Tuesday, 12 April 2016

The decision to make District Health Boards, not local councils, responsible for fluoridation is an obvious one, and seems to have been well received.

Currently, just over half our population, about 2.4 million people, live in areas where the water supply is fluoridated. Shifting the responsibility to District Health Boards, and assuming all agree to fluoridate the water supply in their areas, will add up to another 1.4 million people to the numbers of those receiving fluoridated water.

The fluoride debate has been controversial for years, with no government until now prepared to advance it. At the same time, over all those years, the oral health of young New Zealanders, in particular, has steadily declined. A big capital investment in new oral health centres and mobile clinics over the last decade has started to redress the balance somewhat, but there is still a long way to go.

Although the fluoride debate has been controversial and the opposition vocal in some quarters, public opinion has been consistently, albeit narrowly, supportive of fluoridation. In recent years, efforts by anti-fluoride campaigners to force local polls have been persistent, and this has forced some councils into awkward situations. The recent example of the Whakatane District Council voting narrowly to end fluoridation at one meeting, and then voting narrowly to overturn that decision and retain the status quo at its next meeting, and the about-face of the Hamilton City Council before and after the last local government elections have been quite unedifying.

Local Government New Zealand rightly points out that local authorities are being placed in an impossible situation, especially since their only real involvement is to own the pipes through which fluoridated water is reticulated. But there are realistically only two alternatives to the current situation, assuming of course the national preference is to retain fluoridation. One option would be for central government to simply mandate that all water supplies are to be fluoridated forthwith, but this would be remarkably heavy-handed, and would shut out any capacity for people to have their say. The second alternative, and the one settled upon, is to shift the responsibility for deciding whether or not an area is to be fluoridated to the local District Health Board.

There are 20 District Health Boards across New Zealand, which immediately reduces the potential for inconsistent outcomes, given that there are a far greater number of local councils. Also, oral health (and fluoridation) is primarily a public health issue, and District Health Boards have the statutory responsibility for the promotion of the public health in their areas. So it is logical that they take responsibility for fluoridation policies.

However, it would be wrong to see fluoridation as a panacea for the oral health of New Zealanders. It is certainly an important step, but by no means the only one. It needs to be accompanied by other measures such as good oral health education for children, the promotion of healthy drinks like water, and encouraging good health generally.

The fluoridation decision nevertheless marks an important step forward in the campaign for better oral health for all New Zealanders. It will have a beneficial impact and is arguably the single most important move to be taken to secure good oral health for current and future generations.









  1. Dear Peter. Please update your infomation on the health effects of water fluoridation. You are making decisions based on outdated and fraudulent infomation. I can guess why you do this but please think of the damage you personally are doing by allowing this poisoning.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Through the OIA process I asked the Ministry of Health five times for the toxicological safety data for the actual fluoride that is being used in our water - Hydrofluorosilicic Acid. I was referred to waternz for the data who responded to my email by admitting that they did NOT have that specific data. The ministry then referred to the gluckman/skegg review but that did NOT contain the data either. After failing to address my OIA's the Ombudsmans Office concluded their investigation to my complaint by confirming that the Ministry of Health does NOT hold ANY toxicological safety data for Hydrofluorosilicic Acid.

    To make the claim that water fluoridation is "Safe" without any evidence/safety data is fraudulent and unacceptable, water fluoridation needs to stop immediately under the 'Precautionary Principle' -

    "The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk."

    There are dozens of recent studies raising serious and legitimate concerns for numerous harms to human health. Dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, affects thyroid function, pineal gland, increased risk of bone fractures especially in the elderly as fluoride is bioaccumalative, ADHD, known to damage over 100 enzymes, effects reproductive system, effects on lowering of IQ, can cause depression, the list really does go on....these examples are all from studies from 2012-2015.

    Are you aware that the most oldest and best known peer review medical journal - The Lancet officially classifies fluoride as a "Neurotoxin"? and you are 'Promoting' the practice of 'ADDING' it to our drinking water and claiming it's safe?! We got a composite sample from Orica Ltd who supplies Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, it showed trace amounts of Lead, Arsenic, Mercury and several other toxins/heavy metals - commonsense says this is not safe!

    Are you aware that the CDC (1999), the NRC (2006) and the NFIS (2011) all have stated that the benefits of fluoride are 'Topical' not 'Systemic' making the continuation of water fluoridation even more controversial.

    How is water fluoridation safe for my autistic son?

    You have said water fluoridation is safe for everyone, however, it would be more truthful to state water fluoridation is safe for no one!

