Colin Craig on fluoridation

January 31st, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

A Q+A with Colin Craig:

Hi Colin,

Do you support the ending of fluoridation in New Zealand?

If you do support ending fluoridation how would you go about a transparent process where all information from both sides of the debate could be heard fairly and equitably. 

I am referencing the $47k (minimum) spent by the WDHB (taxpayers money) against the $12k provided by Free Hamilton (This amount was collected from donations from individual donors). 
 

Thanks,
Kane 

Hi Kane and thanks for your questions. My view is as follows;

Water supply and the treatment of town water supplies is managed at a local level. I support councils having referendum on this issue (costs are minimised if information and forms are sent out with rates notices) to determine what the public wants. Information sent to voters should give fair and equal chance for both those for and against to have their say. In this electronic age I suggest council establishing a website to give the same equal opportunity to both sides to present their case.

People who do not have a computer can of course access the council information website at their local public library if they are interested. This approach helps level the playing field when it comes to who has the deeper pockets, as the primary information source is balanced.

Yes my personal view is that water should be delivered to households as chemical free as reasonably possible, while still being safe to drink – i.e. without fluoride. 

I support more awareness of the concerns around fluoridation. When properly informed, I do think many communities will choose non-fluoridation.

Cheers
Colin

I think if communities are properly informed, most will choose fluoridation – and have been recently.

Tags: ,

50 Responses to “Colin Craig on fluoridation”

  1. sHr0oMaN (29 comments) says:

    Even though communities have chosen fluoridation, the council (Hamilton) is still dragging its feet.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Two thirds of local councils don’t add fluoride to water. I’m not aware the sky has fallen in, probably because we have this amazing invention called toothpaste.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. burt (7,424 comments) says:

    I agree with ross69 …. I better have a holiday….

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Even though communities have chosen fluoridation, the council (Hamilton) is still dragging its feet.

    What was the outcome of that recent referendum on asset sales, and what has the government done with that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Colin Craig is more aligned with Greens and wacky ideas than National. It would be of passing interest what he thought of immunisation.

    Thank God (literally) his money won’t buy him a seat.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. radvad (734 comments) says:

    Agree with him or not (I don’t on most things including his last point) I give him credit for directly answering the question and not leaving any wriggle room as to what he thinks. In that respect, a breath of fresh air.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lance (2,712 comments) says:

    @ross69
    “Two thirds of local councils don’t add fluoride to water. I’m not aware the sky has fallen in,”

    The exact opposite of what you say is equally true.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    @ross69
    “Two thirds of local councils don’t add fluoride to water. I’m not aware the sky has fallen in,”

    90 day trials, I’m not aware the sky has fallen in :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. DonC (9 comments) says:

    I wrote this for Hutt City years ago, with the copy agreed by the contending parties.

    http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/en/Services/Water-services/Potential-effects-of-water-fluoride-on-teeth/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lucia Maria (2,651 comments) says:

    Over the years, I have done my utmost to avoid fluoride, even to the point of buying water filters that remove it (hopefully they do the trick, but you never know) and buying non-fluoride toothpaste for both my children. My new kitchen even has a dual normal and filter tap. Both my kids have amazing teeth, with only one filling for the oldest boy in his entire life (he’s nearly 17). Contrast that with me growing up in Wellington with fluoride added – lots and lots of fillings. Personally I think that fluoride preventing tooth decay is bogus – it’s more to do with overall physical health and the type of food and drink that a child grows up with.

    It should be a choice as to whether or not people want to be medicated with Fluoride, so Colin Craig’s position is sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. radvad (734 comments) says:

    Nice one RRM.
    49% of 2 state assets sold (at what would appear to be an excellent price given current share price), sky still where it always was.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. greenjacket (486 comments) says:

    Colin Craig doesn’t need fluoride in his water – his tin foil hat protects him from tooth decay.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Mr Craig’s answer reveals the CCCP strategy for this year’s elections. Cement in the religious, anti everything, child beating loops & bolster their numbers with those who doubt the moon landings, speak to aliens & dispute the benefits of fluoride.

