April ( 1st update)

graph IrelandCharts presented to measure effect of reducing fluoride levels: see ‘San Francisco’

Reports and Resources

Click the blue  words or use the drop down menu

Link to IFFT Latest Audio Building a successful campaign. Learn the fundamentals of the few basic approaches to victory, and understand how to pick the one that’s right for your situation.  This month’s teleconference builds on the the previous month’s conversation

2 Durango debate

2.1 Karen Spencer : Dental decay does NOT increase with cessation. That’s a scare tactic.Karen also attacks the fraudulant study in Calgary that is currently used by fluoridationists.
2.2   Here is James Forleo of Clean Water Durango, who campaigned and presented on behalf  of  Clean Water Durango writing on Industrial fluoride: a toxic cocktail with detailed scientific arguments.

2.3 Cheri Jones: Another letter with useful argument on dangers of sodium fluoride. Focusing on the chemistry behind the data sheets

2.4 Dennis O’Brien, DC From a practising doctor – with personal experience of patients with ‘thyroid problems’, presumably hypothyroidism. .

2.5 One comment  on  why the EPA’s rejection of the petition was wrong.

3 from Water Online / Collective Evolution  Fighting against fluoride: the EPA  petition, the negative health effects of fluoride, the almost “Big Brother-esque” feel to public water fluoridation. Will the EPA finally be compelled to do their jobs and ban water fluoridation? Who knows.

4.  Two contributions from the Rutland Gerald

4.1 Jack Crowther explains why the  Fluoride Fight will continue

4.2 A retired dentist and an opponent of fluoridation due to his belief it is an unsafe and ineffective practice, explains his views. He concludes: industry profited from leaded gasoline and tobacco so, too, has it profited from fluoride while concealing its hazards.

FAN Responds to the EPA . Ellen Connett on their decision not to do a compulsory “Six-Year Review” of fluoride on the basis that it was a “Low priority and/or no meaningful opportunity” issue and FAN’s Request: An Immediate Moratorium

The Important Impact of Fluorine in Pharmaceuticals .Halocarbon.media article: (from Ann Wills)  A  highly technical explanation of the use of fluorine in drugs.  Around a fifth of all drugs on the market today contain at least one fluorine substituent. Do read more, but be prepared for ‘In the desflurane synthesis, trifluoroacetaldehyde methyl hemiacetal is first reacted with tosyl chloride, converting the hydroxyl group to its tosyl derivative’

‘10 Facts About Fluoride’ An advert from a water treatment supplier in Maine gives a useful quick list.

8 From Huffinton Post- Merissa Price: Just for fun – or to make you scream. I love that goopy, supplementing, great-for-my-teeth Fluoride stuff!

 

News

Bedford

Mar 25

As reported in the February News,  the Secretary of state for Health, Jeremy Hunt, has refused to accept Bedford Borough Council’s decision to terminate water fluoridation in the borough.

The council must now present their plans to Mr Hunt, discuss the proposal with neighbouring local authorities and launch a public consultation.
At a meeting of the full council this week, in which councillors were asked to support a re-launch of the process, portfolio holder for finance Cllr Michael Headley said: “I don’t see why anyone would see anything negative in the council holding a public consultation.”

Campaign group Fluoride Free Bedford (FFB)have battled against fluoridation since 2002, creating their own documentary ‘Toxic tap water’ and petitioning Bedford Borough Council.  FFB’s Cynthia Bagchi said: “The process is so convulated it is difficult even for lawyers to understand. At least we are going forwards while the issue is in the minds of the public and councillors.” If we hadn’t aggravated the mayor, fluoride would have gone back into the water and no one would have known.”

http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/8203-hunt-wades-in-on-fluoridation-issues/story-30226103-detail/story.html#mdkDyYZkqaR6tG60.99

 

Hull

An example of what campaigners are facing is the large amount of propaganda on the Hull City site with links to even more.

