Reports and Research
See item 9
Sections 1 to 6 are copied or extracted from reports from Fluoride Action Network who have produced several important reports and releases m in recent weeks
1. Video link from FAN
Conference video: Michael Connett on the legal action now under way.Why TSCA? What EPA has been doing. What is the basis of the case under TSCA: the hazard and the risk of harm. A MUST SEE video, app. 22 minutes.
2 The dangers of fluoridation by Robert C. Dickson, and Hardy Limeback,
Dr. Dickson and Dr. Limeback ‘s OpEd includes: fluoride’s impact on IQ, the costs of the practice versus the potential benefits, and the ongoing concerns about fluoride’s effect on IQ and the cost of fluoridation that far exceeds its claimed benefit
The fluoridation debate is still very much alive in Calgary, where pro-fluoridation advocates have had a field day, citing claims that seemingly support their position. Many of those claims are either misleading or completely incorrect.
A recent letter in the Calgary Herald signed by 22 dentists, doctors, academics and periodontists claimed, “more than 3,000 peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective and support its safety.”
In fact, not a single properly conducted drug trial (randomized, double-blinded) has ever been conducted on fluoridation. The globally respected Cochrane Collaboration found a meagre 19 valid non-randomized studies, all with weaker designs. Only three of those were conducted since 1975.
The letter also claimed “fluoride is 26 to 44 per cent effective in reducing cavities.” This is based on old, weak science. At most, the benefit from fluoridation is perhaps one filling saved per person over 40 years.
Calgary city council decided in 2011 to eliminate fluoridation, a decision that was supported by four previous plebiscites.
The move is both a cost-saver and good for children. It would cost Calgarians at least $50 million to fluoridate for 40 years. That’s about $450 in taxes per filling, much more than the cost of a filling. And worse, many children will end up with dental fluorosis (in the U.S., where fluoridation is common, fluorosis in teens has skyrocketed to 58 per cent), a problem that local dentists state can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Thus, the cost of fluoridation far exceeds its claimed benefit.
Fluoridation advocates also claimed fluoride occurs naturally in Calgary water at concentrations of 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million (ppm), and that fluoridation merely entails topping it up to 0.7 ppm. If Calgary’s water supply already contains up to 0.4 ppm naturally, then ‘topping it up to 0.7 ppm’ will do little to prevent cavities, especially when there are so many other proven sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste, dental treatments and inexpensive prescriptions.
These claims are based on research led by Dr. Lindsay McLaren, published in February 2016. But that research was unable to show an effect of fluoridation cessation after 2011 in Calgary. The study itself noted it had many limitations.
Why, then, do some dentists and orthodontists in Calgary claim that things are much worse since fluoridation was discontinued? Such a claim is anecdotal and unscientific, and not all dentists agree with it. Policy should be made not on claims but on properly conducted clinical study.
There are also concerns about fluoride’s effect on IQ.
A study published on Sept. 19, 2017, and funded by the National Institutes of Health, showed pregnant mothers in Mexico, with fluoride consumption at similar levels as pregnant mothers when Calgary was fluoridated, had offspring with significantly lowered IQ. This carefully controlled study raises serious questions about the safety of fluoridation for infants.
Dentists in Alberta – who are not toxicologists – continue to push for fluoridation when nearly all communities in B.C., Quebec and Europe have eliminated the practice. Perhaps citizens and professionals in those jurisdictions know something Calgary dentists don’t.
In fact, more than 4,000 professionals worldwide have publicly called for an end to fluoridation.
Well-intentioned fluoridation proponents say they’re helping children and the poor. Ironically, and sadly, it’s infants, kids, the underprivileged, the chronically ill, elderly and people of colour who are most susceptible to harm from fluoridation.
Medical science has frequently made errors. Medical and dental associations have endorsed smoking, asbestos, lead, BPA, mercury, thalidomide, Vioxx and many others. Just as they were wrong then, they’re wrong again.
Fluoride, after all, is not necessary for any body function, unlike calcium, vitamins B and D, or iodine, which are essential to health, or chlorination, which kills organisms before they reach our bodies.
Let’s roll up our sleeves and create the equivalent of Scotland’s Child Smile program, which has shown spectacular results since 2001 in improving dental health and overall health for their children.
Together we can make a major impact on the well-being of our children without medicating our water.
Robert C. Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP, is a community physician in Calgary and is the founder of Safe Water Calgary (www.safewatercalgary.com). Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, is the recently retired head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto.