    Should he make it into parliament his caucus line up will look like a scene from the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. freethinker (677 comments) says:

    Lance @12.14
    Living in Flouride free Christchurch just checked outside and sky still in place – perhaps the clouds are holding it up – again. Tooth decay is caused by poor diet in children which is the responsibility of parents and Flouride Toothpaste is widely available at same cost as non Flouride paste so prevention for parents who don’t care what their kids eat is simple & cheap – brush teeth with flouride paste. It is not necessary to medicate the entire population to save a few couldn’t care less parents and referendums whilst not perfect are a better democratic process as they address specific issues which may not be issues at election time so Politicians can not be expected to have policy on a don’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    The anti fluoridation network ( the ones responsible for the Hamilton City Council’s highly undemocratic decision ) , have absolutely no empirical or other evidence that fluoride is harmful in any way whatsoever.
    This fact is quite easily tested. Just compare a control sample population with Auckland ( Fluoridated water ) and one with out, Tauranga.
    Lets see if Auckland’s Control sample has a Lower I Q or a higher incidence of Osteosarcoma as claimed by the Anti Fluoride Lobby about its effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    He shows quite a bit of retrograde thinking (or lack of the latter).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dime (10,212 comments) says:

    ” I’m not aware the sky has fallen in, probably because we have this amazing invention called toothpaste.”

    We also have this thing called welfare. it gives people enough money to feed their kids.. and yet.. people like you want to feed them at school. cause ya dont trust the parents to feed them, but you trust the parents to make sure the kids are brushing twice daily!?!

    also, anyone who uses the “sky hasnt fallen” line is a moron.

    New law – people only pay tax on the first 100k of earnings. Oh look, the sky didnt fall in. the law must be OK

    why is Dime responding to this guy?

    why are the left wing trolls so shit at the moment?

    is it because they are on holiday? back at school soon?

    DPF – can you raise the level of lefty troll please.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dime (10,212 comments) says:

    oh yeah – colin, colin, colin.. youre getting my electorate vote but youre making it hard!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    DonC – Good article, thanks for sharing!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nigel Kearney (1,096 comments) says:

    There is no point of principle that says water provided at ratepayers’ expense should or should not be as chemical free as possible.

    People should have a choice, but both options provide a choice. Either water is fluoridated and people have to pay for bottled water or filters to avoid it, or water is not fluoridated and those who want fluoride will incur the cost of adding it.

    There should therefore be a cost minimisation calculation, taking into account not only how many people want each option but also the cost of the fluoridation itself and the cost that people will incur if they don’t get their preferred choice.

    If the cost of fluoride tablets is low compared to bottled water, the best option may be no added fluoride even if only 20-30% prefer it. Just having a straight referendum makes no more sense than a referendum on extra taxes for people whose last name starts with the letter F. Democracy is for electing representatives, not deciding every little issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Spam (367 comments) says:

    No chemicals? Better stop chlorination as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Yeah, good on Craig for answering the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Nigel, who decides the issues on which democracy can be replaced by another system?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Colin Craig will side with proponents of many causes because they want to be heard. He does so because his party is exploiting this activism for change by government offering more referenda. Keeping to the theme that he is helping people have their say.

    One wonders how he will deal with the flag issue, consistently by supporting the idea going to referendum – or instead playing partisan politics and saying he is opposed to any change as if stating his personal opinion is more important than the more general theme of let the people decide. And all because “change” to a flag is not the conservative move.

    It speaks to his party being one for the discontented in what government has done in social policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Given that the thoroughly evil Lucia supports Colin Craig I now know for sure that Colin Craig is a nutter, one we do not need or want in our parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (13,554 comments) says:

    It should be a choice as to whether or not people want to be medicated with Fluoride

    Lucy is right.

    This is not about the safety of fluoride. It is about putting stuff in our water beyond what is required to make it safe to drink. I personally think it is safe, but that is not relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. publicwatchdog (3,125 comments) says:

    For those who would like to hear / read the other side (anti-flouridation of public drinking water supplies):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhZXChLyk90

    Want to try thinking for yourself, and hear some INFORMED debate on the issue of flouridation?

    http://www.fannz.org.nz/paulconnett.php

    Paul Connett

    Speaking Tour of NZ 2014

    Dr. Paul Connett is the Director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and the Executive Director of its parent body, the American Environmental Health Studies Project (AEHSP). He has spoken and given more than 2,000 presentations in forty-nine states and fifty-two countries on the issue of waste management. He holds a bachelors degree from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College and is a retired professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University. He lives in Binghamton, New York. In his fascinating presentations Dr. Connett shares his wealth of information with you, bringing new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and endocrine system, and informing us about how the evidence that fluoridation reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak.