What are we doing?:  We are looking at the possibility of fluoridation in Hull as one way of reducing tooth decay.  No decision to make a formal proposal for water fluoridation has been taken in Hull.  Initial indications are that fluoridating Hull’s water supply would also impact on some neighbouring areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire. We are still at an early stage and need to do further background work before we can begin any formal discussions.

Exploring the possibility of water fluoridation is just one part of our overall approach to improving oral health in Hull.  Our Oral Health Action Plan 2015-2020 contains more information about oral health in Hull and what else we are doing to make it better.

Hull Oral Health Plan 2015-2020

http://www.hull.gov.uk/resident/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation

 

USA

Arkansas

Mar 17

A bill expanding the number of small water systems that are exempt from having to fluoridate their water failed to clear a House committee on Thursday.

See Pressreader for this story:

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/arkansas-democrat-gazette/20170317/281668254789478

 

Bucyrus, Ohio

Mar 24

…Councilman Dan Wirebaugh …said he’s learned that fluoride could potentially have negative health effects that outweigh the benefits to residents’ teeth. Other members of council agreed the topic should be considered by the city’s Health and Safety Committee.

…. Council President Garnet “Sis” Love … said she wasn’t even sure if the city’s new water treatment plant was designed for a specific level of fluoride. She said council members needed to wait and gather a little more information before discussing the topic any further. Everyone agreed.

http://www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com/story/news/2017/03/24/fluoridation-bucyrus-water-considered/99586364/

 

Durango,Colorado

Mar 16

..Advocates made passionate pleas for preserving and removing fluoride from the city’s water Thursday at a League of Women forum at Durango City Hall.

Jim Forleo with Clean Water Durango and Sherrod Beall with the No on 1A Campaign answered an array of questions about fluoride from the audience about its effects.

…, Forleo and Beall described contrasting versions of the same additive. Forleo described fluoride as a toxic drug responsible for causing lower IQs, thyroid disease, bone cancer and many other side effects, while not improving oral health.

Tooth decay has been declining in both communities that fluoridate and those that don’t, he argued.  “Durango residents want a choice of whether to receive a drug every day in our water,” he said.

For low-income children, fluoridated water may be the only form of dental care they receive, and it is especially important for those under 5 years old, Beall said.

“Once fluoride is taken out of the water, the rate of dental decay increases,” she said

See Resources item 2.1 by Karen Spencer picking up the last statement, a thorough attack on the Calagary study and several  other well –referenced arguments.

Dental decay does NOT increase with cessation. That’s a scare tactic….
However, there was a fraudulant study in Calgary that is currently used by fluoridationists.
Also see item 2.2 for contribution to the debate by Jim Forleo and 2.3 – 5 for others, including a dentist and a docor.

For other comments and full article:https://durangoherald.com/articles/143598-fluoride-pro-x2019-s-and-con-x2019-s-debated-at-durango-forum

 

Harrison AR

Mar 15

Bill to allow water customers to vote on fluoride fails in Senate committee

Senate Bill 299 .. had been introduced as a way to put the fluoridation issue before voters, was amended to say water system customers “shall have the option to hold an election of qualified electors of the public water system” to decide on fluoridation.

 

Madison County

This appeared without a related news item, something is going on..

Should water fluoridation be determined on the local level?

Yes, voters should decide for each water district 85.4%

Option Votes
Yes, voters should decide for each water district 0.854
No, it should be state-mandated. 0.146
Unsure/Indifferent 0

                 85.4%

http://www.mcrecordonline.com/poll_52029746-0f03-11e7-a5d4-270d70a2e8c8.html

 

Orange County

Mar 24

CHAPEL HILL, North Carolina (WTVD) —

Members of the community spoke out Thursday night against adding fluoride to the Orange County drinking-water supply — including a local dentist.”We advise our patients not to use fluoride in any form.” Said Dr. Michael Willock.

The new concern began after an equipment malfunction … at the Jones Ferry Road water treatment plant…..The OWASA board has since decided it wants to add fluoride back into the water supply.
“I get to decide what toothpaste I buy, and that’s not fair that none of us get to decide what’s in our water,” said one concerned resident.

