Hamilton Council must implement the referendum result

March 27th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Hamilton council faces legal action if it decides to reinstate to the city’s water supply today.

It is expected will follow a referendum which showed residents want reinstatement, despite half of the councillors voting fluoride out of the water last year.

Today’s vote was deferred until the council knew the outcome of legal action by the New Health group against South Taranaki District Council for adding fluoride to drinking water in Waverley and Patea.

New Health argued that adding fluoride breached people’s right under the Bill of Rights Act to refuse medical treatment.

Earlier this month, High Court judge Rodney Hansen ruled South Taranaki had the legal power to fluoridate the water, but yesterday, New Health filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal against the decision.

Now, Safe Water Alternative New Zealand (Swanz) has put Hamilton City Council on notice of a judicial review if it decides in favour of fluoridating tap water again.

Fine. They’ve lost once in court, and they’ll lose again.

The warning comes as the 13-strong council decides on the results of the non-binding referendum, in which 66 per cent of the 37,276 voters supported fluoridation.

Swanz co-ordinator Trevor Crosbie said the council was obligated under the Local Government Act to consult the public on the significant issue before making a decision.

They have. It’s called a referendum.

Tags: ,

64 Responses to “Hamilton Council must implement the referendum result”

  1. ROJ (96 comments) says:

    And so they should put it back in. The science, and the result, make it a no-brainer.

    Who know if legal costs can be claimed against this group if they go back to court? Then again, they’ll probably set it up in such a way that they claim to have no money, so I think security for costs should be the first response

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Viking2 (11,228 comments) says:

    Can these people be required to post a court bond BEFORE they start this process?

    This is just vexatious litigation at the taxpayers/ratepayers expense.

    Whats the bet these scum live not in the Hamilton area but on some life style block with their own water.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. anonymouse (706 comments) says:

    Hamilton will waver, and delay and claim that they are waiting for a definitive judgement from the Court of Appeal ( and then the supreme court).

    The HCC have shown no eagerness to engage in restoring flouride and I would not be suprised in 5 years that they are still delaying, claiming that they are awaiting a guy with a beard to come down off a mountain with some stone tablets that definitively instruct them to put flouride in the water…..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wreck1080 (3,787 comments) says:

    flouride is one of those topics where the witch doctors and conspiracy nutters come out in force. (my mother is in the conspiracy nutter camp too, i just don’t get it).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    I see these nutjobs are called Safe Water New Zealand. The loonies suing South Taranaki District are called New Health New Zealand. Obviously the anti-fluoride fruitcakes can’t even agree to be in the same organisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (2,761 comments) says:

    What is it with these sorts of people who are so against democracy? Do they just think the proletariat are so stupid that someone needs to look after them for their own good? And why are they usually lefties?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. band4u (18 comments) says:

    Whatever happened to freedom of choice???
    If people want Fluoride they can take Fluoride tablets. People who don’t want it shouldn’t have to drink it . It cannot be filtered out of the water, unlike chlorine.

    The Problem with the referendum only about 30% of citizens voted at all. So its 70% of the 30% who voted.

    The majority voted against the sale of New Zealand’s Assets. I don’t remember you crying out for their wishes to be upheld!

    When looking to make an informed decision, I phoned the Dental Officer at the Waikato Hospital asking if there was hard comparative evidence to show teeth in Fluoridated are as were better than not fluoridated areas. Not unreasonable I thought given they and the DHB had spent abut $30,000 promoting it. His answer was “You know what funny as it seems, sometimes the trials have shown the teeth in the non fluoridated areas to be better than the fuoridated areas! I asked how that happened and he had no real answer. He then said, ” We must have it in the water to protect the kids in low economic areas of Hamilton, who’s teeth are rotting in their heads cause they drink so much coke”

    It apparently escaped, him that these children with rotting teeth had been raised drinking fluoridated water!

    Perhaps we should be adding fluoride to Coca Cola instead and leave the water alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. James Stephenson (2,078 comments) says:

    Whatever happened to freedom of choice???