*Original article online at http://troymedia.com/2018/01/28/fluoride-pointless-health-risk/
January 29, 2018, The Bulletin, Journal of Downtown Toronto
3 Second major setback for EPA in fluoride lawsuit under TSCA
Court rebuffs attempt to limit scope in review of citizen petition A federal judge has handed the US EPA its second defeat, in a lawsuit that could end up setting precedent for how the judiciary handles citizen petitions for chemical regulation under TSCA.
The lawsuit, brought by a group of NGOs demanding the EPA ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water, asks the court to examine the EPA’s dismissal of their petition.
The latest ruling rebuffed the agency’s demand to limit the scope of the court’s review to information originally presented to it in administrative proceedings. The decision allows plaintiffs to offer a broad range of evidence to bolster their case, and to demand that the EPA provide additional information, things it argued they should not be allowed to do….
Learned comment from the National Law Review
Federal Court Issues Key Decision on NGO Challenge to Use of Fluoride in Water
and FAN’.s comment
Lawsuit Update Mar 2
More exciting news for the concerned citizens around the world working tirelessly to educate Municipal Councillors and Government officials on the dangers of ingested fluoride aka Hydrofluorosilicic Acid added to the drinking water supply….
…Re: February 7, 2018: Order Denying Defendant’s [EPA] Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record
Our attorney, Michael Connett, noted: “If you look at the legislative history, Congress wanted a robust mechanism for citizen oversight over EPA. This court’s decision highlights for environmental groups that Congress created a powerful tool.” (Inside EPA, Feb 20,2018)
…We can now include the major 12-year study by Bashash et al. published in September 2017. This study is critical in demonstrating that fluoride is neurotoxic and has no place in the public water supply.
4 The Second in- utero IQ Study
This study by Valdez Jiménez et al. was published in March 2017 in the journal Neurotoxicology and titled: In utero exposure to fluoride and cognitive development delay in infants. This study, like the Bashash study, was done in Mexico with mother-child pairs. Some of the differences between the two studies are:
- this study had fewer participants (65 mother-baby pairs vs 300 mother-child pairs)
- the IQ testing took place between the ages of 3 to 15 months (vs 4 years and 6-12 years of age)
- Unlike the Bashash study, this study took place in an area with high naturally occurring levels of fluoride in the drinking water (called endemic hydrofluorosis areas). Over 81.5% of the samples of tap water were above 1.5 mg/l with the highest value of 12.5 mg/.
- 33.8% of the births were pre-term. The authors stated, “We found higher levels of F in urine across trimester in premature compared with full term.” There was no mention of pre-term births in the Bashash study. (See more on preterm, Gurumurthy et al. 2011; Susheela et al. 2010; Hart et al. 2009).
Results: The authors state, “In this study near to 60% of the children consumed contaminated water and the prevalence of children with IQ below 90 points was 25% in the control group (F urine 1.5 mg/g creatinine) in comparison with the 58% of children in the exposed group (F urine >5 mg/g creatinine)…Our data suggests that cognitive alterations in children born from exposed mothers to F could start in early prenatal stages of life.”
5 The Bashash study
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this study, especially since it was funded by these U.S. agencies: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA.
The authors from several universities in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, followed over 300 mother-child pairs in Mexico City for a 12-year period. They found a strong relationship between the mothers’ exposure to fluoride (as measured in their urine) and lowered IQ in their offspring at 4 and again at 6-12 years of age. The urine levels of the pregnant woman in the study were the same as is found in pregnant women in the U.S. (0.5 to 1.5 mg/Liter, or ppm). At these levels the authors reported a loss of 6 IQ points.
The lead investigator of this study, Dr. Howard Hu from the University of Toronto, commented on the study in the Canadian National Post: “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children.”
This study adds another level of scientific rigor to our case. We should never deliberately expose an unborn child or bottle-fed infant to a known neurotoxic (i.e. brain-damaging) substance but that is precisely what we are doing every day with water fluoridation.
Our TSCA lawsuit is attempting to force the US EPA to end this reckless practice. As Michael Connett stated in response to EPA’s attempt to dismiss our case: “in a nation besieged by neurological disorders of poorly understood etiology, both in young children and the elderly, minimizing exposures to known neurotoxic substances must be a public health priority [page 4].”
