Post Ar3o9vu0HYx9bd5jzU by sumisu3@mastodon.nz
(DIR) More posts by sumisu3@mastodon.nz
(DIR) Post #AqtLHR2KJzamB1X9DE by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-08T00:19:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"[Director-General of Health Dr Diana] Sarfati said there was no legal uncertainty about the government's August 2022 fluoridation directions."#SusanBotting, 2025https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/541266/top-health-official-threatens-to-override-whangarei-fluoridation-refusalAdding fluoride to water is done for medical reasons, and it's added to public drinking water supplies to make it extremely difficult to avoid. As such, it's a clear violation of BORA; "Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment."https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM225509(1/?)#WaterFluoridation
(DIR) Post #AqtN4r16cFECtg5iNc by futuresprog@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-08T00:39:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Removing fluoridation tends to only benefit the wealthier parts of the population who are already brushing regularly with fluoridated toothpaste and harms everyone else in the community. That is, the impact of refusing fluoridation hurts the poor and needy at the expense of the wealthy.Fluoridation is one of the 20th century’s greatest public health advances and the councillors who are holding this back are hurting their community. @strypey
(DIR) Post #AqtNAL7w5uiJjJtyEK by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-08T00:40:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This is not, as it's being presented in this article, a case of a single rogue council going against an overwhelming public consensus. Central government started mandating public water fluoridation after a number of councils had decided against continuing it.In some cases this followed a referendum where a majority voted against fluoridation. In others, councils held rigorous public hearings on the subject, presenting the evidence for both pro and anti fluoridation positions.(2/2)
(DIR) Post #AqtNZXNtetasz9Nly4 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-08T00:45:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Fluoridation involves buying industrial byproducts (or "coproducts") to add to our water, at significant cost to the council. Imagine if all this public money had instead been spent on maintaining our water infrastructure.Worse, there's evidence that the byproducts used in fluoridation can contain heavy metals and other undesirable extras;https://fyi.org.nz/request/1443/response/5576/attach/html/3/DMS%201047864%20v1%20Water%20Fluoridation%20Orica%20HFA%20Analytical%20Reprot%2015%20Nov%202013.PDF.pdf.html(3/?)
(DIR) Post #AqtNtCaoffEkIDnnqS by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-08T00:48:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It boggles the mind that central government is trying to make the practice of water fluoridation compulsory. Surely if the weight of evidence supports its benefits, the public and councils could be convinced to continue with it without compulsion.But councils presented with the evidence almost universally reject it, so central government is resorting to legal threats. Which suggests the evidence for supposed benefits doesn't really stack up.(4/4)
(DIR) Post #Aqtujq72BE1iS710N6 by rogerparkinson@mastodon.nz
2025-02-08T06:11:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey there are places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally & (surprise) everyone growing up there has awesome teeth.
(DIR) Post #Ar3mxffGjBYBogmxpQ by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-13T01:16:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rogerparkinson > there are places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally & (surprise) everyone growing up there has awesome teethA bit of history. Water fluoridation was dreamed up as a consequence of Edward L. Bernays being tasked with creating a positive image for fluoride. To reduce public support for the increasing number of legal class actions in the US, demanding compensation for fluoride pollution from nuclear fuel enrichment and other industries.(1/?)#WaterFlurodiation
(DIR) Post #Ar3nNAPJZ3BuP2U2xU by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-13T01:21:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/?)Bernays found a study that documented a correlation between high natural fluorides in the water supply of a small rural town, and good dental health. This became the centerpiece of his strategy for defanging anti-fluoride pollution campaigns.Which was to present this evidence of correlation as proof of causation (which it wasn't), and argue on this basis that fluorides were not only not bad for human health (which they are), but essential for dental health (which they aren't).
(DIR) Post #Ar3nszzLpvL5M9WBY8 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-13T01:27:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(3/?)Adding fluorides to public drinking water supplies was a key part of this strategy. With the bonus effect of facilitating the handover of increasing amounts of public money from local authorities to the military contractors building nuclear enrichment plants, and other industrial facilities that pump our fluorides as toxic waste. To "buy" this "co-product" for their water supplies.
(DIR) Post #Ar3o1S9kzd0x2APtWC by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-13T01:28:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(4/4)The best medical evidence on water fluoridation, the Cochrane Collaboration review, found that the available evidence base is weak, and the evidence for a beneficial effect is minimal to none;https://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_does-adding-fluoride-water-supplies-prevent-tooth-decay#WaterFluoridation#CochraneCollaboration
(DIR) Post #Ar3o9vu0HYx9bd5jzU by sumisu3@mastodon.nz
2025-02-08T06:15:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rogerparkinson @strypey and chlorinating public water supplies is also for “medical reasons”. Cholera and other water borne diseases are the alternative I guess.We are on tank water and our dentist constantly reminds us to ensure we use fluoride toothpaste. I had flouride treatments as a kid (mouthpiece full of goop) and very likely because of that I have quite good teeth without any significant cavities all these years.
