Submission No: 1064 Submission to Hamilton City Council (HCC) regarding Water Fluoridation. Greg Oosterbaan, 6 Howell Avenue, Hamilton. Ph 0273052439 Email [email protected] 31stMarch 2013 1 Submission No: 1064 Contents. 4 – 12 Personal presentation Appendix 13 What are they fluoridating with? From FANNZ website 16 NZ - Fluoridation status by council From FANNZ website 21 HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID AND WATER FLUORIDATION (The Process of Production) http://nzic.org.nz/ChemProcesses/production/1C.pdf 24 Material Safety Data Sheet - SODIUM FLUORIDE http://www.fannz.org.nz/pdfs/Sodium%20fluoride%20ORICA.pdf 29 Studies on Tooth Decay Rates After Water Fluoridation Is Stopped Fluoride Action Network | February 2001 31 Supplementary submission to the Inquiry into how to prevent child abuse and improve children's health outcomes Katherine Smith 38 FLUOROSIS 40 Dental Fluorosis Incidence in New Zealand 2 Submission No: 1064 44 Fluoride Is Not an Essential Nutrient Fluoride Action Network | August 2012 | By Michael Connett 46 Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries F.A.N. | July 2012 | By Michael Connett 51 World Health Organisation Figures statistics on dental health of 12 year olds. 53 The Hastings Fluoridation Experiment 55 The Hastings Fluoridation Experiment: Science or Swindle? By John Colquhoun and Robert Mann (http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/exact/browse/307/308/5395/3/21) 69 Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation John Colquhoun 83 Fluoride & Intelligence: The 36 Studies Fluoride Action Network | By Michael Connett& Tara Blank, PhD | UPDATED December 9, 2012 114 (New Zealand) Institute of Directors. (IoD) https://www.iod.org.nz/ 114 http://www.parliament.nz/en- NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/c/8/00DBHOH_BILL11034_1-Natural-Health- and-Supplementary-Products-Bill.htm 115 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents Nuclear and radiation accidents From Wikipedia. 3 Submission No: 1064 Water Fluoridation – My Submission Against the Practice. Many of the references against water fluoridation are to be found on FANNZ and FAN websites and are likely to be repeated through these submissions, including this presentation. This does not detract from the importance and authenticity of these references. I have tried to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible but must respect the need to be as concise as possible, in respect of the mammoth amount of study which you must do related to this subject. These first few pages are my discussion around the many references which I have included and are an expression of my own, personal opinion as a concerned parent and resident of Hamilton city. It is recognized that you strive to do your best in your elected role as a Hamilton City Council (HCC) councilor. One of my basic human rights is the right to life. Without water (H2O), “Life” is impossible - water is a vital nutrient. I have a basic human right to water (H2O) and whatever minerals are present at their normal level, for that natural environment. I pay local authority rates and this local authority is charged with providing me, and all other residents of HCC catchment, with water. If there is a substance added, which I wish to avoid, Hamilton City Council (HCC) has a responsibility to provide me with a suitable filtration system, to remove any supplements which I (and my family members) wish to avoid – or to not add the “supplement” in the first place. I have a basic human right to freedom of choice. I choose to not consume fluoridated water (beyond the naturally-occurring levels), whether pharmaceutical or industrial grade. Fluoride is not even a necessary nutrient - water is. So as to not violate my basic human rights, HCC has a legal, moral and ethical duty to provide me (and all other residents who freely choose to not consume added fluoride) with water which does not have supplemented fluoride. Presently, my human rights are being violated – regarding water fluoridation. I ask that this practice is terminated. 4 Submission No: 1064 The New Zealand Institute of Directors (IoD) is a well-respected organisation. The Institute’s 2012 publication, “The Four Pillars of Governance Best Practice for New Zealand Governors”, is a guide for it’s members. In the publication (page 87-) the issue of ethics is discussed. This concerns the different values which people hold and the need to respect other people’s values, wishes, opinions and freedom of choice. It is crucial that the decision regarding water fluoridation is based on ethical values and respect for freedom of choice – an internationally respected basic human right which must be upheld in a democratic society. Waikato region. In our Waikato District, the local authorities of