6 Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico
Environmental Health Perspectives;
A reminder of the link to this crucial research
7 Fluorosis demonstrates toxicity
A FAN Press release on the 73rd anniversary of the start of the first scheme at Grand Rapids, Michigan, and National Children’s Dental Health Month February). With a request to read and share the Release
Children are fluoride overdosed, from all sources, at levels once thought to protect against dental fluorosis (discolored teeth), researchers report in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry, (December 2017), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Fluoride intake to prevent dental fluorosis was set in the 1930s and 40s when naturally fluoridated water was the predominant source, reports Bhagavatula et al. “The number of sources of fluoride has increased substantially and so has the prevalence of dental fluorosis,” they write.
Bhagavatula found 30% of 13-year-olds in the ongoing Iowa Fluoride Study had fluorosis including most who consumed fluoride at levels once considered “optimal” to prevent fluoride-discolored teeth. More children are probably afflicted since children with only one fluorosed tooth were excluded. Four of the 437 children had moderate or severe fluorosis.
Ninety-five percent were non-Hispanic white from higher socio-economic families. Fluorosis rates may be higher in the general population. Also, fluorosis is more prevalent in the black community.
Some children consumed over recommended doses but didn’t have fluorosis, “indicating differences in susceptibility to dental fluorosis,” they report.
Adding fluoride to water–fluoridation–began 73 years ago, promising to substantially reduce tooth decay with perhaps 10% afflicted with very mild dental fluorosis.
“Both promises were broken. Many are ingesting too much fluoride as evidenced by an increase of moderate/severe dental fluorosis from 4% to 23% in one decade.” says Dentist Bill Osmunson, FAN Director.
Senator Bernie Sanders declared a dental health crisis in 2015 even though over 70% of US drinking water systems are fluoridated.
Osmunson says, “One size doesn’t fit all. Dental fluorosis, often dismissed as merely cosmetic, is really the visible evidence of fluoride toxicity. Coupled with new disturbing evidence that fluoride and/or fluorosis are linked to cognitive decline, it’s time to stop artificially fluoridating water supplies. Put fluoride back in doctors’ offices where it can be better controlled.”
Bhagavatula admits most researchers believe fluoride’s primary cavity-preventing mechanism is topical, not by ingestion.
However, fluoride ingestion causes fluorosis.
Osmunson says, “We have to reduce our fluoride exposure. HHS recommendation to reduce fluoride concentration in water was a good start, but inadequate.”
Bhagavatula writes, “The clinical presentation of dental fluorosis ranges from almost imperceptible white lacy striations in milder forms to brownish discoloration and/or confluent pitting in severe cases.”
Osmunson adds, “Increased dental caries occurs with moderate/severe fluorosis.”
Further comment to the New York Times Science Staff on their indifference to Fluoridation
As Aldous Huxley pointed out, the tragedy of science is that a beautiful hypothesis can always be destroyed by an ugly fact. In the case of water fluoridation many ugly facts have emerged over the last 25 years, including 52 IQ studies.
… the study by Bashash et al. (2017), funded by U.S. government agencies has… reported an astonishing loss of 5 to 6 IQ points which correlated with fluoride urine levels ranging from 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L in pregnant mothers. These are the same levels in adults reported in U.S. communities with fluoridated drinking water (0.6 and 1.5 mg/L)…
8 Featured letters
First, an excellent experience-based letter in response to an earlier article from Delta Discovery, Anchorage, Alaska
Feb 1 “Imagine” writes Angelica Afcan in Speak Your Mind, December 13, 2017. Imagine no front teeth she writes. Sad to say, the truth is dental health is a serious concern to rural Alaskan residents. Her solution is based on myths that somehow fluoride ingestion remineralizes the surface of the teeth. This myth is a not universally accepted by researchers who say topically fluoride might help, but the concentration of ingested fluoridated water and resulting saliva fluoride levels is much too low by a factor of 95,000X. Latest studies show CWF has not helped Australian children as she claims. Many communities are discontinuing water fluoridation there. Worldwide, 97% of populations do not contaminate their water with fluoride industrial waste.
MYTH: a widely held but false belief or idea.
Unbiased science challenges the myths of which we all have had many: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and (I respectfully ask you to consider to include) Community Water Fluoridation (CWF).
CWF was promoted in the 1940’s as a miracle dental treatment and determined ‘safe and effective’ long before sufficient honest data was collected. Studies included those paid for by the sugar, dental, fertilizer, and nuclear power industries have continued to support the CWF myth. Money perpetuates the fluoride myth. Fluoride is a known toxin, accumulates in bones (not just teeth) lifelong. I know because at 64 years old, daughter of a military dentist who enthusiastically supported fluoride consumption. My bone fluoride, measured from hip replacement in 2013, was 1500Xthe concentration of fluoride in water. I have suffered many ailments from overexposure to fluoride starting with dental fluorosis proceeding to GERD, hyperparathyroidism, thyroid goiter, kidney stones etc.
My health has improved as documented in lab reports by avoiding fluoride. My accumulative fluoride body level was never monitored by the cities practicing CWF, my dentist, or employer at water treatment plant. With CWF, you have no idea of your actual dose depending on how much you drink, how much food eaten prepared with fluoridated water and dosed with fluoridated pesticides, or how much you are consuming in drugs and dental products.
Ms. Afcan was educated by institutions that are still perpetuating the antiquated CWF myth. Much of her article is directly out of their mind set.
The truth is loss of front teeth or baby bottle mouth is a result of bottles of sugary juices or milk left in an infants’ mouth increasing food available for microbes that cause dental decay to flourish. Microbes can infect the child from food fed them that was chewed by others with active dental decay. Your dental professional telling you baby bottle mouth is caused by lack of CWF are incorrect. Their advice is in error if it does not emphasis brushing and better nutrition and limiting contact with sugars and processed foods. You are being done a disservice by any medical professional that remains mired down in mythology about fluoride.
With their poor advice repeated by Ms. Afcan about the “miracle” of CWF you might be less inclined follow better advice. You may feel you have an excuse to blame the poor dental health of your child on lack of CWF, when you need to take responsibility for their wellbeing.
We must do all we can to give our babies the best chance of health.
Good nutrition and proper brushing are known to give our children good oral health. Mother’s milk has hundreds of times less fluoride than fluoridated water. Nature has deemed low fluoride is best. Breast feeding is best even when commercial interests tried to convince you formula is more scientific (another industrial myth). Children should not even have fluoridated toothpaste under 6 years old because it causes increased risks of unsightly dental fluorosis. Recent credible research links consumption of fluoride in pregnant women to reduced IQ in infants. Any lower dental decay rates in children with CWF is from impaired thyroid function causing delay of tooth eruption into the oral cavity, delaying exposure to decay. Decay rates are comparable after 17 years with or without CWF as evident comparing national rates with and without CWF.
Shame on Ms. Afcan living in Hooper Bay, Alaska, site of the May 1992 CWF accident that killed Dominic Smith and sent about 300 there to the hospital. Perhaps Ms. Afcan should talk to current residents that still think their chronic kidney ailments resulted from that event. Fluoride is a poison: fluoride kills acutely, sickens at high doses, and chronically poisons in any amount, harming infants the most.
Don’t fall to Ms. Afcan’s reiterated industrial myth, “Fluoride in small amounts will only add the benefit of preventing cavities for our people.” She dismisses current research based on her notion CWF is in a much lower range, I testify as a professional chemist certified in fluoride analysis, she is wrong in this assessment. We are being overexposed by fluoride in the US as evidenced by increasing rates of dental fluorosis which is the reason the recommended level of CWF was lowered from 1.2 to 0.7 ppm in 2011.
Do not believe in imagined myths based on distorted research funded by industry, seek the facts and act now to stop (never start) Community Water Fluoridation.
Susan Kanen, Biochemist
Next, a good simple letter from Jack Crowther, followed by much trolling. From the Rutland Herald ( Vermont) February 23, 2018
Fluoridation can be solved . Here’s the thing: Fluoridation is not Rutland’s biggest problem, but it is Rutland’s most cheaply and easily solved problem.
Economic development, the tax burden, education, population decline, infrastructure, drugs, rental housing costs, and workforce training, to name a few, are all issues that need our best efforts. Progress on these issues will create the proverbial tide that raises all boats.
By contrast, fluoridation of our public water supply is the undertow that works against many of our efforts to move forward. Though it seems like a single issue, fluoridation can and does influence others.
— May very well be costing our children IQ points and doing other neurological damage. Smarter, healthier kids will make a better Rutland.
— Is almost certainly disrupting the formation of tooth enamel in children, producing structurally weaker teeth and mottling and leading to dental expense later on. Any benefit of fluoride is more safely provided using fluoride toothpaste and then spitting it out. Better dental health is cheaper and improves the quality of life.
— Is almost certainly producing negative health effects, from reduced thyroid function, to gastrointestinal irritation, to hormonal and enzymatic disruption, to brittle bones. Healthier people are happier and more productive and have more disposable income.
— Is a systemic poison, affecting individuals in many ways over varying time frames, often escaping blame for the mischief it creates. Medicating a whole city with the drug fluoride without individuals’ informed consent is its own indictment.
All it takes to end fluoridation is turning off a valve. Let’s do that now and continue the collective effort to produce the tide that raises all boats.
(Candidate for alderman
Finally an extract from another good letter focusing on the lack of evidence found by Cochrane and the dangers including reminds us of the conclusion ,
…“It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” This corroborates results of the 2006 National Research Council’s review of fluoride, which revealed that fluoride harms bodily systems including musculoskeletal, reproductive, neurological, endocrine, gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, and immune, and also causes heart disorders and cancer.
Cathy Justus Pagosa Springs, CO
9 Burke and Yiamouyiannis revisited
Now here’s some good advice from an writer from Oberon Australian
. Check the link below
IF any Oberon resident still thinks that fluoridation of the town’s water supply is a good idea, I suggest you listen to what Dr Dean Burk had to say about it 50 years ago.
Who’s Dr Burk? He was the head of the National Cancer Institute in the United States of America. In the 1960s and 70s he gave a number of interviews, after researching cancer for around 40 years, in which he stated that fluoridation equates to murder on a grand scale, because of the massive increase in cancer rates caused by fluoridation.
or go to “Youtube” and do a search for Dr Dean Burk.
The chart mentioned is available from SWIS.
Remember that Burkes’s assertion of the cancer-producing effects of fluoridation was tested in law and completely accepted. See also the presentation by Yiamouyiannis shown at the recent UKFFFA conference, where the number of deaths were counted.
See chart at head of March Research and reports.
Go to ukfffa.org for the full list of films.
|10.New Study on Fluoride’s Negative Effect on Thyroid
Another study has been published on fluoride’s negative effect on the human thyroid.. Distributed by Fluoride Free New Zealand, quoting From UK Against fluoridation: but the source is unclear at the moment.
…This finding is consistent with the Peckham study in England, which reported OR = 1.5 (CI 95%: 1.16–2) for hypothyroidism, where the maximum fluoride concentration was more than 0.7 mg/L. However, it is not clear due to the small difference in the concentration of fluoride, as can be seen from the correlation between fluoride in drinking water and the TSH hormone as shown in Table 232.
Conclusion and Recommendation
This paper compares measurements of the average amount of thyroid hormones (T3, T4, and TSH) in people with thyroid disease (specifically, hypothyroidism) and people without thyroid disease, with respect to fluoride concentrations in two levels 0–0.29 and 0.3–0.5 (mg/L) in drinking water and several other variables (gender, family history, water consumption, exercise, other disease conditions).
The major finding of this study is that TSH values are higher with a higher fluoride concentration in the drinking water, even for generally low fluoride concentrations. This is seen both in cases of untreated hypothyroidism and in controls..
There is a pending bill in the state Senate (S. 1226) that proposes to ban the fluoridation of drinking water in all of Massachusetts
Letter supporting the bill Followed by long string of comments with Slott and Johnson in full voice
Edgarton, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts
The Edgartown board of health will be holding a forum for the public to learn about the value of community water fluoridation.
…Edgartown voters were angered in November when Edgartown board of health members Harold Zadeh and Dr. Garrett Orazem voted 2-1 in favor of adding fluoride to the water. Board of health member Kathie Case abstained.
The decision on whether to add fluoride to the town water supply will be up to the voters on the Edgartown annual town ballot on April 12….
…The debate has … surfaced in Newport with a single, albeit passionate, fluoride opponent in resident Kyle Hence.
…“This is an industrial waste product, a poison and a known developmental neuro-toxin,” Hence wrote in a statement. He points to studies that conclude ingesting fluoride can have negative health effects and argues that governments do not have the authority to “medicate” residents without their consent.
The addition of fluoride to the trace amount that naturally occurs in water is the “most efficient way to prevent one of the most common childhood diseases — tooth decay,” counters the American Dental Association in its “Fluoridation Facts” published in 2006.
Hence has taken his argument to City Hall, where he has petitioned the City Council to have the Newport Water Division stop fluoridating its water. The office, a division of the city’s Department of Utilities, treats and delivers water to Newport, Middletown, the southwestern corner of Portsmouth and Naval Station Newport….
… Board of Supervisors Chairman Greg Benton said he’s still interested in surveying residents about fluoridated water and putting what he described as an “informational statement and/or warning” on water bills.
“I do not believe the vote … precludes either of these for discussion or for being done and I would like to do this in the very near future so we can put this to rest for good,” Benton wrote in an email Feb. 15, two days after the Board of Supervisors voted 4–3 to continue what is known as “community water fluoridation…
Springfield, Clark County, Ohio
Springfield residents won’t vote at the polls to add fluoride to its public water supply in May, but the issue could be placed on the ballot in November.