    Nothing, unless I missed the bit where council officials were forcing people to drink water from the tap. Rainwater can be collected, bottles of the stuff can even be bought in these establishments called “shops”. Amazing, but true.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    What is it with these sorts of people who are so against democracy?

    This isn’t democracy, it is mobocracy.
    Adding a known neurotoxin to drinking water can never be a part of a democratic process.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    This happened with our local council here in QLD – a loud minority forced the council to have a vote on flouride and they just won – the Mayor then said “We will still use up the flouride stock we have.”

    As I understand it the council have ‘existing stock’ to last till the next council election – when those on the council who said ‘yes’ will be voted from office!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    I missed the bit where council officials were forcing people to drink water from the tap

    Bathing or showering in fluoridated water is also a problem, since fluoride is readily absorbed through the skin.

    Fluoride has been classified as a skin irritant. As a chemical, it has been associated with acne-like bumps that form around the mouth. Dubbed perioral dermatitis, this skin disorder is often mistaken for acne.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031554_fluoride_acne.html

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    Cool, I see Ugly’s here to stand up for the anti-fluoride whackos. Which of the two anti groups do you belong to, Ugly?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    ‘Natural News’ eh Ugly. Also a home of anti-vaxers, assorted woo and conspiracy theories.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    I don’t belong to any of them, mikenmild. Have you run out of rational arguments and resorted to smearing the opposition yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. James Stephenson (2,078 comments) says:

    Bathing or showering in fluoridated water is also a problem, since fluoride is readily absorbed through the skin.

    The biggest health risk around Flouride is the danger of brain damage from the constant facepalming.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    The rational arguments are so well stacked in favour of fluoridation that they need no repeating. Anti claims are all PRATT.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    The rational arguments are so well stacked in favour of fluoridation that they need no repeating. Anti claims are all PRATT.

    Your history of failure in attempting to debunk conspiracy theories makes that statement pretty much worthless, mikenmild.

    Fact #1: Fluoride is a neurotoxin.

    Until recently, mainstream sources have insisted that fluoride was safe, and that to suggest otherwise was a “conspiracy theory”. However, a recent peer reviewed medical journal has now added six additional substances into its classification of neurotoxins, and one of them is fluoride.

    According to the study:

    Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methyl mercury (common in vaccines), polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants – manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated dihenyl ethers.

    http://intellihub.com/peer-reviewed-journal-classifies-fluoride-neurotoxin

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. eszett (2,353 comments) says:

    Safe Water Alternative New Zealand (Swanz)

    Swanz? Really? They must have no germans in their group.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schwanz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    Of course it’s a neurotoxin; but not harmful at the concentration found in fluoridated water. Here’s something to scare you though: don’t drink tea. The tea plant is exceptionally good at sucking up fluoride and a litre of tea may deliver you as much as 9mg of fluoride – much higher than you will get from the water supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Of course it’s a neurotoxin; but not harmful at the concentration found in fluoridated water.

    Do you have any actual science to back that up?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. prosper (138 comments) says:

    It is mass medication. Where in a democracy is mass medication acceptable.
    fl

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    ‘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 risk from fluoride in the water’ – Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science Advisor, Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee.

    ‘There has been much research over many decades indicating that fluoridation is a safe and effective measure for reducing dental caries’ – Professor Sir David Skegg, President of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. stephieboy (2,464 comments) says:

    More about Natural News that UT , anti fluoride lobbies and other conspiracy theorists often refer to,

    “NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike “the Health Ranger” Adams. The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known to human history, though it specializes in vaccine denialism,[1] AIDS/HIV denial,[2] quack cancer medicine[3] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[4] Even other quacks think it’s a quack site.[5] The site has recently broadened to include extreme environmentalism and conspiracy theorizing about Obama and gun control.”
    If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

    UT , you show scientific evidence of the Neurotoxicty of fluoride comparing say Auckland and Tauranga

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    ‘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 risk from fluoride in the water’ – Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science Advisor, Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee.

    That isn’t science, it is a fallacy (called an appeal to authority). Real science involves making observations of real physical cases.

