health Board medical officer of health Neil de Wet believes water fluoridation is ethically correct.

'Everyone benefits from water fluoridation especially children and those most at risk of poor oral health. Ethically it is the right thing to do,” says Neil.

'Our position has been in favour of fluoridation and its benefits in the community to oral health, so we always support any opportunity of fluoridation.”

Water fluoridation is when natural fluoride levels in the water supply are topped up just enough to protect teeth. The fluoridation helps protect teeth making them stronger while slowing down decay.

Whakatane District Council is holding a referendum in October asking the community whether they should continue to fluoridate water supplies; and if water supplies in other areas should be included. In the 2001 referendum, 68 per cent agreed to keep fluoridation in the two towns.

Currently, Whakatane and Ohope are the only areas in the Bay with fluoridated water. Water fluoridation was first introduced in Whakatane in 1972.

Neil says the BOPDHB strongly supports water fluoridation for helping protect and improve the oral health of people's natural teeth, particularly children and population groups most risk of dental decay.

Fluoride is naturally present in drinking water – but in most New Zealand water sources this is below the optimal level benefitting oral health.

The addition of fluoride to a level of 0.7 to 1 milligram per litre provides oral health benefits to all people with natural teeth, says Neil.

The comments come after Tauranga resident Ken Evans appealed for a change in fluoride levels, believing some Bay of Plenty areas are too high.

Ken, who led a petition in 1992 to remove fluoride from Tauranga's water, says the Bay of Plenty District Health Board should follow suit of a fluoridation policy in the United States attempting to reduce the risk of mild fluorosis.

In 1992 fluoride was removed from the city's water supply after 51.88 per cent of residents voted against fluoridation.

'I think there is a fair amount of scaremongering a foot. I think the important thing to note is that there is reliable information out there,” says Neil.

'It is important to us that the public can easily access accurate, credible information and scientific evidence on this topic.

'It's also the best way to make sure everyone's teeth get some protection, especially for our children.”

The BOPDHB's and Toi Te Ora Public Health Service's water fluoridation position statement says there is the potential to fluoridate the drinking water supplies for more than 80 per cent of the Bay of Plenty population.

The BOPDHB's community dental service sees approximately 35,000 children every year, who are aged from birth to 12 years old.

It says national data shows children living in areas with community water fluoridation have better oral health than those in un-fluoridated areas.

You may also like....

48 comments

WHAT!

Posted on 12-07-2013 08:44 | By the kurgan

Flouride is a highly toxic substance and a leading cause of cancer.


Now the Facts

Posted on 12-07-2013 09:41 | By grasser

At last we have information from someone who knows what they are talking about instead of rubbish from band wagon riders. Get your backside ready for that kick Ken.


Thanks Neill De Wet

Posted on 12-07-2013 11:05 | By Papamoaner

Good common sense. What harm has fluoride done to anyone? Where is the evidence? Healthy people with good teeth is all I see around me. There was a time, before fluoride, when most adults had false teeth.


Show us your proof, Neil!

Posted on 12-07-2013 11:40 | By Ian Todd

May I, though your column, challenge Neil to produce ONE study showing the benefit of adding fluoride to drinking water? When he does, I will produce peer reviewed studies from around the world showing a) there is no marked decline in the state of people's teeth (including a couple that showed dental hygiene improved after the removal of fluoride) and b) long term studies from Finland and China showing a decline in IQ in people drinking fluoridated water. The fluoride added to water is not the same as naturally occuring fluoride, it is a by product from the manufacture of uranium. Neil seems to be trotting out the same old mantra without any proof. Take the challenge, Neil!


different flourides

Posted on 12-07-2013 12:21 | By the kurgan

The fluoride chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are: hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride. Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Soft waters to which fluoride is artificially added lack this calcium which is present in most waters that contain natural fluoride. If the Health department wants to promote good dental care then educate people about good healthy diets free of highly processed foods and soda drinks.