Springfield city commissioners rejected this week an emergency ordinance to allow the issue to be placed on the ballot in May. The commission needed four votes for the resolution to pass as an emergency but Commissioners Kevin O’Neill and Joyce Chilton voted against it …
Feb 18 — City officials in central Ohio are considering fluoridating the municipal water supply to combat poor dental health.
The Springfield News-Sun Clark County Health Commissioner Charles Patterson urges Springfield city commissioners to allow a referendum vote in November on fluoridating the water supply. …
Both Dorval and Pointe-Claire mayors have been briefed by Montreal and told there are no plans to discontinue the fluoridation of water at the Pointe-Claire treatment plant once Montreal’s 10-year overhaul of water distribution in the Lachine and Dorval sectors is complete.
… the water treatment plants in Lachine and Dorval would be shut down and 23 km of new pipes installed to link Lachine up with plants in the Sud-Ouest and LaSalle boroughs and Dorval to the treatment plant in Pointe-Claire.
…What separates Dorval and Pointe-Claire from the Montreal pack is that the two municipalities add fluoride to the drinking water and Montreal, which includes the borough of Lachine, never has….
Should the Town of Parry Sound fluoridate the municipal water supply? When heading to the polls in October, voters casting their ballots for councillors and mayor will also be asked to answer this question: “Are you in favour of the fluoridation of the public water supply of this municipality?”
…After a lengthy debate spearheaded by a group of concerned citizens, Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management, fluoridation of the town’s water supply ended temporarily on March 18, 2016, under the condition that the question be posted on the 2018 municipal election ballot, asking ratepayers whether they want the town to continue to fluoridate its water.
Feb 20 Sarnians will get another kick at the fluoride can when a public meeting is held on Monday, Feb. 26. The meeting is a necessary step for council to put the question on October’s municipal election ballot.
Mayor Mike Bradley, who has long argued fluoridation is a question best put to the people, raised the issue last week…. The deadline to add questions to the ballot is March 1.
If approved, residents would be asked if they are in favour of removing fluoride from municipal drinking water….
Feb 26 …, Mayor Mike Bradley reminded council chambers the debate was about whether or not to ask voters their opinions via plebiscite, not to argue the merits or hazards of fluoride in drinking water….
We did not see the survey, either, but it seems this old trick is still doing the rounds
The survey conducted by the Bega Valley Council on fluoridating our water supply was flawed. The question asked if you want fluoride in the water to prevent tooth decay. It didn’t ask if you want poor health as a consequence. I didn’t receive a phone call about the survey nor did anyone I know. The survey should have been sent out to all ratepayers. Fluoride is far more effective in toothpaste than drinking water will ever be and our health won’t suffer as a consequence. And it goes without saying that fluoridation is an expense the ratepayers don’t need thrust upon them.
Brad Staker, Merimbula
This town has made its oposition clear to no avail, with the infamous lsurvey’ based on a leading question, still being used.
General manager at Bega Valley Shire Council Leanne Barnes said council will be taking the next steps to have the fluoridation program extended to Tantawanglo-Kiah and Brogo-Bermagui water supplies following the council meeting on Wednesday, February 21.
“We will now go back to the Secretary of NSW Health to say council has resolved to add fluoride to the water supplies,” Ms Barnes said adding that while it may come back to council as an operational process it would no longer be a matter for debate.
The decision has been more than 10 years in the making and at the council meeting there was two hours of debate, and presentations by members of the community. The debate was marked by many loud interruptions from the gallery, with Mayor Kristy McBain rising on several occasions to ask for respect from the public members.
…Several speakers raised the issue of the survey, saying the way the question was framed was biased, with Anthony Herford calling it “one of the most obvious cases of push polling I have seen” and Fraser Buchanan saying it was contrived.
Speakers also referred to safety fears for pregnant mothers and young babies ingesting fluoridated water …In the debate by councillors, Cathy Griff called for a delay to see the results of the circuit court and the Gunnedah matter.
…But the motion for delay did not get support and councillor Tony Allen proposed the matter be dealt with at the time and added that his mind was made up by the information he had heard.
…“It comes down to the peoples right to choose. We can do dental health education. Sugar is the issue. This is a sad day for Bega Valley Shire,” Cr Griff said.
… The vote passed in a 6-2 majority decision, with only councillors Jo Dodds and Cathy Griff voting against it. Cr Mitchell Nadin was absent.
