Water. Photo: Pixabay
A community board on one side of Waipā wants plans to put fluoride on the other side on hold.
Cambridge’s water treatment plant is on Lake Karapiro
Waipā District Council has been asked to push back against the Director General of Health’s directive to introduce fluoride to Cambridge water after a US Federal Court ruled fluoridation was an unreasonable risk.
Te Awamutu and Kihikihi Community Board voted 3-1 for deputy chair Kane Titchener’s motion requesting the council seek an interim order, or some other appropriate legal remedy, to put fluoridation on hold until the end of a new court case involving Health New Zealand.
Kane Titchener
The board also requested the council liaise and work with one or more of the 13 other directed councils to push back against the directive and acknowledge to the community that the US Federal Court had ruled that adding fluoride to the water supply at 0.7 to 1ppm is an unreasonable risk relating to neurotoxicity.
Titchener’s motion was seconded by board member Sally Whitaker and supported by chair Ange Holt. John Wood voted against the motion.
“The council’s going to be putting in $140,000 per annum on this, so I think it’s some serious money for absolutely no benefit for a major risk,” Titchener – an anti fluoride advocate – said.
Sally Whitaker – Unsure
“There are definitely councils around the country wanting to push back, so I’m requesting the council reach out to those other councils.
“If we are going to put a neuro toxin into the water supply, we really need to be telling the community that, and that is the basis of the US court case.”
Board member John Wood said he didn’t understand the implications.
“My understanding is if it’s in the water and 0.8 or below it’s safe. I’m not a scientist, so I struggle with some of it. I don’t know where I stand on it.”
“The judge ruled it’s an unreasonable risk looking at all the information,” Titchener said.
John Wood
At 0.7, Titchener said, studies showed a lowering of IQ and increase in ADHD.
“Blind Freddy can now see that we have a serious problem. I’m really requesting help from the council to do something about it.”
Whitaker said everybody needed to have an open mind and suspend judgement.
“The most up to date evidence clearly outlines that fluoridation causes significant harm. The council has obligations under the health act to protect the people. It is vital, with all this conclusive evidence, that council need to consider these duties under the act.”
“Amongst people I have spoken to, there is a lot of support for us not to have fluoridated water, they would prefer to make that choice themselves.”
Ange Holt
Holt said Scotland had achieved a 33 per cent decrease in cavities from just teaching kids how to brush their teeth.
“I have been inundated with emails from the community requesting we support Kane’s motions. I still haven’t finished responding to them all, I can’t tell you how many. I keep getting them.
“There are definitely people from our community making an effort to write well written and well considered emails requesting that the fluoride is kept out of our water and that it’s a personal choice and not a mandated one.”
- Both councillors Lou Brown and Bruce Thomas declared a conflict and did not vote.
- This story was corrected from the print version to show that it was John Wood who voted against the motion.
Water. Photo: Pixabay