    Also the concentration argument is something of a strawman because fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland.

    http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

    This study has added new knowledge on the fate and distribution of fluoride in the body. It has shown for the first time that fluoride readily accumulates in the human pineal gland although there was considerable inter-individual variation (14-875 mg F/kg).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Albert_Ross (266 comments) says:

    Like climate change sceptics, the antis are doing themselves no favours when they base their arguments on questioning the science, rather than on the policy response to the science. It would be a more defensible to state that they accept the mainstream scientific findings about the health benefits of fluoridation but still think this should be a matter of free individual choice.

    Those who are pro fluoridation are then required to show why they are not also in favour of rationing sugar and soda drinks, both of which have been clearly shown by solid science to be health risks in excess. As it is, all the pro’s currently have to do is refer to respected scientists

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    Albert
    There clearly are public health risks from too much sugar. That might we lead us to considering what forms of regulation might mitigate those risks. To date, we have done little but mandate a certai9n amount of consumer information. In the case of dental decay, the case for fluoridation and its costs and benefits is a much simpler one to make.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. holysheet (286 comments) says:

    Viking said
    Whats the bet these scum live not in the Hamilton area but on some life style block with their own water.

    [deleted as defamatory. You have your Crosbies mixed up]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    ‘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 risk from fluoride in the water’ – Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science Advisor, Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee.

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

    1.9 Typically fluoridation is promoted via endorsements not via sound science.

    When the US Public Health Service (PHS) endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before a single trial had been completed and before any meaningful health studies had been published, it clearly was not the result of solid scientific research. However the PHS endorsement set off a flood of endorsements from other health agencies and professional bodies (see Chapters 9 and 10 in The Case Against Fluoride). Most of these came between 1950 and 1952. These endorsements were not scientific (there was still no solid science that had been established at this point for either effectiveness or safety. These endorsements simply reflected a subservience to the public policy interests of the U.S. government by professional bodies. However, promoters of fluoridation for over 60 years have used these endorsements very effectively with the general public as if they were coming from scientific bodies reflecting thorough and comprehensive scientific research. Very seldom is this the case.

    4. The trial that launched fluoridation in NZ was a fraud.

    This trial was the Hastings-Napier Fluoridation Trial conducted between 1954 and 1964. The fraud was first discussed by the late Dr. John Colquhoun and his PhD thesis adviser Dr. Robert Mann in an article that appeared in The Ecologist in 1986. Further details were presented in Colquhoun’s thesis in 1987 (which is now available to a wider audience) and further refined by Colquhoun and Wilson in 1999.

    4.1 The bare bones of the case.

    The Hastings Napier trial was meant to have Hastings as the fluoridated community and Napier as the control. In other words it was going to be cross-sectional study – comparing tooth decay in two cities at the same point in time after one had been fluoridated and the other had not. Shortly into the experiment the control city was dropped, thus the study became a longitudinal one. In this case comparing the tooth decay in one city (Hastings) at the beginning and end of the trial.

    For such a comparison to be valid, there must be no change in key parameters during the trial. However, there was a change in one of the key parameters in this trial and it was a major one – the method of diagnosing and treating tooth decay. This was more stringent at the end than it was at the beginning.

    At the beginning of the trial school dental nurses were filling indentations (as if they were cavities) but the end they were only filling genuine “holes” in the enamel. Thus the drop in tooth decay attributed to fluoridation was part, or all, the result of making the diagnosis and treatment of tooth decay more stringent.

    What makes the final report a fraud was that the authors did not mention the change in diagnosis when claiming the drop in tooth decay was due to fluoridation.