Hauraki, Matamata-Piako, Otorohanga, Waitomo and Waipa do not fluoridate their public water supply. I am not aware of any sound scientific evidence showing significantly higher levels of dental caries in these un-fluoridated localities, relative to Hamilton which has been fluoridated. There are a number of data comparisons but these, I believe, are not standardized and are very subjective and would therefore be scientifically invalid. Any research data or data analysis must be validated to a standard where any report is acceptable for publication in an appropriate international scientific journal. There are no bus-loads of dentists commuting to these outlying towns from Hamilton. There are no unemployed dentists in Hamilton. There are dental caries amongst the young residents of Hamilton. Honest consideration of the above will result in the conclusion that adding fluoride to Hamilton’s water supply does not endow magical powers of dental health on the consumers. Indeed there is ample, valid scientific evidence of the opposite. A growing list of Local Authorities worldwide (including New Zealand) are reversing the practice based on similar information as you receive – from health “authorities” and also those who present a sound, scientifically-supported argument in opposition. Also, please note that “authority” is in the legislative sense and does not necessarily guarantee “authenticity”. 5 Submission No: 1064 Privy Council (1963) “the addition of fluoride adds no impurity and the water remains not only water but pure water and becomes greatly improved and still natural water containing no foreign elements” This decision is fifty years old and obviously must be revisited, based on comprehensive research in the interim. Hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is the form of fluoride delivered in the Hamilton water supply. This is an inorganic compound and a bi-product of the fertiliser industry and is, I believe, a “foreign element”. 6 Submission No: 1064 From Waikato DHB website – public access. Who has water fluoridation currently? “Over 300 million people in 39 countries have access to fluoridated drinking water. These include Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States”. In contrast with the above quote from the DHB website, the vast majority of the world does not have added fluoride to the water supply. In Europe, approximately 97% is not fluoridated. I am not aware of any country where there is public protest to have fluoride added to the public water supply. The only public protest which I am aware of is people resisting enforced fluoridation. For more robust data of the global situation, see the WHO research results in the appendix. Statement of Waikato DHB position (WDHB) “Support further research into the benefits and potential risks of water fluoridation, and into appropriate alternatives to water fluoridation in communities where fluoridation is not feasible”. What internationally referenced, scientifically valid (and externally validated) research has Waikato DHB (WDHB) engaged in to study the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation? For example, a very valid project would be a meta-analysis to scientifically challenge and disprove the research presented on FANNZ website and Dr. Paul Connett’s publications. Has such a project been conducted and what are the results? Has WDHB supported the case for water fluoridation with evidence which refutes the case presented against water fluoridation? Have the presenters of the case against water fluoridation supported their case with evidence which refutes the case for water fluoridation? Provision of objective support (not simplistic, un-supported comment) against opposition presentation is a valid approach. 7 Submission No: 1064 I contend that Fluoride, in the form of Hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), is being delivered to the whole population, as a supplement (“natural levels are being topped up” [i.e. supplemented] – WDHB web site), without individual medical prescription but on the authority of and promotion by medical staff on MoH and DHB payroll. See the NZ Government Natural-Health-and-Supplementary-Products-Bill. Is the practice of water fluoridation as a supplement, as is my contention, addressed in this bill – either directly or by implication? The diversity of our population in age, size, weight, metabolic rate, physiological capacity, health status, daily work and recreation tasks, etc dictates that there is a vast spread of water consumption between people and individual dose of added fluoride is also broad and not controllable. There is individualised dose of prescription medicines / supplements to multitudes of people - the individuality is respected and negative consequences are monitored for. This is not so for the health supplement Fluoride. Hydrofluorosilicic