The majority of people in attendance at the meeting Thursday were against adding fluoride to the drinking water, including one board member.”I want to go on record just saying that I still oppose having fluoride in the water,” said board member Yinka Ayankoya

 

Truckee Meadfows, Reno NV

Mar 15

A bill that would mandate fluoride in Truckee Meadows water is advancing through the Nevada Legislature. That’s despite what is said to be widespread opposition against the bill.  The Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) board does not support the measure, citing among reasons public sentiment against flouridation.  TMWA’s Andy Gebhart said most water customers, who have responded to TMWA, are against fluoridation. …

The TMWA board posted in February a statement on its website:  It directly contradicts the will of Washoe County voters. In 2002, a countywide vote was taken in Washoe County where 58 percent voted against fluoridation. The Board felt that the present bill, as introduced, circumvents that vote and that any fluoride decisions should require a vote of the public. …Another reason cited against the measure includes all water systems being fluoridated under the bill, despite most of that water not being used as drinking water.

TMWA’s board of directors voted today to survey customers about the bill.   The draft legislation is slated to go into the legislature’s assembly ways and means committee, but a hearing has not yet been scheduled.

 

Wilmington, Ohio

Mar 17

The highly debated fluoride ordinance passed at last night’s city council meeting. It was approved by a 4-3 vote.  The ordinance mandates the fluoridation of the public water supplies controlled by the City of Wilmington.

 Article  in the American Dental Association News summarises theColorado School of Public Health  report – see February Reports, with all the usal uncritical acceptance of the ‘evidence’, but adds one final revealing note..

Water fluoridation saves Americans billions of dollars in tooth decay prevention, according to an article published in Health Affairs.

The study… found that savings associated with patients avoiding dental caries in 2013 as a result of fluoridation were estimated to be about $6.8 billion, or $32.19 per person, for the more than 211 million people. …  Community water fluoridation is effective in helping to prevent caries, saves money and its “implementation and continuation should be given high consideration when assessing options to improve health and reduce health disparities,” the authors write.

The Pew Charitable Trusts funded this study

http://www.ada.org/en/publications/ada-news/2017-archive/march/savings-associated-with-community-water-fluoridation?nav=news

From FAN

Mar 22

East Brunswick, New Jersey

FAN refers with some pleasure to a recent  victory – the video ink to the 46 minute debate is repeated below

 (pop. 49,000): After two years of debate, public input, and diligent consideration, the Mayor and Council voted to end fluoridation after nearly 70 years of adding the chemical.  This victory is especially wonderful because prior to the vote, FAN’s very own Paul Connett, PhD participated in a locally televised debate against periodontist and former President of the New Jersey Dental Association, Richard Kahn, DDS.  This is certainly a humiliating loss for the fluoride lobby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLjGYbmX_tk

 

From FAN

Mar 22

On January 11, 2017, the EPA published a Proposed Rule in the Federal Registeron its decision to defer the Six-Year Review of fluoride for the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR). According to EPA, the purpose of a Six-Year Review is:

…to evaluate current information for regulated contaminants to determine if there is new information on health effects, treatment technologies, analytical methods, occurrence and exposure, implementation and/or other factors that provides a health or technical basis to support a regulatory revision that will improve or strengthen public health protection.

In the Proposed Rule, EPA stated its decision to forego a review:

The Agency has determined that a revision to the NPDWR for fluoride is not appropriate at this time. EPA acknowledges information regarding the exposure and health effects of fluoride (as discussed later in the “Health Effects” and “Occurrence and Exposure” sections). However, with EPA’s identification of several other significant NPDWRs as candidates for near-term revision (see Sections VI.B.3 and VI.B.4), potential revision of the fluoride NPDWR is a lower priority that would divert significant resources from the higher priority candidates for revision that the Agency has identified, as well as other high priority work within the drinking water office.