The council will now write to the NSW Department of Health to seek the go-ahead to add fluoride to the Tantawangalo-Kiah and Brogo-Bermagui town water supplies. Fluoride has been added to the Bega-Tathra water supply system since 1963.
NSW state government paid for everything.
The decision of Council comes on the back of a detailed community information process and a recent community survey that was undertaken to determine a statistically valid community view on the subject.
Conducted by the Social Research Centre (SRC), a business unit of the Australian National University, the survey asked “Do you agree with adding fluoride to the public drinking supply to try to prevent tooth decay?”
The results of the survey were made publicly available on 29 January, with the key results being:
More than half of the residents surveyed rely on the public water supply as their normal source of drinking water (57.5 per cent). The second most common source was rainwater (24.6 per cent).
In response to the survey question, 66.2 per cent responded ‘yes’, 28.4 per cent responded ‘no’, 5.2 per cent were unsure and only 0.2 per cent preferred not to respond.,,,
Yanchep, Perth, Western Australia
YANCHEP tapped into Perth’s main fluoridated water supply several weeks ago.
A Health Department spokeswoman confirmed this month that fluoridation of the suburb’s drinking water supply started in December.
Yanchep resident Melanie Waldron said she felt “bitterly let down” because Water Corporation had promised a public announcement as to when the fluoridation would take place….
New South Wales
On Tuesday (February 13), Labor introduced legislation in the NSW Parliament to create tough new fluoride laws it claims would ‘override the anti-fluoride movement’ and effectively force councils like Byron Shire to fluoridate their water….
But Mr Secord’s claims have been refuted by Fluoride Free Northern Rivers (FFNR) spokesperson Al Oshlack, who said his move risked Labor’s chances for election in the region with his ‘fanatical support for fluoride’.
‘I told Walt that what he is doing by carrying on like this – coming after people on the North Coast – puts Labor at risk of holding those state seats, Mr Oshlack told Echonetdaily.
He added that lumping fluoride opponents with anti-vaxxers was ‘insulting’
Mr Oshlack said the group had ‘four clear reasons for opposing fluoride’.
‘It doesn’t work; it’s not ethical; it’s actually illegal, as it’s not been approved as a therapeutic substance by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA); and there have been systemic breakdowns in many fluoride plants, including here in the Northern Rivers,’ he said.
From the NZ Herald, one of a number of articles about Paul Connett’s tour and meeting in the Parliament
Professor Paul Connett, executive director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, says water and fluoride don’t go together. He chats to Mark Story ahead of his visit to Napier.
What are your three primary objections to the compulsory fluoridation of public drinking water?
a) It violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medical or human treatment.
b) The evidence that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay by a significant amount is very weak.
c) The fluoride ion is toxic and can interfere with many biological processes in the body.
You’re soon to be presenting to the New Zealand Government. What does this entail?
I shall present a summary of the scientific evidence that associates fluoride exposure with damage to the brain. I have followed this evidence since 1996 when I first got involved with this matter.
Our local DHB is pro-fluoride. How is it that medical professionals can interpret the science so differently?
First you have to ask how much research the medical professionals have done on this issue. Many are so busy in their own practices. Second, you have to ask if they belong to a government agency or professional body that promotes fluoridation. Bureaucrats know if they question a policy – especially a long-held one – that their future in the agency may be limited. DHBs are essentially at the end of a chain of command which starts with the Ministry of Health, which has been unable to provide an adequate scientific defence of this outdated practice.
Are you against topical application of fluoride, or all fluoride as a supplement to dental health?
Certainly, topical treatments are preferable to swallowing fluoride – and more rational since the benefits are believed to be predominantly topical, even by proponents of fluoridation. While there is little benefit from swallowing fluoride and plenty of evidence that swallowing causes harm, topical treatments make more sense. However, in view of the latest scientific evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxic effects at low doses, I think we should now be questioning the use of fluoride in toothpaste. Tooth decay is not caused by lack of fluoride but by a poor diet (too much sugar and not enough nutrients) and poor instructions on dental hygiene. This is exacerbated by poverty. These issues have been successfully addressed by the Childsmile programme in Scotland, which is safer and more cost-effective than fluoridation. One of the huge benefits of this programme is that parents are involved and this will help to reduce the number of severe cases of baby bottle tooth decay, which frequently is the cause of extractions under anesthesia both traumatic for young children and very costly.
Former Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills claimed that the debate at its heart is not about science but values. That is, we should “limit personal freedoms for a public good”.
That is an opinion and only as valid as the scientific evidence he can produce to demonstrate that the benefits of swallowing fluoride outweigh the risks of swallowing it, i.e. that overall, it is a “public good”.