Ian Todd

Posted on 12-07-2013 12:27 | By YOGI BEAR

Agree with all you say, There are actually no professional done, completely prepared and run studies that show any benefits, in fact they illustrate the serious risk of Fluoride, a lot more than you note.


User pays

Posted on 12-07-2013 13:13 | By Calm Gully

You want it, you add it. People who are aware of toxins and health problems don't get a choice. Freedom to choose PLEASE.


Against basic human rights!

Posted on 12-07-2013 14:14 | By donnalauren

Mass medication! The mind boggles. Who would trust dentists who filled our baby boomers mouths with deadly poison mercury? Anyway, beside the enforced fluoride in our water issue, what percentage is actually ingested by the target group. Would not education on sugary drinks and good diet be helpful. Once again the responsible (those who look after their health) pay for the irresponsible.


nothing moral

Posted on 12-07-2013 14:26 | By sojourner

There is nothing moral about forcing a people to swallow something they do NOT want. If anyone wants fluoride in their body they can just go and get it for themselves and use fluoridated toothpaste etc.There is zero evidence that fluoride is harmless, and if it should be, I propose we get to decide for ourselves whether we want some in our glass or not, just like we buy our own vitamins.


Perhaps..

Posted on 12-07-2013 14:28 | By gummers

Those who disagree with the article should not use toothpaste as most of them have fluoride in them. LOL


Typical medical approach

Posted on 12-07-2013 14:44 | By Rich

It is not surprising to read that the medical community are pushing synthetic chemicals, again. Many people in the medical community have been indoctrinated by associates with significant financial conflicts of interest. Calling hydrofluorosilicic acid "fluoride" in the promotion of water fluoridation should be regarded as a misrepresentation and treated as such. Any claims that "fluoride in our water supply is good for us" being made by people who intend to have the synthetic, dumbing-down chemicals in our water supply should be treated as misrepresentations, too. To make an informed choice, people need all of the relevant truth, and to have any untruths exposed as lies. Misrepresenting the toxic chemicals as fluoride can result in people doing research about fluoride instead of doing research about the toxins. The amateur researchers' findings would be irrelevant to the discussion because our friendly neighbourhood drug pushers are not promoting a natural approach, anyway. Any truly informed resident of the community who intends to use the water straight from the tap, without first filtering out the toxins, would not want the local government contaminating our water supply with toxins misleadingly referred to as "fluoride."


Rastus

Posted on 12-07-2013 15:30 | By rastus

Here is another person who has no idea what the word 'Freedom' means! It is totally irrelevant to my argument whether the crap is good or bad - I will fight for my right to make any medication decisions - even those from my own doctor - after all it is my life and I am happy to be responsible for it!


A Far more dangerous substance

Posted on 12-07-2013 16:30 | By Adrian Muller

Far more dangerous that flouride is the substance it is carried in: Dihydrogen monoxide, another money-making plot by local councils to gather money from ratepayers : is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain. contributes to the "greenhouse effect". may cause severe burns. is fatal if inhaled. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used: as an industrial solvent and coolant. in nuclear power plants. in the production of Styrofoam. as a fire retardant. in many forms of cruel animal research. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical. as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.


NONSENSE !!!

Posted on 12-07-2013 21:06 | By Garret

Fluoride is a very toxic substance. There are reports on anything that can show the pros or cons of anything if you look for it. Fluoride was used by the Germans to "Dumb down" the prisoners of war in WW2 in the Concentration camps; and it's dangers far outweigh the so-called benefits. Don't try to force your archaic beliefs on us Neil - give us the choice what we put into our bodies. THAT IS MY RIGHT.


Er, hang on a minute;-

Posted on 12-07-2013 22:13 | By Papamoaner

Why are all those people who have had fluoride in their water for 60 odd years still alive and well? Why do they all have their own teeth when their parents and relations all had false teeth in days before fluoride? Why did schools in those days have to have so many dental nurses? Why is life expectancy up in all those places that have had fluoride in the water for 60 years?