    1. you ask for a toxicology report. Pertaining to what area or town?? Every outlet has a different amount of minerals and salts in the water so this is an impossible request. If you want one ask your local water authority for the results for your own area They are available
      The Precautionary Principle, The mathematical part if this – if we consider risk prevention, we must decide how much risk is acceptable. As risk increases, tolerance should decrease. As risk approaches infinity, tolerance should approach zero.
      In order to use this principle, we must quantify risk, so any risk of permanent harm or total harm should be considered infinite.For example, if you fell from 1 foot 100 times you would probably be fine, but if you fell once from 100 feet you might be killed. As height from which one falls increases, harm dramatically increases until it is complete (death). However, below a certain threshold there is no harm, and and so small falls do no accumulate damage.
      So putting this in the fluoride model as the concentration increases so does the risk of damage to the human body. But at the level used by most of the world in CFW being .7-1PPM there is little or no risk ,So the Precautions do not apply, And as such there is no precautionary principle

    2. In the last 70 years the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby has been trying to find any fault they can with fluoride. They have all these sympathetic supporters and publish all there personal opinions as if they are quality research.
      Now the question has to be asked "Why do the scientific community disregard all their rubbish" Answer, because it is and never will be, reliable, unbiased quality research. there has never been any proven illnesses or diseases caused by fluoride at .7PPM
      If it was, the major dental and medical institutions would have jumped on it, Instead they try and disown any part of it 

    3. You mean "quality research" such as comparing fluoridation of water to someone falling 1 foot 100 times? Keep up the awesome reliable, unbiased quality research dude!

    4. If you understood what you had copy/pasted you would understand that the principals are the same in both cases

    5. I didn't leave the original post my friend, I just thought I'd point out where I saw you contradicting yourself.

      Also on your own example comparing falling 100 feet "you might be killed" to consuming an enormous amount of fluoride at once, which you presumably might also be killed if you have enough... doesn't fill me with confidence either and shows an accidental admittance that in high doses it is dangerous.

      Now a couple of additional flaws in your comparison...
      The comparison wouldn't be to falling 1 feet 100 times as it's not drinking 100 glasses of fluoridated water and then stopping, it would be to fall 1 feet every single day, every time you drank a glass of water, drank a cup of coffee, ate some food, drank a beer or had a shower. Now I imagine this wouldn't be very nice. You may argue you'd get used to it, wouldn't notice the bruising after a while and your body would adapt....

      Now what about the baby who has to fall 1 foot every time they drink a bottle? Or the pregnant mother? Or anyone with thyroid problems or low iodine? Hmmmm.... yeah maybe it's not such a good idea for them either.

      How about this as a novel idea, how about we say nobody HAS to fall 1 foot every time they want to eat or drink something, but the few who insist on it can do it by choice?! Novel idea I know.

  4. Dunne is an lying ass - watch a film called Druglawed and I beleive there's a sequel being made too druglawed.com

  5. Are you basing this grand idea on the 2014 government report? The report that was written by pro fluroide people. Who peer reviewed their own work and failed to mention what studies they had omitted? The same report that globally is a laughing stock? Fluroide has no place in the water supply. You simply cannot measure dosage and this is completely unethical.

    1. Unknown - the report in question was produced (at the request of councils) by the Office of the PM's Chief Scientific Adviser and the Royal Society of NZ. It was produced by health and scientific experts - nothing to do with politic support or lack of as you suggest.

      It is not a laughing stock by any means but a very credible review. But it has been bad-mouthed by anti-fluoride propagandists like Fluoride Free NZ and the Fluoride Action Network. These are spokespeople for (and are financed by) the "natural"/alternative health industry (which is big business) and have a very poor record truth wise.

      I urge any sensible reader to actually download the NZ fluoridation review and read it for themselves.

      The citation is:
      Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence. Retrieved from http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/commissioned-reviews/yr2014/health-effects-of-water-fluoridation/

  6. The Information AGAINST this poison is both Robust & Prolific.
    Anyone IMO who supports this poison en-mass is has an ulterior motive or is ill informed.

    1. A Fredric - you assertion is not supported - nor can it be. Have a read of the authoritative review by NZ health and scientific experts on this issue:

      Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence. Retrieved from http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expert-advice/commissioned-reviews/yr2014/health-effects-of-water-fluoridation/

  7. Although there are numerous reasons NOT to fluoridate, the main one for me is the loss of consent in forcing this on everyone. The current law states that each individual has the right to refuse medical treatment, and because fluoride is added to water for an alleged medical benefit (or it wouldn't be of such interest to the MoH and DHB's) forcing it on everyone is forcing a medical treatment. That is unlawful. Changing the law to force 1 medical treatment opens up the way for the MoH to add anything they want. That is just wrong.
    Secondary is that the MoH data does NOT show a benefit with fluoridated water across the country. There are a number of regions that have better teeth in unfluoridated areas. All you have to do is look through the data sheets available on the MoH website. It is shameful that the MoH, and Peter Dunne, refuse to actually read their own data.
    Mr Dunne, fluoridating everywhere is WRONG on many levels.

    1. Phil - you are quite wrong. The MoH data does show a benefit from fluoridated water over the whole country. You should not believe propaganda from the Fluoride Free groups who are telling porkies about this - look at the data yourself.


      There are, of course, some anomalies - as is normal in this sort of data collection. One issue has been the poorer dental health of Pacifica who are very over-represented in fluoridated areas. This distorts some local (and indeed national) figures. As always, such data needs to be analysed critically and intelligently.