    Public Talks

    Tuesday 4th February 7 – 9pm Mt Eden War Memorial Hall, 487 Dominion Road, Balmoral,Auckland
    Facebook Event Page

    Sunday 9th February 3 – 5pm The Cafe, The Lighthouse Church, Intermediate Street, Masterton
    Facebook Event Page

    Tuesday 11th February 7.30 – 9.30pm Wesley Church Hall, 75 Taranaki Street, Wellington
    Facebook Event Page

    Thursday 13th February 7 – 9pm Raumati South Memorial Hall, Tennis Court Road
    Facebook Event Page

    Other Events

    Saturday 15th February 1.30 – 5.30pm Massey University, Buckle Street, Wellington. Prof Connett has been invited to be a Panel Member for Discussion organised by Fluoride Information Network of Dentists. Professionals from both sides have been invited to discuss.

    About Fluoridation

    FAN’s Overview of Water Fluoridation

    FAN’s Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Water Fluoridation

    Dr John Colquhoun, Former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, Chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Soceity
    “Why I Changed My Mind”.

    Harvard IQ Study – Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    New Zealand Information

    See details of previous tours:

    Speaking Tour 2013

    Speaking Tour 2011
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    In the interests of informed debate on this issue –

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    The issue is whether people decide at the collective level as a public policy or leave it to personal choice – the latter means having no public policy, thus is also a collective decision in the negative.

    Except fluoride can be filtered for less expense than bottled water. No one is compulsorily medicated. It is just the middle class not wanting the expense and passing the expense of tooth decay onto less activist poor families and the public health system.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Debate should inform people to vote in referenda to decide or if in the minority to access more fluoride for dental health/use fluoride removal filters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. publicwatchdog (3,125 comments) says:

    Here you go Kiwibloggers! :)

    Those who are independent thinkers and have a few brain cells to rub together – may be interested in the following example of investigative ‘citizen journalism’?
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/

    September 5, 2013 | Author Penny

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS AND REPLIES RE: FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES, FROM:

    1) THE PRIME MINISTER’S ‘CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR’ PROFESSOR SIR PETER GLUCKMAN

    2) THE MINISTER OF HEALTH TONY RYALL
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST RE: FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES TO:

    1) THE PRIME MINISTER’S ‘CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR’ PROFESSOR SIR PETER GLUCKMAN
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    12 June 2013

    ‘Open Letter’ / OIA to Professor Sir Peter Gluckman from Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright:

    “Upon what ‘science’ are you relying to support fluoride in water?”

    OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, KNZM FRSNZ FMedSci FRS
    Chief Science Advisor

    Dear Professor,

    I read with interest your following ‘Media Release’:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1306/S00035/sir-peter-gluckman-statement-of-flouride.htm

    “Media release
    12 June 2013

    “The science of fluoride in water is effectively settled. It has been one of the most thoroughly worked questions in public health science over many decades,” says Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.

    In a statement released today on the issue of fluoride in public water supplies, Sir Peter reiterates the scientific facts, saying “it is absolutely clear that at doses used in New Zealand to adjust the natural level to one that is consistent with beneficial effects (0.7-1.0mg/litre), there is no health risk from fluoride in the water.”

    So why is there any issue at all?

    Sir Peter points to the importance of the values debate around fluoridation, but warns that this should not be misrepresented as a scientific debate. …”
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Can you please provide the information which confirms you have read the following research:

    1) http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

    “..chronic effects of fluoride involve alterations in the chemical activity of calcium by the fluoride ion. Natural calcium fluoride with low solubility and toxicity from ingestion is distinct from fully soluble toxic industrial fluorides …”

    “Industrial fluoride ingested from treated water enters saliva at levels too low to affect dental caries. Blood levels during lifelong consumption can harm heart, bone, brain, and even developing teeth enamel.
    The widespread policy known as water fluoridation is discussed in light of these findings. ….”