On March 13, FAN submitted comments to the U.S. EPA on their decision not to do a compulsory “Six-Year Review” of fluoride on the basis that it was a “Low priority and/or no meaningful opportunity” issue and requests the EPA’s Office of Water place an immediate moratorium on drinking water fluoridation in order to protect the health of the public while EPA finds the time to examine the material in this submission, as well as the submissions of others, including those submitted by Kathleen Thiessen PhD.

See Resource item 6

 

March 24, 2017 — SAN FRANCISCO –

Here is another example of only seeing figures that support your preconceived belief.

Have a good look at the charts at the start of this page.

Reducing community water fluoridation to 0.7 mg/L appears to be effective at reducing fluoride exposure while still preventing caries, according to research presented at the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) annual meeting.

Helen Whelton, BDS, MDPH, PhD.

A team of scientists from Ireland and the U.K. compared the caries incidence rates before and after Ireland lowered the recommended water fluoridation level from 0.8-0.9 mg/L to 0.6-0.8 mg/L in 2007. They found that the lower fluoridation rate did not increase caries levels.

“Caries levels did not increase following the reduction in fluoride levels, and there was no increase in caries between 2002 and 2013/2014,” said Helen Whelton, BDS, MDPH, PhD, in her presentation at the IADR annual meeting.

Dr. Whelton is a professor of dental public health and preventive dentistry and the dean of the University of Leeds School of Dentistry in the U.K.

Kids in fluoridated areas have fewer caries

After noticing an uptick in fluorosis, even among children who lived in areas without community water fluoridation, lawmakers in Ireland decided to lower the level of water fluoridation to an average of 0.7 mg/L, or parts per million (ppm), the same level the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services later recommended in 2015. Dr. Whelton and colleagues wanted to see if the reduced recommendation was still effective at preventing caries.

To find out, the researchers compared the caries levels of thousands of Irish children in 2002, five years before the recommendation change, and in 2014, seven years after the change. They also compared caries incidence for children in fluoridated and nonfluoridated counties. Caries incidence was measured by the number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT).

Mean DMFT for 5-year-olds

Mean DMFT for 12-year-olds

Caries levels either declined or stayed the same between 2002 and 2014, despite the lower level of fluoride. Therefore, 0.7 ppm appears to reduce fluoride exposure, while still keeping the dental benefits of community water fluoridation, the researchers concluded.

In addition, they found that caries levels were still dramatically lower for kids in fluoridated counties than those living in counties without community water fluoridation. In fact, living in an area with fluoridated water reduced the odds of a child having caries by about 46%.

What other factors might influence caries rates?

It is important to note that other factors besides community water fluoridation may have influenced caries levels over time. The researchers tried to account for as many factors as possible, including children being breastfed and drinking bottled water instead of tap water, but other factors might have influenced the study results. For instance, the recession may have impacted caries rates from 2007 onward, Dr. Whelton noted.

The research team will continue to monitor fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and caries rates over time, providing data to help understand and quantify the impact of community water fluoridation, she said. For now, though, it appears that fluoride at a level of 0.7 ppm can still effectively reduce caries incidence.

“Water fluoridation at 0.6-0.8 ppm is associated with lower caries prevalence compared with no exposure to water fluoridation,” the researchers concluded in their IADR study abstract.

ehttp://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=321307

What do you see?

1.Only 5 year-olds showed decreases in caries.

  1. Fluoridated and non –fluoridated 5 years old both have similar decreases in caries.
  2. In 12 year-olds, there was a significant decrease in non-fluoridated, but almist none in the fluoridated, area.
  3. The selected fluoridated areas had better teeth before the comparison started.
  4. Nothing to contradict the likelihood that, if reducing the amount of fluoride concentration made no difference, then further reductions would have the same effect – in other words, that the ‘optimal’ level  might be less, or more likely still, zero.

 

Canada

Peel Mississauga, ON

Peel water fluoridation opponents are pointing to the extensive environmental cleanup needed this week, after a Highway 401 pileup, to illustrate the serious health risks associated with the local water treatment practice.