Removal

Posted on 12-07-2013 22:58 | By Capt_Kaveman

Both are poisons Fluoride gone yet Chlorine remains we need to remove this as well people should do their research, natural fluoride yes not the toxic waste they use everywhere else + chorine needs to be removed as well as who likes drinking swimming pool water


no thanks

Posted on 13-07-2013 08:42 | By Captain Sensible

Parents should teach their kids on fluid intake (coke, juice etc) and not expect the whole population to ingest poison just because their kids prefer coke and juice. And they should make sure the kids brush their teeth.


@Adrian Muller

Posted on 13-07-2013 13:45 | By Rich

Adrian: your copied and pasted paragraph about water could be funny in another context, but in this one is similar to the deceptive practices of the people who promote the dumping of toxic waste into municipal water supplies.


Options

Posted on 14-07-2013 00:03 | By NZMade

i think they should not add floride. Instead provide those who would like it small effervescent to put in their water, such as water 2 litre water bottles, if they choose to use it. There is lots of research to back up the dangers and the right to choose is important, so provide something for everyone to stay happy.


Shame

Posted on 14-07-2013 02:29 | By TGAborn&bred

There will always be two sides to this story, those that do and those that don't. Ken Evans and Neil de Wet seem to be the only ones here who know what they're talking about, no one else seems to know how to have a healthy debate on the subject. There are as many studies 'for' as there are 'against' but it's a shame the 'anti' happen to be the loudest, as usual, means we're only hearing all the worst case, extremely exaggerated rubbish.


Helios

Posted on 14-07-2013 16:18 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

If I have a headache I take a tablet.I don't think the water supply should be interfered in any way to deal with this issue. You want good teeth, clean them with or without fluoride and better still cut out excessive sugar intake and practice good oral hygiene.


Hey Tomahawk Kid

Posted on 15-07-2013 10:17 | By the kurgan

A good point that a lot of people just don't get. The freedom to CHOOSE what YOU want in YOUR body. The majority of dumbed down sheeple blindly follow authority and government "officials" without ever questioning them.


Tomahawk zkid

Posted on 15-07-2013 11:17 | By Papamoaner

I take your point about freedom to ingress, and don't disagree with you on it where additives can't be removed. However, you can filter out fluoride, unlike iodine added to your salt which is very difficult to remove. I don't hear anyone objecting to iodine in salt, detergent in instant coffee (to encourage frothing), MSG in takeaway foods, Dioxin bleach in dunny paper (which you ingress by wiping), preservatives in food, wine and beer, etc etc etc. There are numerous additives included to make money, not with good intention as is the case with fluoride. Your argument has holes in it all over the place and the language is unjustifiably too strong.


At papamoaner

Posted on 15-07-2013 21:00 | By The Tomahawk Kid

At papamoaner: all those other things you mention are taken by individual choice. No force enters into the equation, so it is not my argument that has holes in it! Personally I am quite happy to drink fluoridated water, but my personal opinion is not what this is all about. It is the use of force. Why should water have additives, and then people have to REMOVE them? Why not those who WANT the additives ADD them? Your most sacred possessions are your rights, for without rights you have NOTHING. We should not be so quick to give them away, OR deny OTHERS their rights. I recognise people trying to steal my rights, and without resorting to physical action, WORDS are all I have to protect them. Why should I not use the strongest language available? Thank you for your reply, I can see you are also happy to have your teeth protected by fluoride (like myself) but this is not about the fluoride or any of the other things you mention -it's about people's rights. Remember this: if you wish to be free, first you must ensure that others are free! That means stop denying them their right to drink clean water.


Without rights you have nothing

Posted on 15-07-2013 21:15 | By The Tomahawk Kid

Far more dangerous than fluoride in the water are those who would destroy your right to drink pure water - without additives of any description. Without rights people you have nothing! Yet people like Neil de wet blatantly say they will deny you the right to drink clean water. What will be next? What right will they decide you are not entitled to next? They have happily stolen this one and got away with it. What will you tell your grandchildren when they ask you the question "what are rights grandad?will you say "oh, they are something that we used to have, but we didnt value them enough, so we let immoral people steal them from us"


An outrageous statement

Posted on 15-07-2013 21:53 | By The Tomahawk Kid

It is funny that I should be having this debate with Papamoaner for a number of reasons. First - Personally I have no problem drinking water with fluoride in it - I am likely to die of any number of causes - and drinking water with fluoride in it WONT be one of them. Second - I have asked myself the same questions he mentions concerning fluoride, and all the other additives in things, but they are all just a RED HERRING. Whether Fluoride is good or bad for you is NOT THE ISSUE - its a smokescreen. THIRD: I get my water from a rainwater tank - so I wont be forced to drink the water with additives in it most of the time anyway. My argument is about people understanding the IMPORTANCE and the meaning of the word RIGHTS - and other peoples entitlement to them. Dont give them away. Dont relinquish your ownership of them to immoral busyboddies. Dont deny others just because you get to benefit and stuff them! If you wish to be free, and enjoy your rights - first you must ensure others are free to enjoy THEIRS. Prize for The most outrageous statement I have ever read in print must go to Neil de Wet in saying " fluoridation of the water supply is ethically correct!"


@Papamoaner

Posted on 16-07-2013 14:15 | By Rich

Papamoaner: I began writing this response before reading your most recent comment in this thread, so I did not realise that you were aware of other health issues when I wrote the latter part of it. I find the timing of your latest post ironic because I do contact companies whose products I might have used, had it not been for the presence of excitotoxins, to let them know that I will not be buying their products, and have done so with one company just this week. I completely bypass some brands because I have realised that their product formulators have apparently zero interest in the impact their formulations have on consumers' health, which means that I have no reason to trust them to provide me with kai that is biologically compatible with my body. I am also one of the people who does not buy iodised salt and I use toilet paper that is known to have less bleach in it in comparison to others. I don't drink coffee, but if I was to buy it for guests, then I would find organically grown coffee, as I don't like to inflict poor health on others if I can avoid doing so. A commonality about all of the above products is that I choose what I purchase and I am not forced into using overly processed, nutritionally inferior salt (for example). I do my 'filtering” while interacting with my suppliers. I do not have a bunch of nutritionally deficient trash appear in my fridge and pantry every day, requiring my time, effort, and money to dispose of it. My proactivity is involved at an earlier stage, so I don't end up inundated with toxins in my home. With water 'fluoridation”, I would be forced to pay to dispose of the unwanted chemical once it had already reached my domicile rather than being able to just bypass it like I do with brands I know to propagate deceptively labeled poisons. Regarding your questions from the earlier post, you may have meant them to be rhetorical, but they could be seen as genuine, so the following response was written as though you meant the questions to be taken seriously. Not all substances have the same level of toxicity. Some kill instantly; others do damage to internal organs over a longer period of time, and lead to health complaints such as inflammation, increased healing times, fatigue, and disease. People with an interest in holistic health may define "wellness" differently to others, and may have a greater expectation of what is possible in terms of mobility, cardio-vascular fitness, and longevity. Dental hygiene is not dependent on water "fluoridation". Dental health education available now---apart from the pushing of water "fluoridation"---is vastly superior to that available sixty years ago. So is our access to greater variety in terms of fresh vegetables, to aids such as dental floss and tongue cleaners, and to natural substances known to inhibit the development of dental caries. Years ago, consecutive governments in New Zealand chose to spend money on funding the employment of dental nurses on school campuses. A significant part of the dental nurses' role was the systematic, mass education of what was then the younger portion of the population. Those children, armed with a strong sense of the importance of maintaining their own dental hygiene and the understanding that it is their own responsibility to do so, have grown up and many of them are now parents and grandparents who have subsequently passed on the knowledge and values to their young ones, thereby reducing the government's moral and financial burden regarding the dental health of the citizens they govern. Dental health is still an aspect of health that the government observes and funds to some extent; however, the perceived needs are different to what they were sixty years back, so the fondly remembered institution of dental nurses in schools has been phased out, and an alternative approach to sponsoring our society's dental health has been implemented. Other factors have also influenced the approach to dental care. For example, with Katikati's talented entrepreneur, Simon McDonald, producing better tools for dentistry than what was available before his establishment of Triodent, dentists throughout the world are now able to provide their clients with better results in less time than taken previously, thereby allowing for more time available to serve the children who would have previously been to see dental nurses. It took a long time for various dental associations to finally stop telling people that amalgam fillings are harmless. It seems the same is now happening regarding the fluoridation issue. Regarding your life expectancy related non sequitur, life expectancy is also up in places that have not had "fluoridated" water supplies for the last sixty years. Related to that point, people who are oriented towards holistic health favour maintaining their mental acuity and efficient access to body based energy stores, regardless of the number of their days.


