Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
Search
« Moanataiari Governance | Main | Thames Hopes and Dreams »
Saturday
Dec012012

Fluoride, again!

The Community Board will adopt a recommendation on Wednesday to go to public consultation on the retention of fluoride in the Thames water suply.

This is the process to be adopted

It is thankfully a short process that is being recommended, but don't expect it to be undertraken without a flood of unsubstantiated and pseudo-scientific material being printed, distributed and otherwise promulgated around the community. This is what has happened everywhere else where opponents have managed to get the matter raised.  

Unfortunately, and for reasons that remain obscure, they have decided to run the consultation over Christmas and into January - requiring the members of the TCB to report for meetings during the month that has generally been sacrosanct in the past. It is seen as critically important to get this out of the way before the actual Annual Plan consultation - they have obviously decided that it would be inappropriate to run the fluoride debate during the AP Hearings.

This will make for a thoroughly unpleasant Christmas as as the protagonists get into the usual media campaign, ably assisted by the loose-knit, but highly effective national anti-fluoride organisation. Those who wish to ensure retention of fluoride had better be ready to react because the opposition will be vocal, concerted and  aimed directly at those in the community who are easily persuaded by emotional claptrap when it comes to children's health.  

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

Bill I find your comments on the anti-flouride stance to be ignorant and misleading. Have you done any research into independent studies, ie non-industry-funded? As a proponent of healthy chemical-free water, and an ardent researcher of independent scientific studies (note the 'independent' word), I am hardly an emotional and hysterical person swayed by anecdotal stories- which you have characterised me as. I venture a guess that if we both sat down and compared notes on our findings on flouride and it's 'benefits', that your research would consist of "we've always done it, and the big guys say it is ok, they know best so what's the big deal", and mine would be two inches thick and full of actual science. Best you get busy backing up your statements with fact.
How about the Council funds flouride tablets for those who want it, so that those of us who do not want to be medicated against our will can opt out- or is that outside of Council's mandate as a non-medical local body, to provide medicine in that form? Hmmmmm.

December 6, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMichael

So you "venture to guess" my arguments - what arrogance.
I don't argue with people who are not prepared to reveal themselves - what cowardice.
I will lay my cards on the table with anyone who opposes fluoride - I have never found anyone yet who has the slightest scientific basis on which to base their case, nor anyone who is other than hysterical and over-wrought. There is no argument - the case for fluoride was proven years ago - it has nothing to do with "industry funding". But your research is "two inches thick" wow! - mine is only half an inch but I would back the quality of mine against yours anytime. If that is your best shot you better return to the drawing board, and tell us who you are, and what is the basis of your argument beyond the thickness of your file!
Thank you Michael.

December 6, 2012 | Registered CommenterBill Barclay

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>