    In other words, the whole of the fluoridation program in NZ has been built on the basis of a fraudulent study.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. band4u (18 comments) says:

    Holysheet;
    You need to check your facts. Prolife Foods and Mother Eather is owned by Bernard Crosby and his wife Kaye; They were recently awarded a Queens honour ; They are wonderful people and have nothing to do with Trevor Crosby and as far as im aware, not related. This post should really be removed as it is innacurate and defamatory towards someone you clearly dont know

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. band4u (18 comments) says:

    I challenge the writers who call the anti fluorid campaigners nutters to find a recent study that actually shows a reduction in tooth decay when comparing Fluoridated areas to non fluoridated. If such a study exists and they find it, perhaps they could pass it onto the Waikato DHB because they can show no such evidence.( See my earlier post).
    Let’s not forget the medical profession does not rely on anecdotal evidence to ensure other medications are safe or that that they provide cures.
    Those with a blind faith in ‘Science’ should reflect on the fact that ‘science’ gave us Thalidomide. It also told us that DDT, Agent Orange and Asbestos were safe. ( Tell that to the thousands of deformed Vietnamese children whose parents were doused in Agent Orange and to our own soldiers who have died in unprecedented numbers and who’s children carry a multitude of defects.)
    A few years ago ,a ‘scientific’ physiotherapy regime at Auckland hospital left 2 babies dead and a number of brain injured babies before new ‘science’ ruled it ‘too aggressive’
    P.S not one of the aggressive posters who believe in the referendum, have referred to the overwhelming number of people who voted against the Sale of State Assets. At least you should be consistent and decry the Governments decision to ignore it.
    I think that’s called selective logic or perhaps lack of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Lance (2,541 comments) says:

    @prosper
    Mass medication?
    Like killing pathogens in drinking water with chlorine, that’s mass medication or are you advocating infectious drinking water as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Lance, arguing that chlorination is medication is like arguing that pasteurization is medication. The reason chlorine is added is to kill bacteria, not for any direct effect like the hardening of tooth enamel.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. srylands (391 comments) says:

    I predict the ant fluoride folk seriously overlap the anti vaccine folk. The latter group really piss me off. There are a few at The Standard (Vaccines = “Big Pharma imperialism”; natural immunity is best).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ROJ (96 comments) says:

    Stuff announces that the council have voted to return the flouride, 9 – 1

    With 3 councillors absent or abstaining

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Steve (North Shore) (4,517 comments) says:

    New Health control freaks should be taken out the back and shot with a ball of their own shit

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. prosper (138 comments) says:

    Srylands. You choose to be vaccinated. Why in NZ do see need to treat everybody just to cover the the lowest common denominator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “Stuff announces that the council have voted to return the flouride, 9 – 1″

    The council deciding what people want instead of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    Stuff announces that the council have voted to return the flouride, 9 – 1

    Conspiracy to add neurotoxin to water supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    Um wiki, the council decision followed the people expressing their wishes in a referendum. Not that there’d be any problem with the council deciding – that’s what it’s for.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    the council decision followed the people expressing their wishes in a referendum.

    Quite a large conspiracy, eh mikenmild?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    Ugly, it’s hardly a conspiracy when they take a public vote on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    The public don’t get to define what is right and wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    Ultimately they do in a democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    A democracy and a mobocracy are not the same thing. The rule of law has a place in a democracy, but not in a mobocracy. The rule of law serves the public good.

    Right and wrong is not something that man can define, and a democracy can’t define it either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    We’ll just have to differ on that. Right and wrong has always been defined socially and democracy is the best mechanism we have to achieve that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    We’ll just have to differ on that.

    It doesn’t work that way. The burden of proof is yours.

    Right and wrong has always been defined socially

    That is the atheist’s perspective. History says different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    I can’t see how the burden of proff for this can lie with me. I’m just stating how questions or morality have always been determined.
    The atheism is just a bonus from rational thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    I can’t see how the burden of proff for this can lie with me.

    Because you are the one pushing for democracy.

    rule of law: A legal principle, of general application, sanctioned by the recognition of authorities, and usually expressed in the form of a maxim or logical proposition. (Black’s 5th).

    Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
    http://solder.ath.cx/pages/maxims.html

    I’m just stating how questions or morality have always been determined.

    Your statement is false.

    The atheism is just a bonus from rational thinking.