  8. Hello Hon Peter Dunne
    My name is Guy Armstrong, first let me say thank you for allowing us the ability to comment on your page. You have claimed that "public opinion has been consistently, albeit narrowly, supportive of fluoridation" yet all seven of the comments made before this one are NOT supportive of fluoridation.

    Also, fluorine is not an essential nutrient. This has been discussed recently in Paul Connett's book, and at length in the U.S.A National Academy of Sciences report as far back as 1971. Connett's book is available at Wellington public library, and the other is available at the Alexander Turnbull National library on Molesworth St also in Wellington.

    It is quite tragically hilarious that we obsess over unnecessary fluoride when so much of our dental problems are caused by excess sugar. This has even been mentioned by dentist Dr. Beaglehole in a recent interview with Paul Henry, although neither of these educated people suggested for a second that big junk food businesses "take one for the team" and stop using so much of the stuff.

    I don't like the way forced fluoridation takes away my freedom of choice. Respectfully Sir, you are not my doctor, and even if you were you would need my consent to put something, anything into my body (unless my life was threatened).

    Every time I walk through Molesworth Street close to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, there are ads for sugary junk food everywhere. Whenever I turn the corner in Wellington city, there are ads for sugary junk food. Every time I gas up a car, there are ads for sugary junk food. Get real, mate. If you politicians care so much about us, why do you allow these companies to even ATTEMPT to get in our headspace?

    Please feel free to debate me if I have made any mistakes in my assertions on my facebook page. Thank you very much again Sir.
    Guy Armstrong

    1. Guy, I would be happy to debate this issue with you. Just provide a link.

      There are faults with most of the things you claim and such a debate would be useful.

      Alternatively you could contact me at the Making Sense of Fluoride page.


  9. If fluoridation is so beneficial, can you please tell me why it is banned in 97% of Europe?

    Can you please also tell me why you don't acknowledge a study by Harvard University which shows fluoridation lowers the IQ of our children?

    Fluoridation also calcifies the pineal gland in your brain, causes thyroid problems and multiple other issues. I and my family do not want this forced "medication" so please remove it and stop forcing it upon families who don't want it.

    The risks far outweigh the alleged benefits, swallowing an unregulated amount of synthetic fluoride when even the pro-fluoride side acknowledge any potential benefits are only from topical use, is frankly ridiculous.

    1. Dan, the "Harvard" study you refer to was not relevant to community water fluoldiation. it reviewed poor quality studies made in areas of endemic fluorosis (mainly China) where the dietary intake of fluoride is much higher. Very different to NZ.

      Calcification is not caused by fluoride - but by calcium, phosphate and old age. Fluoride is retained at the highly reactive calcified sites which enables ideologically driven anti-fluoride fanatics to misrepresent the data.

      Community water fluoridation is not forced on anyone - we all have a choice if we take individual responsibility. Most anti-fluoride activists already have taken steps to remove fluoride from their tap water - there are relatively cheap tap filters that do this. Make a query at Fluoride Free NZ - they recommend them and make a profit from each one sold.

    2. fluoride has not been banned in any European country.
      In truth, European countries construct their own water quality regulations within
      the framework of the 1980 European Water Quality Directive. The Directive provides maximum admissible concentrations for many substances, one of which is fluoride.
      The Directive does not require or prohibit fluoridation,
      it merely requires that the fluoride concentration in
      water does not exceed the maximum permissible concentration.

    3. OK so 27 studies over 22 years were all poor quality and not relevant? Hmmm.... why does it matter that it's mainly in China? What do we need to do to get it stopped... poison the whole of NZ first and then prove it? I hardly think yo... err, I mean "they" would freely admit the poisoning after the fact. Although there are already NZ studies which additionally back up the fact that fluoridation doesn't work, how's this one for you? http://fluoridefree.org.nz/nz-research-proves-fluoridation-not-needed/

      This isn't a 50/50 debate, the burden here is on the people adding the poison to the water to show it's 100% safe. If there is 1% doubt it should be instantly removed, THAT is what makes the Harvard study extremely relevant, it introduces a lot of doubt about the safety of fluoride. NZ has only just (quietly) reduced the intake of fluoride, in itself an admittance that it has been over-medicating.

      Ideologically driven anti-fluoride fanatics? Had a lol at that one. There is another study from your favourite University Harvard which you may or may not be familiar with, which states that a common misconception is that calcifications are caused by too much calcium. You know the way to stop fluoride from being "retained at the highly reactive calcified sites" as you put it? Stop putting it in the water!

      It IS forced on everyone, yes we can buy water filters and stop much of it, but firstly we shouldn't have to, secondly many can't afford them, thirdly many aren't aware of the damage fluoride does, fourthly you know a funny thing happens when you add toxic chemicals into the water supply, they go in your drinks, in your food, in your bath water, in the rain, in your tea... they end up everywhere! Now why can't people who insist on taking their daily dose of fluoride take individual responsibility as you state? Brushing their teeth would be a start.