    2) http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html

    50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
    Dr. Paul Connett
    Professor of Chemistry
    St. Lawrence University, NY 13617

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    FYI – I have spent some hundreds of hours researching the decisions of the Ministry of Health and Watercare Services to use Waikato river water as a ‘raw’ source of drinking water supplies for the Auckland region.

    I respectfully suggest that you read the following document which I prepared for a meeting of the Auckland City Council Finance and Business Committee back in October 2002, so that you can understand why a number of persons, such as myself, do NOT trust either the Ministry of Health, or Watercare Services Ltd, when it comes to safeguarding public health and drinking water supplies.

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Waikato-Amended-ACC-Presentation-18-10-02.pdf

    FYI – as a 2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate, I do NOT support the fluoridation of public drinking water supplies.

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner.

    ……………….
    ………………..
    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/?page_id=152

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REPLY RE: FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES FROM

    1) THE PRIME MINISTER’S ‘CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR’ PROFESSOR SIR PETER GLUCKMAN

    FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES OIA REPLY FROM PMCSA PETER GLUCKMAN 12 June 2013 response – Penny Bright 12 June 2013 OIA request (5)
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST RE: FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES, TO:

    2) THE MINISTER OF HEALTH TONY RYALL
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    16 July 2013

    ‘Open Letter’/ OIA to the Minister of Health Tony Ryall from Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright

    Dear Minister,

    I have noted with interest comments you were reported to have made in the following NZ Herald article, about the alleged “organised campaign of misinformation”, by an anti-fluoride group, ‘which has its sights on ridding Auckland of fluoride in its water’.

    “On TVNZ’s Q+A programme yesterday, the minister, Tony Ryall, said there was no doubt science pointed to the fact that there were benefits for families from fluoridation, and that the levels of fluoridation in water were safe for New Zealanders.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10895352

    Fluoride ‘misinformation’ warning
    By Rebecca Quilliam
    5:30 AM Monday Jul 8, 2013

    Tony Ryall said there was no doubt science pointed to the fact that there were benefits for families from fluoridation. Photo / Sarah Ivey
    The Health Minister is warning that an anti-fluoridation group which has its sights on ridding Auckland of fluoride in its water is running an “organised campaign of misinformation”.

    Last month fluoride was removed from Hamilton’s water supply after a council tribunal vote, and Fluoride Action Network New Zealand held a meeting in Freemans Bay to gather support for its campaign to get rid of fluoride from Auckland’s water.

    National co-ordinator Mary Byrne said it was the first in a series of meetings around the region designed to change people’s thinking.

    On TVNZ’s Q+A programme yesterday, the minister, Tony Ryall, said there was no doubt science pointed to the fact that there were benefits for families from fluoridation, and that the levels of fluoridation in water were safe for New Zealanders.

    “I’ve asked the authorities to look at how they can better convey both the health benefits and the social benefits of fluoridation in such a way that people can appreciate those benefits and be aware of them.”

    In the run-up to local body elections some regions would hold a referendum on the issue, Mr Ryall said.

    “I think communities need to be aware there will be highly organised campaigns of misinformation. There will be people who come from out of town and tell all sorts of shock-horror stories around fluoridation.”

    He said communities should look to their local district health boards, dentists and the evidence which showed fluoridation in New Zealand was safe and benefited families.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misinformation

    mis·in·form (msn-fôrm)

    tr.v. mis·in·formed, mis·in·form·ing, mis·in·forms
    To provide with incorrect information.

    1) Can you please provide examples of the allegedly ‘incorrect information’ upon which you are relying, to confirm that this anti-fluoride group is providing ‘misinformation’?

    2) Can you please provide researched examples of the ‘science’ upon which you are relying to substantiate your above-mentioned claims “that there were benefits for families from fluoridation, and that the levels of fluoridation in water were safe for New Zealanders.”

    3) Can you please confirm that as Minister of Health, you have read the following items of research, which outline negative health effects of water fluoridation?

    A) http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

    “..chronic effects of fluoride involve alterations in the chemical activity of calcium by the fluoride ion. Natural calcium fluoride with low solubility and toxicity from ingestion is distinct from fully soluble toxic industrial fluorides …”

    “Industrial fluoride ingested from treated water enters saliva at levels too low to affect dental caries. Blood levels during lifelong consumption can harm heart, bone, brain, and even developing teeth enamel.
    The widespread policy known as water fluoridation is discussed in light of these findings. ….”