    Atheism can’t explain how a language that did not evolve from anything can exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    You’ve lost me with the language thing, Ugly, but I’m sure you meant to go somewhere with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    If language is purely a social construct then language must have evolved over time rather than come into being as self consistent system. The point in history in which language diverged is described in the story of Nimrod and Babylon. Logically the story would be written in the language that existed before Babylon.

    One description of that language as a self-consistent system is called gematria. Gematria can be used to find “mind-games” which exist within the language. The existence of these mind-games implies that the language was created by some kind of intelligence. One of these concerns finding a reasonable approximation for pi for the bronze sea of 1 Kings 7:23.

    http://www.studylight.org/ls/ds/index.cgi?a=485

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    Your kookiness is approaching record levels. Didn’t realise you were a cabbalist as well. How many loopy ideas can your mind hold at one time before your head explodes?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    I see that you’re now back to your original strategy of smearing the opposition.
    For an atheist, any argument for intelligent design is “loopy” or “kooky”, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ChardonnayGuy (1,170 comments) says:

    Who funds the anti-fluoridation brigade? Are their constituent organisations registered charities? And if so, why? How many members do they actually have?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    Yes, any argument for ‘intelligent design’ is kooky creationism attempting to masquerade as science. It never ceases to amaze me how you appear to support EVERY fringe belief. What do you draw the line at – flat earth?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    todays herald shows an article citing the cost of HCC voting for floridation and costing the tax payer hundreds of thousands. Apparently a law suit is being filed against the HCC. The fact the HCC would waste gross amounts of tax payer funds overly and glaringly suggests Floridation is a conspirtorial agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    But it’s not a waste of money to implement, and defend, a hugely valuable public health programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “The HCC have shown no eagerness to engage in restoring flouride and I would not be suprised in 5 years that they are still delaying, claiming that they are awaiting a guy with a beard to come down off a mountain with some stone tablets that definitively instruct them to put flouride in the water…..”

    Well, that statements been proven utter crap

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “Atheism can’t explain how a language that did not evolve from anything can exist.”

    yes, ja, da, ae, aye……………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    But it’s not a waste of money to implement, and defend, a hugely valuable public health programme.

    Poisoning people by adding a neurotoxin to their drinking water is not “hugely valuable”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    But no one is being poisoned.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    yes, ja, da, ae, aye……………..

    ken

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    But no one is being poisoned.

    They are being poisoned as the fluoride accumulates in their pineal gland.
    Also for newborns formula made from fluoridated water can result in an effective dose far in excess of recommended levels. A toxin which affects the still developing brain of an infant is a poison like any other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. mikenmild (11,234 comments) says:

    But none of those claims are true. Fluoride is a neurotoxin, but you have to consider the dose. As I pointed out yesterday, you are at more risk from drinking too much tea than from using fluoridated water.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. UglyTruth (4,550 comments) says:

    But none of those claims are true.

    arguing by faith again, MM?

    “After a half a century of the prophylactic use of fluorides in dentistry, we now know that fluoride readily accumulates in the human pineal gland. In fact, the aged pineal contains more fluoride than any other normal soft tissue… However, the pineal gland is unique in that it can be classified as a soft or as a mineralizing tissue. In terms of mineralized tissue, the mean fluoride concentration in the pineal calcification was equivalent to that in severely fluorosed bone and more than four times higher than in corresponding bone ash, i.e., 8,900 ± 7,700 vs. 2,040 ± 1,100 mg/kg, respectively. The calcification in two of the 11 pineals analysed in this study contained extremely high levels of fluoride: 21,800 and 20,500 mg/kg (page 167).” ~ Jennifer Luke

    In 1997, the Institute of Medicine set the safe limit (“upper tolerable intake”) of fluoride ingestion at 0.1 mg/kg/day. Subsequent research over the past 15 years has repeatedly demonstrated that infants who consume formula made with fluoridated water can easily exceed the limit deemed safe by the Institute of Medicine. In 2006, for example, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, found in some urban areas of the United States up to “60 percent of the exclusively formula fed babies exceed the safe dose of fluoride on any given day.”
    http://fluoridealert.org/issues/infant-exposure/discoveries/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.