The multi-vehicle collision in the westbound lanes of Highway 401 in Leeds and the Thousands Township occurred at about 2 p.m. on March 14.

It resulted in one death, dozens hurt and a 32-hour closure of a portion of the busy highway.

One transport truck involved leaked its cargo of hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA), a chemical produced from phosphorite rock that is commonly used in water fluoridation.

According to Ontario Provincial Police, the “toxic spill” resulted in a precautionary evacuation of the immediate area and seven firefighters, three police officers and 17 civilians were treated, as a precaution, for exposure to the chemical.

According to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the transport truck leaked about 7,000 litres of the chemical.The ministry helped co-ordinate cleanup and assessed containment and environmental impact.

A spokesperson said cleanup measures included collecting acid from the leaking containers, applying a stabilizer to neutralize acid that could not be pumped from the accident scene, and removal of contaminated soil and neutralized material.

Opponents of the water treatment, which received council go-ahead to continue last week after a contentious review, have insisted HFSA is a highly toxic byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process.

This unfortunate highway accident and resulting environmental scare is proof of how toxic the chemical is, according to the anti-fluoride lobby.

“HFSA is a clear and present danger in our water, on our roads and to the workers forced to handle it,” said Christine Massey, a local anti-fluoride activist. …

http://www.bramptonguardian.com/news-story/7195543-peel-anti-fluoride-lobby-spotlights-toxic-cleanup-needed-after-hwy-401-pileup/

Australia

You have been warned!

…Dr Michael Foley, spokesperson for the Australian Dental Association (ADA), … says councils are being bombarded by emails from highly organised and coordinated anti-fluoride campaigners. “The head guy in the world is called Paul Connett, a retired chemistry professor in upstate New York. [Connett and his supporters] will use every argument they can possibly think of. They accuse water fluoridation for being responsible for every medical condition of mankind, from brittle bones to kidney disease to heart disease to allergies.”

Foley says that any town “from north Queensland to California to New Zealand” that is considering or debating fluoridation will be targeted and inundated with slick and convincing information. “I

Local councillors are being bamboozled.  And for every letter that councillors get from the ADA or the AMA or the Health Department, they will get 10 or 50 from these people in a relentless campaign.

When Lismore Council put it to the vote in May last year, …the anti-fluoride people had run a vicious campaign. “…One of the local dentists, … had his rubbish bins overturned, he had rocks thrown on his house, he had abusive phone calls. He even had a female protester come up to his private dental practice when he had patients in the waiting room, and urinate on his front door step.”

 

Bega, New South Wales

Mar 15

Several Bega Valley dentists have spoken out against water fluoridation in a meeting with Bega Valley Shire Councillors.

On Monday, at a meeting run by Clean Water for Life attended by Crs Cathy Griff, Mitchell Nadin and Jo Dodds, they discussed what they saw as the dangers of fluoride.

Senior adviser to the Fluoride Action Network Professor Paul Connett also attended where he claimed there was only weak evidence that swallowing fluoride lowered tooth decay.

He said cases of tooth decay have been decreasing as fast in non-fluoridated countries as in fluoridated countries.

“As the standard of living goes up, tooth decay goes down,” he said.

Professor Connett said once governments put fluoride in water supplies they cannot control the dose or who it goes to. He said doing so violated an individual’s right to informed consent.

“Taking fluoride out at a tap is expensive and low income families can’t afford it,” he said.

He said over 300 animal and human studies had been done that showed fluoride was neurotoxic and while they were not “100 per cent perfect” they were still red flags that should make governments question whether to use the mineral in water supplies.

…Bega Valley dentist Maria Claudianos also gave a presentation on her research into fluoride.  “It’s reckless as you can’t control how much a person takes on a daily basis,” she said.

She said 50 per cent of the fluoride you ingest is absorbed into the body and if you take too much you can develop dental or skeletal fluorosis.

Dentist David Stern has worked in the Bega area for the last 17 years and said he has not observed any difference in rates of tooth decay for children or adults in regards to whether they live in fluoridated or non-fluoridated parts of the shire.