    B) http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html

    50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
    Dr. Paul Connett
    Professor of Chemistry
    St. Lawrence University, NY 13617

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    4) Can you please provide the information which confirms which (if any)
    parts of the above-mentioned items of research, constitute ‘incorrect information’, and if so, upon what scientific basis?

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    FYI – I have spent some hundreds of hours researching the decisions of the Ministry of Health and Watercare Services to use Waikato river water as a ‘raw’ source of drinking water supplies for the Auckland region.

    I respectfully suggest that you read the following document which I prepared for a meeting of the Auckland City Council Finance and Business Committee back in October 2002, so that you can understand why a number of persons, such as myself, do NOT trust either the Ministry of Health, or Watercare Services Ltd, when it comes to safeguarding public health and drinking water supplies.

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Waikato-Amended-ACC-Presentation-18-10-02.pdf

    FYI – as a 2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate, I do NOT support the fluoridation of public drinking water supplies.

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner.

    …………………………..
    …………………………..

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/?page_id=152

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REPLY RE: FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES, FROM:

    2) THE MINISTER OF HEALTH TONY RYALL

    FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES OIA REPLY FROM MINISTER OF HEALTH TONY RYALL August 2013 Slevel6.3-c13080913200 (2)

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    In the interest of informed public debate –

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Damn! A blank party vote looks increasingly like the alternative to one for National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jimbo (43 comments) says:

    I think some people confuse reticulated water supply with a human right. Reticulated water supply is no more a human right than electricity supply.

    Indeed electricity is regulated to be provided at 240V and 50Hz. If people don’t want those specs then they use their own transformers to deal with it.

    Worryingly, Colin Craig goes on to share some more of his views on Fluoride: “Fluoride is a poison put in the water supply supposedly to improve dental health.”

    Don’t you love the use of the word “supposedly”! What other reasons is fluoride put in the water for then? (that’s a rhetorical question by the way: Penny Bright’s “informed” view is anything but – relying as it does on 9/11 truthers and chemtrail fellow travellers).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Colin Craig seems to believe this is an issue that the people who are effected by it and who will pay for it in their rates bill should be allowed to decide for themselves.

    Boy that’s really wacky, just imagine people being allowed to decide such things for themselves……

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    ….”Boy that’s really wacky, just imagine people being allowed to decide such things for themselves…”….

    Just like abortion, euthanasia & gay marriage? Sounds like a great idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Maggy Wassilieff (483 comments) says:

    Well its a little more complicated than Lucia Maria poses…… Her children may have good teeth precisely because she had exposure to fluoridated water during her pregnancies. Children with mothers who had sufficient fluoride intake during pregnancy usually have pretty good teeth (all other things being equal… like not having poor nutrition).

    I have lousy teeth… no wisdoms, 2 premolars missing, couple of crowns, and loads of composite fillings. For nearly 60 yrs I’ve been drilled and filled and have paid over hundreds of dollars every 6 months to my dental practice. The husband has never been to the dentist since he left primary school. My daughters have a few fillings, but nothing as bad as I’d accumulated by their ages.

    I have never had a lousy diet and I’ve never neglected my dental hygiene..so why the lousy teeth?

    I am the 4th child of a mother raised in fluoride-free Wanganui. She and many of her contemporaries had false teeth by their 20s. She didn’t have enough fluorine in her body to equip my developing prenatal teeth with much resistance to Bertie Germ. Wanganui water was not fluoridated when I was growing up there in the 50s-60s and I don’t recall fluoride toothpaste being available (or affordable).
    I see this swing against fluoridated water by the ill-informed middle-class as just another example of how to keep poor, uneducated folk in an unhealthy state. How galling that some of us escaped from the decile 1 sandhills of Castlecliff.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. chiz (1,174 comments) says:

    So why doesn’t Lucia like fluoride? Is there, perhaps, some sinister link with Satan that’s been completely overlooked by everyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. gander (90 comments) says:

    @PennyBright at 2:26 PM

    For those who would like to read the other side of “the other side”:

    http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/connett.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Lucia Maria (2,651 comments) says:

    Maggy,

    Her children may have good teeth precisely because she had exposure to fluoridated water during her pregnancies.