      Fluoride Free NZ don't make any money on water filters from what I can see, and they're non-profit... unlike the corporations who sell the toxic fluoride to be people of NZ, also there's no need to pay all that money to get rid of their waste product now!! Wooooooo.

      chris -> http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/13/98-per-cent-of-europe-banned-water-fluoridation

    4. Dan, it doesn't matter that the studies took place in China. But it does matter that the studies took place in areas of endemic fluorosis - very unlike NZ - and that very little attention was paid to confounders like age, education, income, etc., which all influence IQ figures. Most studies were extremely short and bereft of important details. They have been cherry picked by FAN to scaremonger.

      You provide a link to a FFNZ report which completely misrepresent the NZ study. it did not, in fact, show fluoldiation was ineffective - quite the opposite. Here is my analysis of the misrepresentation by FFNZ.


      It is noticeable that both of the FFNZ people who made this claim chickened out of debating the issue. They knew they were lying.

      One should never trust the claims of these political activists - they have been shown so often to be misrepresenting the science. A sensible person should always check out their claims by going straight to the source.

      Have a read of the paper itself and you will see they misrepresented it.


    5. Dabn - you refer to a Harvard study which "states that a common misconception is that calcifications are caused by too much calcium." But you do not cite or linkoot it. Could you please do so - obviously I want to read the source for myself after the mistake you made about the NZ study where you relied on a FFNZ statement by neglected to read the study.

      That is a genuine request as I am interested in the chemistry involved - and no your description of the study does not ring any bells with me.

    6. Oh Ken.... how much do they pay you? I can see from your previous posts and "debates" that debating with you, is like debating with a brick wall.

      So do you not acknowledge that if there is even 1% doubt in a case like this it should be removed? And do you not acknowledge that there is way more than 1% doubt?

      To cite your favourite website FFNZ, all of these prominent NZ'ers are against fluoridation: http://fluoridefree.org.nz/new-zealand-information/meet-new-zealanders-against-fluoridation/
      And at least 315 NZ health professionals are against fluoridation: http://fluoridefree.org.nz/nz-health-professionals-opposed-to-fluoridation/

      Should I not trust these people either? I suppose I should trust politicians though shouldn't I? The government has never led anyone astray... should I trust you Ken? Do you have my best interests at heart?

      This number of health professionals against it alone is more than enough to introduce enough doubt to stop fluoridation. It is against our basic human rights.

      Please answer my question: "Now why can't people who insist on taking their daily dose of fluoride take individual responsibility as you state?"

      You also skipped over the point where you tried to claim FFNZ were making a profit and didn't refute it when I said they were non-profit, can you back this up with evidence please? Also didn't acknowledge the corporations who make a profit did you?

      Here's your citation, glad to hear that part of your response is genuine... I would love to believe it to be true: http://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/calcium-beyond-the-bones

    7. Dan - some relevant issues:

      1: I see you have backed down over your claim that "recent studies" show fluoridation doesn't work. I hope that is an acknowledgement that you accept the FFNZ was telling porkies about that study as I reported in my article.


      I hope you also resist from citing FFNZ's recent claim that the MoH shows no benefits from fluoldiation. I have also exposes that lie in another article:


      2: So FFNZ found 12 NZers prepared to speak out against CWF. You will find far more NZers prepared to support creationism.

      Don't you realise that it is the real world facts, the science, that we should be checking out - not listening to personal endorsements from ideologically and commercially motivated people?

      3: No, don't trust those people - they have ideological and commercial motives for deceiving you. Nor should you trust the politicians.

      You don't need to trust me or other scientists either - but you should at least listen and look at the evidence. The great thing about scientific claims is that than ca be and are continually tested against the real world. We don't need to rely on personal endorsements when the facts can be checked out.
      You made a mistake about the recent NZ study because you intrinsically accepted the lies promoted by FFNZ - you should have checked out that study for yourself. It is easy enough to do as it is open access. Here is the citation:

      Schluter, P. J., & Lee, M. (2016). Water fluoridation and ethnic inequities in dental caries profiles of New Zealand children aged 5 and 12–13 years: analysis of national cross-sectional registry databases for the decade 2004–2013. BMC Oral Health, 16(1), 21.

      And a link:

      4: Yes, FFNZ calls itself a "non-profit" organisation and I never said it was making a profit - but so what. The NZ Health trust calls itself a charity and registers as such thereby avoiding taxation. But it is simply a business lobby group for the "natural"/alternative health industry. It receives and dispenses hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and invested heavily in the High Court Actions against fluoridation. They certainly work alongside FFNZ and probably finance some of FFNZ's projects - like the abandoned Hamilton high Court action.

      5: You ask "How much do they pay you?" Care to elaborate? Who are "they?"

    8. Dan - thanks to the link for the article. Please note - it is a general article not a study as you claimed.

      Also worth noting that it does not list fluoride as a cause of calcification.

      Obviously, calcification causes are complex - injury needs to be added to old age. And fluoride is not involved but calcium, phosphate and in some cases oxalate ions. Also pH.

      The rubbish about the pineal gland problems caused by fluoride is just another lie promoted by FFNZ and FAN.

      Readers must be avoid taking the information from these sources at face value. This information should always be checked out - you will find that in most case it is wrong.

    9. Ken, I see you are avoiding responding to some key issues here which I have now raised twice:
      1. So do you not acknowledge that if there is even 1% doubt in a case like this it should be removed? And do you not acknowledge that there is way more than 1% doubt?
      2. Now why can't people who insist on taking their daily dose of fluoride take individual responsibility as you state?
      3. Do you acknowledge certain large corporations avoid expenses by having to get rid of the waste product fluoride and instead make a very nice profit from this?

      If you can answer these questions then I'll be happy to come back to the studies and discuss in more detail, but this will take much more time.

      You say there are 12 prepared to speak out, firstly all it takes is 1 to make a difference, and secondly you ignored the 315 I mentioned? Does this not cast enough doubt against fluoride that it should be removed until proven 100% safe?

      "They", let's call them pro-fluoride lobbyists, I assume you get paid for the work that you do? It seems you spend an awful lot of time on this.

      Ken: "Make a query at Fluoride Free NZ - they recommend them and make a profit from each one sold"
      Ken: "Yes, FFNZ calls itself a "non-profit" organisation and I never said it was making a profit - but so what"
      Can you please explain?

      Also you said they have commercial motives for deceiving me, can you elaborate on this please? What motives? I'm not convinced on your "probably finance some of FFNZ's projects", Ken you are a very scientific, fact and citation based person... but this is just pure guesswork!

      Honestly I would love to be convinced otherwise and know fluoridation is 100% safe and that it's in my best interests, but I am not at all convinced Ken.

    10. Dan, I will respond in separate small posts - easier for readers. :-)

      First, your claim I am being paid for my comments here. You say:

      ""They", let's call them pro-fluoride lobbyists, I assume you get paid for the work that you do? It seems you spend an awful lot of time on this."

      Well, doesn't this show the danger of assuming things. No evidence required. A very lazy way of thinking.

      No, I am not being paid by anyone (except my superannuation fund). I am in the fortunate position of not having anyone to to dictate how I should think or what I should do (Unlike Paul Connett and his family whose funding by Mercola.com is well documented in IRS returns).

      My activity on this question (and things like climate change and creationism) derives from my scientific ethos, interest's and career background, and my need to challenge distortions that are peddled by activists in these areas.

      Yes, I think community water fluoridation is a sensible social policy - but its adoption is up to communities. That is not what drives me.

      I am particularly annoyed when communities, like Hamilton in 2013, were denied that right by a council fooled by anti-fluoride activists. That is a violation of democracy.

      I am also annoyed when people like these peddle absolute lies about the science. Integrity in science is a very important issue to me.

      Those are my motivations and a little effort on your part would have revealed that to you (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/about-me/) rather than having to rely on your "assumptions" which the record here shows to be very faulty.

    11. Dan, my little dig about FFNZ "making a profit" on water filters was based on an arrangement they had last year promoting a particular brand of water filter. They got a $50 (I think) kick-back for each filter sold and were encouraging readers to purchase them.

      For obvious reason, many filter retailers reproduce and promote the lies told by anti-fluoride organisations like FFNZ and FAN. No surprise there.

    12. Dan, here is something I wrote on the "315" people who you promote as evidence that fluoride is evil:


      It shows the ideological and commercial motivations behind these people - most of whom belong to very questionable alternative health areas - and profit from such woo.

    13. Dan - you talk about 1% doubt - I bet you an't back that quantity up. :-)

      We have only advanced as a species because we have relied on the beast knowledge - knowledge that any sensible scientist will tell you is always incomplete and relative. If we had refused to move until we had 100% surety on anything we would have become extinct ages ago.

      A simple google search will indicate that there is more doubt about chloride or chlorine than there is about fluoride. There are far more hits for chloride or chlorine and toxic than there are for fluoride and toxic.

      But if you really want to worry about doubt then dihydrogen monoxide is present in your drinking water in far higher concentrations than is fluoride or chlorine. It causes far more documented deaths every year than does either chlorine or fluoride.

      So you should be demanding that dihydrogen monoxide be removed from your drinking water. After all there is far more doubt in that case.

    14. Ah Ken, you have completely ignored these 3 questions for the third time:

      1. So do you not acknowledge that if there is even 1% doubt in a case like this it should be removed? And do you not acknowledge that there is way more than 1% doubt?
      2. Now why can't people who insist on taking their daily dose of fluoride take individual responsibility as you state?
      3. Do you acknowledge certain large corporations avoid expenses by having to get rid of the waste product fluoride and instead make a very nice profit from this?

      The 315 weren't to "promote as evidence that fluoride is evil" it simply shows that there's enough doubt among enough health practitioners to stop fluoridation. You are really scraping the barrel with your article about their motivations.