(DIR) Post #Ar3o9x7VkpLtNoQ2gS by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-13T01:30:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sumisu3 > chlorinating public water supplies is also for “medical reasons”. Cholera and other water borne diseases are the alternative I guessThis is a false equivalence. Chlorine treats the water, not the person drinking it.@rogerparkinson
(DIR) Post #Ar3p2icPNAJgKlz9ge by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-13T01:40:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futuresprog > Removing fluoridation tends to only benefit the wealthier parts of the population who are already brushing regularly with fluoridated toothpaste and harms everyone else in the communityThis is moralising nonsense based on received dogma, and not supported by the evidence;https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/113993981718079176@lightweight
(DIR) Post #Ar3pFMvJLVHAoQrJzs by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-08T01:07:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Yeah @futuresprog... afraid I'm not with you on this one @strypey - I think the health concerns are well overblown by people who just always assuming gov't is trying to kill them. I know that gov't is often wildly incompetent, but that's mostly on a policy level, not on a basic services level (although their maintenance can be spotty). Having grown up with fluoridated water, I'm pretty thankful for it (having never had the misery of cavities).
(DIR) Post #Ar3pFO0JKOryAECpQe by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-08T01:07:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@futuresprog @strypey seems to me broad nitrogen pollution and stuff like lead in the water supply in various places is a far bigger concern.
(DIR) Post #Ar3pFOxrkyVZ8w4OG0 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-13T01:42:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lightweight> broad nitrogen pollution and stuff like lead in the water supply in various places is a far bigger concernIt's an entirely separate issue. There are many things that impact the quality of public drinking water supplies, and our ability to afford to run them properly. We can work on more than one of them at a time, and ideally we'd work holistically on all of them.@futuresprog
(DIR) Post #Ar3pZbf4GAywJTuZPs by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-13T01:45:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @futuresprog I think the fear of trace amounts of fluoride being introduced to drinking water is crackpot thinking. It's one of the least controversial health & general social wellbeing improvements a community can make. Unlike chlorine, it doesn't make the water unpalatable or have any noticeable affect on taste. It's pretty much 100% win for all involved. I fail to see a downside other than, perhaps, fairly trivial cost.
(DIR) Post #Ar3rwQrCnOXBNCbIeG by sumisu3@mastodon.nz
2025-02-13T02:12:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @rogerparkinson good point
(DIR) Post #Ar6FJjOIjwWamF4zoW by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T05:43:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/?)@lightweight > I think the fear of trace amounts of fluoride being introduced to drinking water is crackpot thinkingOk, lets take a step back here. Before I make hard claims in public, I do my best to review the available arguments, and see where the evidence leads. Like everyone else, I'm fallible, and perhaps I've been misled here. But I invite you to consider this possibility for yourself too.@futuresprog
(DIR) Post #Ar6FXsNw64KYj4eaVE by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T05:46:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/?)I started looking into the fluoridation issue because as with 1080 (also a fluoride as it happens) I had some greenie friends who were passionately against it, and others who were just as passionately for it. So I decided to look into it and see which side the evidence supported.My default position was that if anyone advocates for adding anything to public drinking water, for any reason, the burden of proof is on them to justify it. I think that's a pretty reasonable default.
(DIR) Post #Ar6G1qPbzrf7IJjA4O by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T05:51:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(3/?)So what did I find? The first thing I noticed is that those opposed to fluoridation were much more able and willing to reference the evidence they believe supports their position. Pro-fluorodationists, in contrast, tended to take their position as self-evident, and argue for it with ad hominem rather than evidence (this thread contains plenty of examples of this).
(DIR) Post #Ar6GH8whN5Ph7SUyG0 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T05:54:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(4/?)While the pro side will claim all credentialed doctors and scientists are on their side, I had no trouble finding counterexamples. Take Dr Ben Goldacre, a strident advocate of evidence-based medicine;https://www.alltrials.net/Back in 2008, he said that;"... anybody making any confident statement about fluoride – positive or negative – is speaking way beyond the evidence."https://www.badscience.net/2008/02/foreign-substances-in-your-precious-bodily-fluids/The Cochrane Collaboration review, which I've already referenced, backs this up.
(DIR) Post #Ar6Gh9Hgje1dhMiUm8 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T05:59:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(5/?)So if there's no substantial evidence that water fluoridation actually had the dental benefits traditionally claimed for it, then it fails the burden of proof test I laid out in post 2.It falls on those advocating for continuing with fluoridation to present the evidence supporting that position. Or, withdraw, and let communities and the councils representing them end the practice.So ... what you got?
(DIR) Post #Ar6GyM1Gdhso7QEwoi by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T06:02:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @futuresprog we can't all be experts on everything. I'm not an expert on safe levels of fluoride. I do, however, have a couple friends (maybe more, if I thought hard) in NZ who work in civic water supply management, both PhD scientists with substantial cred as rigorous thinkers. Their complete lack of concern with trace fluoride enrichment of civic water supplies combined with my own personal experience of having grown up with it, has meant I share their lack of concern (& cavities).
(DIR) Post #Ar6HZVqH585PIWohYe by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T06:09:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(6/?)That's really all that really needs to be said. Again, opponents of fluoridation are not required to prove harm, the onus is on advocates to conclusively prove benefit.There are potential risks of excessive fluoride ingestion itself. Particularly when fluorides in water used for drinking, cooking and washing, is combined with fluoridated toothpaste and other potential sources. But let's put that aside, and accept for the sake of argument that the fluorides themselves are harmless.
(DIR) Post #Ar6Hutq73TqJo0wIOu by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T06:13:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(7/?)What I'm more concerned about is the risks that come with the particular chemicals used in water fluoridation. It's well accepted that these are industrial "coproducts", or in non-PR language, toxic waste. In Aotearoa they mostly come from the aluminum smelter and industrial fertiliser plants.The OIA request I linked in the original thread asked for details of those chemicals. One response conclusively showed that the fluorides used were adulterated with a number of heavy metals.
(DIR) Post #Ar6IRniArNcoM8ulFY by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T06:18:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(8/8)I'm being asked to quantify the potential costs of not fluoridating on people dental bills. But perhaps these could be subsidised by the public health system, as they are in many countries we like to compare ourselves to?Maybe we could pay for this using the millions in public money our councils currently give away in corporate welfare. To the operators of the aluminum smelter and the fertiliser plants, in exchange for the heavy-metal-polluted fluoride wastes they add to our water.
(DIR) Post #Ar6J1M8ypie5HWPI1Y by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T06:25:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(9/?)Also, I noticed neither of you have engaged with the point that imposing water fluoridation on a community who don't want it, is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights Act. Specifically the right to refuse medical treatment.Because it violates BORA, councils who've been forced to go back to fluoridating have been forced to create supplies of fluoride-free water in public places. So they can plausibly argue that to drink from the tap is opt in to being fluoridated (it isn't).
(DIR) Post #Ar6JJWY4t3lqlQoETI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-14T06:28:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(10/10)At some point enough people will get fed up with this sophistry, and the significant extra effort it imposes on people who want unadulterated drinking water, that it will go to the Human Rights Commission or the Supreme Court. At which point the whole fluoridation practice is over, bar the shouting.But all that could be easily avoided if nice, educated, middle class people just dropped the dogma, and took an open-minded look at the evidence for and against. Just a look.
(DIR) Post #ArFuTw6w9CEbfNa81o by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-18T21:37:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/?)@lightweight > both PhD scientists with substantial cred as rigorous thinkers. Their complete lack of concern with trace fluorideHave they looked at the responses to that OIA request I made on FYI?I'm reminded me of a young couple who were accused of hurting their baby by CYF social workers. On the basis of an expert assessment by a medical doctor, which the social workers treated as gospel.@futuresprog
(DIR) Post #ArFutMmw6AGHe1LvIO by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-18T21:42:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/?)When it finally came to a family group conference, and the family got to talk to the doctor directly, they asked if they'd been told a bunch about a number of incidents that were told to the social workers. Incidents which could explain the physical evidence just as well as the social workers' abuse theory, for which there was no other indication.The doctor had not been told, and withdrew her assessment. The case was basically dropped after that, although CYF continued to cover arses.
(DIR) Post #ArFv1kZ5a69zhesCuG by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-18T21:43:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(3/3)The point being that however accomplished an expert, their assessment is only as useful as the completeness of the information fed into it. Which is why 'appeal to authority' is considered a fallacy, and a good way to mislead yourself about the reliability of your assumptions.
(DIR) Post #ArFwGkSmLFjvgYdZrs by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-18T21:57:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @futuresprog I haven't seen your FYI request - can you provide a quick link?
(DIR) Post #ArFxSREvjuTxUiIX7Q by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-02-18T22:10:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lightweight > I haven't seen your FYI request - can you provide a quick link?The full request and responses can be found here;https://fyi.org.nz/request/1443-chemicals-used-by-local-authorities-in-water-fluoridation-programs-and-their-sourcesHere's the evidence of heavy metals in the fluorides provided by Orica NZ to put in our drinking water;https://fyi.org.nz/request/1443/response/5576/attach/html/3/DMS%201047864%20v1%20Water%20Fluoridation%20Orica%20HFA%20Analytical%20Reprot%2015%20Nov%202013.PDF.pdf.html@futuresprog