Another local dentist, Karl Weinberger, echoed this statement saying he had worked as a dentist for the last 26 years in different states around Australia and he had not seen any difference in rates of tooth decay between such areas.

“I’ve seen more cases of dental fluorisis in fluoridated areas,” he said.

Cr Griff said the presentation had raised serious doubts for her about the safety of fluoride.

The submission period on the proposal to fluoridate the shire’s water supplies has been extended to April 7. To comment, visit www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au and scroll down to “Have Your Say”.

Do you agree with fluoride being added to our drinking water?

Yes
No
Need more information
Don’t care

Results of poll: Yes 22% No 73% Need info 3%

22.5 – 73.7 % on April 5th,

http://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/4530121/fluoride-use-a-murky-subject/

The submission period on the proposal to fluoridate the shire’s water supplies has been extended to April 7. To comment, visit www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au and scroll down to “Have Your Say”.

http://www.edenmagnet.com.au/story/4533032/water-fluoridation-science-strongly-shows-no-negative-effects/

 

New Zealand

Rotarua

Mar 16

…Rotorua district councillor and anti-fluoride activist Charles Sturt had his submission heard by the health select committee in Wellington yesterday. The committee was set up as the next step in passing a bill to allow district health boards, rather than local councils, make decisions and give directions about the fluoridation of drinking water supplies in their areas.

Speaking to the Rotorua Daily Post Mr Sturt said it was his strong views against fluoride that resulted in his resignation from the Lakes District Health Board (DHB) last June.

“There is fluoride in the water in Taupo but has the number of cavities gone down? Are dentists leaving town because there’s no work? No. The problem is sugar and fluoride isn’t the answer.

“Twice in 20 years there has been referendums about fluoride and twice the people of Rotorua have said they do not want it in their water supply. I am presenting to the standing committee what the community wants. The concerns people have should be taken into account.”

The second reading of the bill will follow the select committee hearings.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503438&objectid=11818551

 

Fluoride |Free NZ:

Mar 18

 

.

Press West Coast

Councils vulnerable to activist lobbying are pushing for the Ministry of Health to take over decision-making powers on the future of water fluoridation.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/90465423/councils-push-for-health-ministry-to-take-over-national-powers-on-water-fluoridation

The latest published data (2015) from the NZ School Dental statistics show no difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. They also show that Non-Fluoridated Christchurch and Canterbury Region has better teeth than MOST of the fluoridated areas of NZ. 26% better than Auckland and 19% better that the whole of NZ fluoridated average!

Every year the Ministry of Health publish data from the the NZ School Dental Statistics which give the number of 5 year old children and number of Year 8 children with no dental decay, and the average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth for those with some dental decay.

Data for 5 year olds show the same trend, with big improvements in the non-fluoridated areas and not much improvement in the fluoridated areas. Non-fluoridated areas are on course to have better statistics than fluoridated areas. More information on this can be found on our website under the drop down menu “Dental Health”.

You have to wonder if the urgency to fluoridate all of New Zealand is not being driven, at least in part, by a desire to cover-up this embarrassing fact

On their hearings in NZ parliament

Thanks so much to all the people that put in written submissions and especially to those who are speaking to one of the sub-committees as well. The presentations have been very professional and this shows we know our stuff.

The NZ Herald was able to find out the number of people giving oral presentation: 60 organisations and 140 individuals. Note: they got the number of councils completely wrong. Only 23 councils out of 67 have any fluoridation.

This Thursday, recently retired dentist Dr John Jukes, spoke to Select Committee Chair, Simon O’Connor and Julie Ann Genter, Green party MP and representative on the Committee. This was the first time I saw any of the members ask any substantial questions of the presenter and it was shocking to hear the obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

It seems the members do not know basic information like how many countries fluoridate, that most other countries do not have higher naturally occurring fluoride than NZ, that European countries have chosen not to, that dental fluorosis is not just cosmetic, and no doubt, they don’t even know how much dental decay there is in the country.

It shows that at least some of the members have not even read our material. We have to show them that we will not vote for them if they support this Bill. That seems to be the only way to get these people to listen. Please write to all of the MPs and post on their Facebook pages voicing your opposition. At this stage of the Bill process – National, Labour and The Greens still support the Bill and support fluoridation. NZ First oppose the Bill but want it to be decided by local referenda. We need one of these parties to have the intelligence to say that dental health should be treated by good public dental health programmes such as the Scottish CHILDSMILE programme. We need assurance from NZ First that they will make fluoridation a condition to collation.

Mar 23

People opposed to fluoridation will hold a demonstration outside Parliament on Wednesday 22nd March, starting at 1pm, after the oral presentations to the Health Select Committee Rural councils are unhappy about a Bill putting district health boards in charge of fluoridation, as the additive could mean big costs for rural schemes with only a few connections.

In its submission on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, Waimate Mayor Craig Rowley says the district’s rural water schemes are already ”struggling” to meet drinking water standards.

”Waimate District Council feels strongly that the Bill in its current form would impose undue costs on small rural councils.

”We believe that the health benefits of meeting these standards far outweigh the health benefits of fluoridation.

If the Bill goes through, the costs should fall on health boards, the submission says.

In the South, where the elected board was removed two years ago, commissioner Kathy Grant will make the fluoride decision for the region if the Bill becomes law.

The Bill does not introduce mandatory fluoridation. However, the DHBs’ public health units are uniformly in favour of it.

Mr Rowley told the Otago Daily Times the additive would cost $10,000 to establish in each of the district’s six water schemes, and then a similar cost per unit each year for maintenance.

Those costs would be felt, ”particularly when you’ve got some of our rural water schemes that only have a very limited number of users”.

Five of Waimate’s schemes are rural, and on those, most of the water was used for stock.

”We were unsure of what the effect is of having fluoridated water going to the likes of dairy sheds,” Mr Rowley said.

Southland Mayor Gary Tong said the council did not make a submission on the Bill, but it was also concerned.

”My understanding is that while the dosing costs may be minimal, the set-up of the equipment can be expensive.”

The Southern District Health Board is in favour, and its submission said fluoride resulted in a 40% reduction in tooth decay.

”Community water fluoridation is cost-effective; for every dollar spent on fluoridation, $9 is saved in dental care costs.”

The Dunedin City Council made a submission in favour of the Bill, but it, too, suggested the costs should fall on DHBs.

”The Dunedin City Council supports the intent of the proposed Bill and the provision of decision-making powers on the fluoridation of water supplies to district health boards, as the purpose of fluoridation is for health purposes.”

The Bill attracted more than 1300 submissions, some of which will be heard by the health select committee today. The committee is working through the submissions and will report back in June.

The Bill has passed its first reading.

eileen.goodwin@odt.co.nz

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/central-otago/fluoridation-bill-worries-councils

 

Kenya

 

A reminder that there are parts of the world desperate to get rid of ‘natural’ fluoride

Mar 14

The parliamentary Committee on Budget has promised to set aside funds in the 2017-18 financial year to resolve the problem of high fluoride content in water consumed in Naivasha.

This emerged when members of the committee held a public hearing in ACK Hall, Naivasha, where the issue dominated discussion. Residents said they have suffered for years because of high levels of fluoride in water.

“Our children cannot be employed in the hospitality and security sectors due to the coloured teeth, a condition caused by high fluoride levels,” resident James Mburu said.

Reacting to the calls, Kipipiri MP Samuel Gichigi said the problem is sensitive. He said they will recommend that the state allocates funds to construct a dam in Nyandarua county to serve Naivasha residents.

“The main issue that came from this meeting is water and as a committee, we shall make sure the government allocates funds for a water dam to resolve the problem,” he said.

Gichigi criticised the defunct Transitional Authority for failing ito educate the electorate on the duties of the national and county governments.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/03/14/house-to-allocate-funds-to-resolve-teeth-browning-water-problem_c1523874