      Everyone has their own thing, you keep doing yours brother. I wish you lots of peace and love.

    15. Dan, the old toxic waste story is extremely naive - along the same line as Hitler used fluoride to tame the Jews!

      1: A product or by product which has a market and customers is by definition not waste. On the other hand even food can become waste when it doesn't sell.

      2: Fluorosilicic acid can be a very valuable by product - particularly as fluoride ores are dwindling and fluorine is a valuable industrial chemical. In the US fluorosilicic acid can demand a higher price from the fluoride industry than the water treatment industry precisely for that reason.

      3: Even in NZ there are other markets for fluorosilicic acid. If there weren't any markets companies would just disperse it as a waste product (probably by piping it to the ocean) but would follow the required regulations in the process. That would not cost much. And you must remember this fluoridating agent is used partly because it is cheap. Companies are not making a huge fortune out of it.

      4: The suggestion that either the manufacturer, the councils, water treatment experts or health officials would contemplate community water fluoridation purely as a waste disposal method is mad in the extreme. But it is the sort of rubbish we have come to expect from anti-fluoride campaigners who are well known for their misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies.

    16. Dan - finally (I think) you ask why can't people take pills as this would be more responsible.

      Social health policy would be extremely bad if it was based on individual responsibility. Just imagine how much more children would suffer.

      The fact is that CWF is a social health measure, like salt iodisation. It works because it does not rely on individual responsibility.

      And it works far better than as pill because it integrates perfectly with the mechanism whereby fluoride helps protect existing teeth as well and emerging teeth.

      Yes, during the year that my council undemocratically denied me access to CWF - against the obvious wishes of the electorate - I did take individual responsibility by suing mouth washes (far more effective than pills). But this is not a credible social policy - except when carried out in schools as in Europe. It may have helped my oral health but it did not help the oral health of the city in general.

  10. Hi Mr Dunne. Arvid Carlsson, Swedish neuropharmacologist and Nobel Prize Laurette in Physiology and Medicine in 2000 campaigned to stop fluoridation in Sweden in the 1970s. He says "Fluoridation goes against all principles of modern pharmacology. It is really obsolete. Countries that continue fluoridation should be ashamed of themselves"
    See 3 minute interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmpv__jQyzA

  11. If you have to go back 50 years to some evidence to feed your agenda that pretty sad

  12. The fact that fluoride is a neurotoxin is the only reason not to add it to a community water supply. It doesn`t matter what measure it is. Many people who have ingested fluoridated water over the past decades have seen no benefit to their dental health, so why waste public money on an ineffective ingestion. Fluoride also affects the hypothalmus and causes obesity and other illnesses. It is also a breach of individual human rights to force people to ingest it through a community water supply.

    1. Affsaltra - you state that it is a "fact that fluoride is a neurotoxin". What do you base that on? Please provide some sort of evidence or citation to support your claim. I have looked at the research and it does not support your claim.

      You also state that no benefits have been seen from community water fluoridation. That is certainly not my impression form close ready of the research. But perhaps you have something new. Please link or cite these studies you rely on for that claim.

      Could you also provide links/citations to support the claims you made about the hypothalamus, obesity and other illnesses?

      i of course will draw the appropriate conclusions if you refuse or are unable to provide the citations I request.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. The fact that fluoride is a neurotoxin is the only reason not to add it to a community water supply. It doesn`t matter what measure it is. Many people who have ingested fluoridated water over the past decades have seen no benefit to their dental health, so why waste public money on an ineffective ingestion. Fluoride also affects the hypothalmus and causes obesity and other illnesses. It is also a breach of individual human rights to force people to ingest it through a community water supply.

  14. That he dose makes the poison. You antis really need to do your 'research'. How many people do you know who have died from fluoride poisoning? None right. How many people have died from complications of poor oral health? Thousands.

    1. There is no anti or for in this. The fact is the most vulnerable in our communities, infants and children with developing brains are at risk of developmental delay. Given actual topical application of the stuff is shown to be far more effective and is not breaking bottom line medical ethics standards around consent, it is completely insulting and incredibly negligent to do this to a whole community, to children and to babies. Animals such as cats and dogs are also highly susceptible to fluoride poisoning due to their lower weights and US studies are now implicating long term fluoridation of water in massive ill health in dogs and cats causing veterinary costs and stress on this group. The fact is there is no anti or for, this is a matter of basic human rights to clean water. What doctor would prescribe an unregulated amount of a drug to a whole population regardless of weight or age or other conditions? Fluoride is a neuro toxicant classified at the same level as lead and arsenic, since 2014. The current science rules it As detrimental to all organic life! Just because it hardens tooth enamel we drink it ? If someone wants fluoride then knock yourself out, but tablets and put them in your glass of water. Don't make me and the entire country swallow it too!

    2. There have been deaths from fluoride. My truth is, if I don't want to drink it, I shouldn't have to. If you would like to ingest fluoride you can. Don't make me.

  15. Fluoride research that is current is extremely conclusive that fluoride is a neuro toxicant, this is published in the most prestigious medical journal in the world The Lancet. They say that there is NO dose considered safe for the developing brain in infants, children, those with other medical issues and elderly. The issue is fluoride, an industrial contaminant not known to have any function in the body, is known to collect in the brain, minute amounts can cause brain developmental delay in infants and children. just because we used to put lead in our petrol and mercury in our mouths doesn't mean we should continue. We stopped when they were shown to be neurotoxins, fluoride has been added to the list of toxins since 2014. Most other countries have ceased to fluoridate their water. New Zealand is barking mad to be ignoring the international best evidence in this and risking our children's IQs. There are also studies showing children in fluoridated water areas have statistically significant Lower iq scores than children who grew up without floridated water. Not to mention mass medication contravenes right 7 in the health and disability commissions code of rights that the medical system must adhere to...all people under the code have The right to consent to medicines or procedures. How is mass spiking of our beautiful 100% pure NZ water with a neurotoxin ever Consentable? Our youngest and most vulnerable citizens are relying on us on this dear leaders. We need to follow the Scottish government who slashed decay by stopping fluoridation and instead setting up simple oral health programs to be run in schools. Teach the kids the skillets to
    Look after their teeth and make good food choices! Not mass medicate with something that doesn't even work. Current WHO evidence shows countries that fluoridated water have no better rates of decline in tooth decay that countries who do not touch the stuff. It is NOT a natural thing to INGEST. It is TOXIC to ALL biological life. Our authorities need to rethink this pronto unless they want a generational pandemic of illiteracy, behavioural disorders such as adhd and Aspergers type syndromes, and not to mention general delinquency and unemployability. Our bright beautiful children deserve better from us!

  16. Glenda - a paper in the Lancet is not an official designation. Have you read the paper? Can you tell us how many times the word"fluoride" is used in the paper and what citations are used as "evidence."

    In fact, the paper itself is of very poor quality evidence-wise. Have a read of this critical analysis:


    You claim:

    "There are also studies showing children in fluoridated water areas have statistically significant Lower iq scores than children who grew up without floridated water. "

    How about a citation? In fact the only study done on community water fluoridation shows no influence on IQ. You should have a read of it:


    You are just repeating misinformation being disseminated by the Fluoride Action Network and Fluoride Free NZ. These activist groups are well-known for distorting and misrepresenting the science on this issue.

    1. Ken, the Fluoride Action Network and Fluoride Free NZ groups do not put forth misinformation. They consist of knowledgable people who work tirelessly to show the misinformation that is spread by the MOH, DHB's and the corrupt FDA, AMA. Please provide proof of the misinformation disseminated by these 2 groups.

    2. Speedy, I will gladly produce evidence - it ranges over several years and I have often written of their misrepresentations and distortions in my articles:

      But here are just a few of the more recent ones - I am happy to discuss the specifics for individual cases. The lesson is - never take their claims at face values - always check them out. On most case you will fiond them wrong:










    3. Speedy, I should add that there are more articles - and another one coming up in a few days about the latest misrepresentations by Stan Litras on IQ.

      I don't know how these people can sleep straight in their beds at night. :-)

  17. Ken, I honestly don't have the time to go and read all the links you provided, but thanks all the same. I'm sure there are misrepresentations on both sides of this debate. I'm also very wary about findings of studies making certain claims. I always ask who funded the study, was it independent. It's amazing what you can do with statistics to produce the outcome the sponsor of the study wanted. It's the oldest trick in the book.

    1. Fine, Speedy. You ask for evidence, I provided it. I realise it might be overwhelming because the examples of misrepresentation are so numerous.

      And your point about statistics is so true. Paul Connett really does mangle statistics.

  18. Clever Ken. I'm new to this blog, but I do notice that you have an answer for everything. Mr know it all. Such wit and so cunning. You truly are amazing. I rest my case because you have proved nothing. You should get into politics mate. You know what they say about politicians.

  19. Speedy, that is a cop-out. You have refused to take issue with example I have given you where FFNZ and FAN have misrepresented or distorted the science.

    I can only assume that you are unable to. Yet you are the one who asked for evidence and implied there was none.

    All I have done is called your bluff. Provided you with examples and evidence. It is not my fault that you are unable to find fault with my examples.

    Hopefully you will take this as a lesson and stop accepting what these organisations say.

  20. If people don't want to be medicated with something, it's unethical to force it on them. Doesn't matter how you spin the (erroneous) benefits. My body, my choice. End of story. Keep it out of our water. There are plenty of ways people can cheaply and easily access the stuff if they want it.

  21. Erin, fluoride is no more a medicine than iodine, calcium, magnesium, phosphate, or any other beneficial element.

    You still have freedom of choice to remove the fluoride if the rest of your community supports community water fluoridation. Many people with a hangup about fluoride, chlorine, etc., already use the appropriate tap filters.