For government officials to force citizens to swallow fluoride with every glass of water they drink when the science of benefit is so weak – and the evidence that fluoride causes harm is getting stronger by the year – is the height of governmental arrogance.
* Professor Connett will speak at the Napier Conference Centre on Wednesday, February 14, at 7pm.
10 -minute video of TV interview
Anti-fluoride activist Professor Paul Connett has shared his views during an interview with TVNZ 1’s Breakfast programme this morning, with a counter argument given by former Health Minister Jonathan Coleman.
Both gave firm arguments this morning on Breakfast around the controversial practice of fluoridating drinking water supplies.
Comments on the interview and parliamentary meeting from FAN NZ
Prof Connett will be interviewed on TV1’s The Breakfast Show at 7.15 am tomorrow morning. He will then be presenting at Parliament that evening. All MPs have been invited to the presentation. Unfortunately, this is not open to the public and cannot be filmed. We will, however, provide an update as to who attended and how it went.
At this stage we know there are Labour MPs, at least one NZ First MP and at least one National that have confirmed they are attending. None of the Green MPs have and Health Minister David Clark has stated publicly that he will not be attending.
Both David Clark and Green leader, James Shaw, have said that they have received more correspondence on fluoridation than any other issue. Despite this – and the fact that fluoridation is obviously a huge health issue since it directly affects millions of New Zealanders – and the fact that the most important health study on fluoridation ever carried out was only published in September last year – neither seem to think listening to the latest science on fluoridation is necessary.
From FF New Zealand
Prof Connett Tour
World Leading Fluoridation Expert speaking around New Zealand and at Parliament
…Internationally renowned expert Professor Paul Connett, co-author of The Case Against Fluoride and former director of the Fluoride Action Network, …Professor Connett will be speaking in Cambridge, Te Awamutu, Whangarei, Napier, Whanganui, and Wairarapa between February 9-18.
Prof Connett’s speaking tour has got off to a good start with full houses at both Cambridge and Te Awamutu. Next talk is tonight in Whangarei – Monday 12th Feb at 5.30pm at Cafler Suite, Forum North, Rust Avenue, Whangarei – see details of all Talks here
…The tour has sparked two really good articles. One in Hawke’s Bay Today and the other in Whanganui’s Midweek Chronicle. And the fact that Prof Connett will be speaking at Parliament at 5pm on Thursday 22nd February, has caused National’s Health spokesperson, Jonathan Coleman, to give us more coverage – by telling the media that politicians should not even listen to opposing views!
|…Over 100 people attended in Waipa, Whangarei, Napier and Whanganui and about 40 people in Carterton. As advised in the last newsletter we also got the best press coverage we have ever had. See Paul Connett 2018 Tour Page for links. And see below for links to the Breakfast Show.
A big effort also went into encouraging the MPs to attend Prof Connett’s Talk at Parliament. Unfortunately we have to advise that only three MPs attended: Christchurch Labour MP Duncan Webb, Tauranga-based Labour MP Angie Warren-Clark and NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell. Obviously we were really disappointed. This is despite all the emails and phone calls people made to Parliament. The Power Point presentation that Prof Connett showed to the MPs can be found on our Articles and Interviews Page under Health and Science.
On a brighter note, Clayton Mitchell said we really, really should not read much into the fact that MPs were not there. He said it is extremely difficult to find time for MPs to attend to all their obligations and that the fluoridation issue was being discussed around Parliament. Best of all, he was in complete agreement with us. However, he said NZ First were still committed to a binding referendum on the issue. We explained to him that we do not have the resources to compete with the Ministry of Health and the NZ Dental Association. But let’s wait and see. If NZ First starts calling for a referendum, it will get the issue discussed and debated throughout the country. And we can call for fluoridation to be stopped immediate
This New Zealand letter makes one point so obvious that it provokes a Homer Simpson ‘DOH’
…My primary concern is: Where has democracy gone? A few years ago some towns in New Zealand had to fight their councils, just as we did long ago, to prevent their water supply from being fluoridated by local-body political decree.
Central government politicians subsequently decreed that fluoride is not a medication, hence no need to ask citizens whether they wanted to be forced to drink it. Such weaselly political underhandedness was compounded by making District Health Boards the sole arbiter of whether a town was to get fluoridation. It could only be politicians who put health boards in charge of alleged non-medications. One wonders why. Stupid!
Don’t force it on majorities who reject it. Count me in on the fight for democracy.
STAN HOOD Aramoho