Papa Moanz

Posted on 16-07-2013 15:00 | By YOGI BEAR

Fluoride is bad news, the actual additive to town water has not been tested scientifically, the real deal here is that "another" product has been tested but it is not the same. So what we have here is a mess/deception, where Fluoride is being said to be "safe" and proved as safe when in fact that is not at all the truth of it.


Two debates

Posted on 17-07-2013 11:56 | By Papamoaner

With enlightenment from Tomahawk, I now see that there are actually 2 separate but related debates here. Tomahawk's thrust is about personal choice and individual rights. Fair enough, I respect that. The others are largely arguing about the effects of fluoride. However, I don't reckon it's fair to paint Dr De Wet as some sort of demon, when he is merely lauding the benefits, with good intention, of replacing that which is deficient in our water, presumably due to historic volcanic activity. I would bet a pound to a knob of the goats proverbial, that most of those other commenters wash their dishes with dishwashing detergent, then dry them without first rinsing, so the detergent residues are ingressed with the next meal. I suspect anything that modifies the surface tension of water, aint good for ya. As an aside, I would like to see a selenium trace added to water too, given that it is deficient in NZ soil. And maybe a bit of zinc as well, for a healthy population. Loosen up guys, there are far worse things to worry about than a trace element in your water. I suppose we could remove clorine too. That would be interesting as the population gets flooded with biological cysts and bugs galore. Good for the Portaloo industry I suppose.


Two debates

Posted on 17-07-2013 11:56 | By Papamoaner

With enlightenment from Tomahawk, I now see that there are actually 2 separate but related debates here. Tomahawk's thrust is about personal choice and individual rights. Fair enough, I respect that. The others are largely arguing about the effects of fluoride. However, I don't reckon it's fair to paint Dr De Wet as some sort of demon, when he is merely lauding the benefits, with good intention, of replacing that which is deficient in our water, presumably due to historic volcanic activity. I would bet a pound to a knob of the goats proverbial, that most of those other commenters wash their dishes with dishwashing detergent, then dry them without first rinsing, so the detergent residues are ingressed with the next meal. I suspect anything that modifies the surface tension of water, aint good for ya. As an aside, I would like to see a selenium trace added to water too, given that it is deficient in NZ soil. And maybe a bit of zinc as well, for a healthy population. Loosen up guys, there are far worse things to worry about than a trace element in your water. I suppose we could remove clorine too. That would be interesting as the population gets flooded with biological cysts and bugs galore. Good for the Portaloo industry I suppose.


Rich

Posted on 17-07-2013 15:45 | By Papamoaner

Sorry Rich, but I couldn't wade through all that waffle - no offence meant - just far too long-winded. However I did skim-read it, and my eye caught you accidentally agreeing with me at the end (which was a long time coming) where you erroneously called my life expectancy comment non sequitur. On the contrary, if people in those places that have had fluoride added to their water for 60 years are enjoying the same increase in life expectancy as communities void of fluoride, (albeit with nice teeth), then TOUCHE !


Effects of fluoride

Posted on 19-07-2013 10:56 | By The Master

Harmful, no benefits known even though research has been done to try and find "benefits" the results have all been negative. So pardon me for correcting the records and path choosen by a GP who should know better. I am sure like many things added (with a cute number) such as Tetrazine (yellow dye and carsenogenic, banned in many countries but not NZ) to our food are medically considered to be "harmless". Fluoride and the likes of Tetrazine provide no known benefit and generally are known to be harmful to humans so why are they added? Perhaps there is a medical solution, dumbing down the populous generally so as to keep control, create health issues and dependancy simiply for marketing and sales of corporates? the truth is there if you wish to see it.


Re The Master

Posted on 19-07-2013 14:37 | By Papamoaner

The Master epitomises the extreme views of the vocal minority. Doubtless there are aliens everywhere, out to get us.


Moaning Papa

Posted on 19-07-2013 15:44 | By The Master

Sorry to enlighten about things, please do come out of the dark and into the light, perhaps even get your feet on the ground would even help as doing a bit of airy fairy floating around in space will not help. The simple answer is in your hands here, show me the scientific reserach that is peer reviewed that tests the exact Fluoride water supply additive. PS Be careful out there as all the research to date is not of the correct fluoride, it is a diffeent chemical, good luck with that one mate.


Degraded discussion

Posted on 19-07-2013 16:38 | By Rich

@Papamoaner: It seems you have reduced your outbursts to personal attacks, which does nothing to support your viewpoints, and is like a fly in ointment with regards to the discussion. I am sorry that you found it too difficult to read my last post. I am sure that if paragraph breaks were retained, then it would have been easier to read. Part of the reason I wrote so much in one post was because you had asked a number of questions in one post. The essence of my response was that I believe your attribution of improved dental health statistics to the poisoning of municipal water supplies is like attributing the presence of kiwi in this land to the low levels of selenium in the soil.


Wow !

Posted on 19-07-2013 20:52 | By Papamoaner

To the master; - try reading Scientific American, Lancet, New Scientist, instead of just googling from an armchair in a corner - it's all in there. To Rich; How about answering just one simple question then;- (which I have already hinted at, but you ignored) - Why do communities with 60 years of fluoride added to water, enjoy the same health and longevity, albeit with healthier teeth, as those communities void of a fluroide additive? Shouldn't they all be dead, disfigured, or zombies by now if fluoride is as bad as you reckon, given that 60 years is a pretty good dose of empirical evidence? Simple answer please, no red herrings, no waffle.


Get up with the play

Posted on 20-07-2013 14:06 | By Crash test dummies

The public have already spoken 20 years ago get up with play. FYI mercury is said to be good to but to much for some and they die. Why take the chance?


Substance abuse

Posted on 20-07-2013 14:53 | By Rich

@Papamoaner ...My answer to your question, which I have already given, has the following two parts: 1> Many don't 2> For the ones who do, other factors are the reasons; having their water "fluoridated" has not been of benefit to their health whatsoever. As your style has seemed more "attack the person" than "discuss the topic" in nature, and because you have reinforced that there is a lack of substance to your statements, and there has been a failure to recognise that I have already provided conceptual answers to many of your questions, including the one of which you accused me of not answering ...I may not respond to you on future occasions. To be fair, I acknowledge that my own responses have not included references to specific articles, so it may seem like my comments lack substance, too. I have learned to view articles in "science" and medical journals contextually, and perhaps do not have as high a regard for the specific publications you mentioned as you do at present. I am glad that you are aware of some of the issues we face, these days, in terms of threats to our optimal health. Peace to you.


Providing perspective

Posted on 20-07-2013 15:02 | By Rich

Information available via the following URI helps to provide an insight as to why many people oppose municipal water supply fluoridation: http://fannz.org.nz.


My parting shot

Posted on 20-07-2013 22:06 | By Papamoaner

I am at a loss as to how identification of a long boring waffle is construed as attacking the person rather than the argument. As to fannz dot org. a well known meeting place of extreme views, sensationalisation and exaggeration. Ironically they admire artesian water from a well whose bore is located directly beneath Wellington's huge WW2 rubbish tip at the very mouth of the Hutt river where munitions and chemical industries dumped god knows what for more than 40 years before it was bulldozed over sometime around the late 1970's. Nobody can build there, so the whole area is some sort of park. Ok to drink water from beneath though, because it is presumably fluoride free. Aren't we humans funny. Reminds me of an interview on national Radio today where a nutrition expert talking about vitamin pills (expensive urine!) asked a woman if she thought "that compound over there" might have more NaCl in it than "that salt shaker over there" to which she replied "For god's sake, let me believe in something" Says it all, don't you reckon? Roger over and out.


A final shot to Dr Neil De Wet

Posted on 21-07-2013 07:55 | By Papamoaner

Neil, Take heart from the satisfaction that most of us (probably hundreds of thousands) are happy with the good work you are doing. The innuendo is coming from a very small handful of armchair experts. (I'm one too) They will eventually be hoist by their own petard by being instrumental in forcing a national standard with gov't SOP's for fluoride, and discretionary powers being removed from councils and placed under central control. Then the whole country will revert to fluoridation, hopefully with one or two important trace elements as well, like selenium, which will please me no end because Brazil nuts are bloody expensive mate. Good on you for sticking your head on the block and taking a stand. Hang in there.


How wrong can we get?

Posted on 21-07-2013 09:43 | By Papamoaner

NZ life expectancy currently sits at around 80.9 years across genders, regardless of location (ie; with or without fluoride in water). Vide statistics.govt.nz


Papa winger

Posted on 22-07-2013 22:08 | By Plonker

Nice 80.9 years life span but have you considered the quality of life while being poisoned by Fluoride? have you considered the effect of Fluoride poisoning on children and the destruction of teeth. The research proves it all as harmful.


Plonker

Posted on 23-07-2013 14:41 | By Papamoaner

What evidence? Plenty of hearsay but don't you think the medical advisers and researchers are aware of hearsay and quack evidence and empirical data and understand the difference between the latter two? I can only reiterate an earlier comment - read Scientific American, Lancet, New Scientist, one of them locally peer-reviewed. If you want to say the learned authors are incompetent, then produce evidence.


Papa of all moaners

Posted on 24-07-2013 15:30 | By the kurgan

so your calling these thousands of experts incompetant? "Young is joined by civil rights leader Gerald Durley in his efforts, as well as by thousands of scientists, dentists, and lab workers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), all of whom now agree that water fluoridation is unsafe and should cease. Acknowledging copious research out of Harvard University and elsewhere that has shown fluoride to retard brain development and lower IQ, these forward-thinking members of the health and science field are advocating for civil rights protection for all against fluoride exposure." quoted from http://www.naturalnews.com/041265_Fluoridegate_fluorosis_civil_rights.html also http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/is-fluoridegate-the-new-civil-rights-scandal/ and http://www.fluoridealert.org/ cant expect much logic from an idiot that reads Scientific American, Lancet, New Scientist.


Well, thanks guys

Posted on 25-07-2013 08:22 | By Papamoaner

I think I can rest my case now. Rich reckoned I attacked him personally, Plonker called me a winger(sic). I think the word might be whinger, now Kurgan calls me Papa of all moaners, and an idiot. Once you show your colours that way, you have well and truly lost the argument. By definition, a whinger or a moaner is someone disgruntled with the status quo. I have consistently defended the status quo throughout the discussion, so by definition, those three individuals are actually the whingers, whose general attack has been against a qualified medical professional doing his job as medical officer of health, albeit very well in my view, and doubtless the public at large. Having had no response from him, they swing their guns to all who would defend him. It's a fairly well-known psychological pattern.


Papa Moaner

Posted on 25-07-2013 09:48 | By YOGI BEAR

Gone burger :) thanks for that Kurgan. So we are clear on these things, GP's get brain washed to learn/think a certain way, that really is that placing random chemicals in the body is a good thing for health and wellbeing, however really the truth of it is that they have no idea of the good or bad, only that lots of sick people are good for two reasons, first: lots of work and income from that and second means lots more conferences all paid for by the drug companies.


If Fluoride was good

Posted on 26-07-2013 14:05 | By The Master

Mother nature would have put it in the sea for all the fish so as they had good denches.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.