    Community water fluoridation is proven to be safe and effective. as a social policy it means that individual action is not required.

    Just as is the case with iodine in salt and selenium in bread.

  22. Ken, fluoride IS a medicine. It is promoted by the MoH, DHB's doctors, World Health Org, etc, meaning it IS a medicine. There is NO non medical organisation that promotes fluoridation. Because ONLY medical people endorse fluoride, that makes it 100% a medication, as its only alleged benefit is MEDICAL.
    As for choice to remove, only an idiot will say you can remove it. While a filter reduces the fluoride, it cannot remove it fully, and why the hell should anyone pay to get rid of something that is not a human nutrient. If you think it is, you are a bigger twat that most people think you are.
    You also don't understand that your skin absorbs fluoride, and everything else in water, and getting a whole house filter is outrageously expensive.
    You say individual action is not required. That has to be the stupidest excuse I have ever heard in this debate. The ONLY way fluoride benefits teeth is DIRECTLY ON THE TOOTH, NOT from ingesting it.
    Apart from all that "logic" the absolute main issue here is consent. 1/3 of voters in Hamilton said NO to fluoride, which equates to about 60,000 people. I don't give a toss if that is not a majority, fluoride in Hamiltons water is violating the rights of around 60,000 people. All the rest can BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH.
    It is absolutely beyond me how pro fluoride people can be so fucking disgusting arrogant that that cannot respect every persons right NOT TO ACCEPT MEDICAL TREATMENT.
    Grow up Ken, get a fucking life, and stop pushing your nonsense on people who don't want your nonsense.
    PS, I suspect that you no longer have need... you did mention you were old...
    Oh, and iodene in salt is a choice, and selenium in bread is just a fucking waste of time and effort. It to does NOTHING...

    1. Phil, water fluoridation is not a medicine. This from the 2014 High Court judgment on that:

      “ the concentration threshold for fluoride in Schedule 1 of the Regulations is so vastly higher than the maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in domestic water supplies that, when fluoride is added to domestic water at the authorised levels, it falls outside of the definition of “medicine” in the Act.”

      Think about it. If fluoride were designated a medicine because of its beneficial role in oral health then the law would also be required to designate iodine in salt, selenium in bread, iron in meat, calcium in milk, etc., as medicines. That would be silly. We have quite a number of beneficial elements in our diet and we don’t call them medicines.

    2. Phil, I find your attitude towards democratic decisions rather troubling. Do you think the current government should not have been allowed to come to power on the basis of the last election results?

    3. Phil, the main mode of action for existing teeth is the surface reaction arising from the presence of fluoride, phosphate and calcium in saliva. Water fluoridation is a very effective way of maintaining that concentration during the day (it declines relatively rapidly so that the benefits of twice daily brushing are not sufficient and water fluoridation complements tooth brushing for that reason.

      Ingested fluoride also helps during the early stages of tooth formation - even before eruption. It is also beneficial to bones.

    4. Phil - you claim:

      "You also don't understand that your skin absorbs fluoride, and everything else in water."

      Care to support that with credible citations? My reading of the scientific literature indicates this is not the case for fluoride.

      But, as always my mind is open to evidence. in fact I would welcome anything you can provide (as long as it is credible). Here is you chance to get me to change my mind. :-)

    5. There is no point giving you credible data, because you are well known for saying everything against fluoride is not credible. You go out of your way to trash any data that disagrees with you, but the fact remains, there is plenty of factual evidence against adding fluoride, and that your skin adsorbs most things put on it. I can see that you would of course find data that says fluoride is not adsorbed, and I feel certain the data was created by pro fluoride assholes.
      And don't you dare say this is an excuse - the reality is that I can no longer be bothered with your arrogant selfish closed minded attitude.

    6. Phil, the ONLY sensible way to interpret that tirade is that you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim.

      Why am I not surprised?

  23. Mr Dunne, CONSENT is one of the fundamental things in this society, and the government must NOT do anything to violate what people choose to put into and onto their bodies (fluoride absrbs through the skin in the bath and shower). Water fluoridation is a disgusting violation of everyone's right to choose. Just because a court decided fluoride was not a medication, does not mean it is not a medication. By advocating mandatory flurodation, you are allowing a medical organisation to force people to ingest an unnecessary medication, therefore violating the law that gives us the right to choose.
    It is beyond me how any intelligent person would want to do that.
    Pleas also look at the INDIVIDUAL DHB data about tooth decay rates. Many DHB areas have better teeth for most people in UNfluoridated areas. Simply forcing it on everyone is just plain STUPID and selfish, and those areas DON'T NEED IT.
    Please Mr Dunne, do NOT allow DHB's to force this medication on everyone. As I have said before, everyone can brush their teeth, and if the DHB's identify groups that need help, tell them to get off their asses, go out to those people, and give them toothpaste and brushes. THAT is acceptable to everyone, but forcing this muck on everyone is not OK, not now, not ever.
    (Ken, don't reply to this, as it is not addressed to you)