    Um, nope. I’ve been drinking mostly filtered water ever since my late teens/early twenties (can’t remember exactly when I got my first filter). My first pregnancy was at age 28.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    publicwatchdog (1,682 comments) says:
    January 31st, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    Dr Pat Condell’s 50 points against fluoridation and his quackery,

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/02/anti-fluoridation-crankery-how-1960s/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. OneTrack (3,350 comments) says:

    Lucia, most water filters won’t remove flouride from the water.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    Sorry, that should be Dr Connett but more on him and the anti fluoridation network,

    http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/connett.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Lucia Maria (2,651 comments) says:

    OneTrack,

    That might be the case, however I have always bought those that claim to do so. I’ve never had the resulting water tested, though, to make sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Maggy Wassilieff (483 comments) says:

    @ Lucia Maria… Oh Bugga… can’t advance that idea any further as the old dear mum is long dead and we can’t access her F levels in bone, blood plasma and compare them with yours…….. so I’ll offer myself as a living experiment…..
    Unlike you, I don’t avoid F ingestion; in fact I actively indulge. I drink about 16 cups of black tea at least every day (and have done so for nearly 48 years). I’ve used fluoridated toothpaste 2wice daily for about 40 years and I’ve lived in a fluoridated water area for 40 years.
    I’ll let you know when the Alzheimer’s hits and the tooth mottling starts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. michael (11 comments) says:

    “Colin Craig will side with proponents of many causes because they want to be heard”. Not true. It seems all the positions adopted by the conservative party are principle based, including the flouridation position, which is based on freedom to choose what is ingested via the water supply. That’s the crux of the issue – freedom to choose, especially considering how widespread and cheap flouridated toothpaste is if people think it is of value. I personally see no value in flouridation at all, having had flouridated water since birth, a mouthful of cavities during that time, and also had flouridated toothpaste since a young age. But i support the right to choose, so if people want to use flouridated toothpaste, then they have the right to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    michael, why not take it one step further on this so called “principled ” and “free to choose” stand and ban the use of e.g Chlorine in our water supplies. ? This could be extended to vaccinations like TB inoculation. Yes fluoridated toothpaste is widespread and cheap to use but the undoubted benefits of both chlorine and fluoride in our water supplies is indisputable, based on very sound scientific principles. Shall we extend this ‘principled” and ‘ free to choose ‘stand to the compulsory wearing seat belts , warrant of fitness compliance. ACC compensation levies etc. etc. ?
    When does one stop.?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ExtremeRightisright (23 comments) says:

    Leave the fluoride in. Just be thankful they dont put in cyanide you whining cunts.

    Plus, when are we going to start utilizing the uranium deposits up Buller gorge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ChardonnayGuy (1,231 comments) says:

    Has anyone read Ian Wishart’s fascinating little Colinista spin piece, True Blue, in the latest Investigrunt? It’s not just fluoridation that he has questionable views about. Fair enough, he’s a property developer so it’s logical that he’d be concerned about leaky buildings. However, he also lists possible causes for future referenda as genetically modified crops, which even the Greens have quietly abandoned as a priority matter, and although he supports charter schools, he also supports throwing money at “alternative health” charlatanry like chiropracty, homeopathy, and other strangeness.

    Added to which, Penny Bright, I was disappointed to see you amidst such ghastly company, even if I have little time for Len Brown myself. However, I certainly don’t think extramarital dalliances should be grounds for dismissal from public office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. michael (11 comments) says:

    “fluoride in our water supplies is indisputable, based on very sound scientific principles..”. this is not accurate. Flouride is effective when applied topically – the experts have stated this repeatedly over the decades. Water flouridation is not topical application, it is ingestion, and its benefits are highly questionable. Refer to the York Review on water flouridation (2000), the largest summation of flouridation studies ever conducted (York University).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Maggy Wassilieff (483 comments) says:

    Michael,. if you can’t differentiate between fluoride and flour, I can’t take your views seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    Michael,” the benefits are highly questionable.”? Then Colin Craig would have the wherewithal I would say to fund a research project comparing two sample populations in NZ .One with Fluoridation and one without.That should tell us much more about the aalleged harmful effects of the stuff e.g lowering IQs ,cancer and other kinds of maladies.!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote