Sean Plunket interviewed Dr Robin Whyman 13 February 2025
From: Morgan Godfery <>
Date: 2 October 2024 at 3:43:38 PM NZDT
To: Kawerau resident, Faylene Tunui <>, Deputy Mayor <>
Subject: RE: OIA Request
Kia ora,
Further to your request, I’ve compiled the following.
1. The filter at the New World tap is called ResinTech SIR-900. The manufacturer describes their system as “a granular aluminum oxide-based adsorbent. It has a strong adsorptive capacity for a variety of contaminants including lead, arsenate, and selenate. SIR-900 is intended for the removal of fluoride from water and can also be used for the removal of arsenate, selenate, and lead from potable water”. The manufacturer states the system will remove fluoride, but in isolated cases where leakage of fluoride occurs it will “generally be less than 0.1 mg/L”. For comparison’s sake, 0.1 mg/L is the fluoridation level that naturally occurs in the Whakatāne River. The Maximum Accepted Value for fluoridation as per Taumata Arowai guidelines is 1.5 mg/L while the Ministry of Health mandates at least 0.7 mg/L as part of their “directive”.
2. For wider context on how we monitor water quality, we undertake daily rounds testing water quality at 3 locations each day. We have 14 sampling locations that are on a rotating schedule for testing. We now test fluoride levels as part of these daily rounds. Given the directive has only just been implemented, we don’t a long series of data yet. I’m told verbally that testing yesterday indicated a level of 0.6 mg/L at the sampling sites (which is below the level the Ministry specifies, but we believe within an acceptable range given the directive). To your specific question, the initial testing of the filter indicated no fluoride. But we will integrate testing at the tap into our “rounds” (but the tap will not be tested daily). If testing indicates fluoride “leakage” is occurring, then we will take the decision on a replacement.
As an additional point, the River Road tap does not contain fluoride or chlorine. This water is made available before the addition of fluoride or chlorine. The water is simply UV treated and made available. If people are worried about the capability of the filter at the New World tap, the River Road tap is your best bet. I assure you we are trying to do the best we can within the limits of the mandatory directive as laid down to us.
On another matter, I did say I would send the US Court case to the Ministry of Health and let you know what their formal response was. You may have seen this formal response already – I assume the Ministry is sending this as pro-forma message – but here it is pasted below in quote marks:
“The Director-General is aware of the US Court decision.
As was required by the New Zealand High Court, the Director-General is undertaking a Bill of Rights analysis of the directions to ensure that section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is considered. The directions remain in place in accordance with High Court rulings.
The World Health Organization and other international and national health and scientific experts endorse water fluoridation as an effective public health measure for preventing dental decay. A 2014 report conducted by Royal Society Te Apārangi, jointly with the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, concluded that there are no adverse health effects of any significance from fluoridation at the level used in New Zealand. In June 2021, the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor released an evidence update confirming this conclusion.”
Nāku i roto i ngā mihi (Kind regards)
Morgan Godfery | Chief Executive Officer | Kawerau District Counciless of even setting her food and groceries.
Related posts
The following is a rebuttal to the outcome of the “evidence” update done by the office of the PMs chief science advisor that confirmed the conclusion that “there are no adverse health effects of any significance from fluoridation at the level used in NZ. https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2022-04/PMCSA-21-05-3_OPMCSA-Fluoridation-Webpage-11102021.pdf
In their “Evidence Summary the OPMCSA did not reference 16 of the 18 studies that the United States District Court, Northern District of California based its determination on.
Page 19 of 80 In summary, the high-quality studies (i.e., studies with low potential for bias) consistently demonstrate lower IQ scores with higher fluoride exposure [e.g., represented by populations whose total fluoride exposure approximates or exceeds the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride (WHO 2017)]. The consistency in association is observed among studies of varying study designs, exposure measures, and study populations. Although some studies that conducted multiple analyses observed within-study variations in results (e.g., differences between subsets of IQ tests), these variations were unique to individual studies and did not detract from the overall consistency in the findings that higher fluoride is associated with lower IQ scores.
35. To come to this conclusion: the NTP Monograph identified 19 studies as being high- quality (i.e., low risk-of-bias); all but one identified an association between fluoride and reduced IQ in children.
The studies referenced by the US District court but not referenced by the O.P.M.C.S.A are: Choi et al. 2015, Cui et al. 2018, Ding et al. 2011, Rocha-Amador et al. 2007, Saxena et al. 2012, Seraj et al. 2012, Sudhir et al. 2009, Till et al. 2020, Trivedi et al. 2012, Wang et al. 2012, Wang et al. 2020b, Xiang et al. 2003a, Xiang et al. 2011, Yu et al. 2018, Zhang et al. 2015b and NTP Monograph at 40, 29-39 (Table 6).
Of the 18 studies the US District Court based its determination on only 2 were referenced in the OPMCSA Evidence Summary as follows:
Bashash et al. 2017 and Green et al. 2019. Both of these studies are referenced, in the Evidence Summary as two of “Several studies published in other countries recently have found associations between higher prenatal or childhood fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes”. (Page 21). On page 22 the following observations are made concerning the Green et al. 2019 study:
Pg 22: However, the Canadian study was of greater potential concern because the conditions in which it took place are more comparable to Aotearoa New Zealand. Similar to the study undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand (Broadbent et al. 2015), the Canadian study also followed a birth cohort (taking a group of children born within a certain time period and following them as they age) and compared the IQ of children between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
The study undertaken in Canada (Green et al. 2019) found that the mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in boys (but not girls), even at optimally fluoridated water levels (i.e. between 0.7-1.2 mg/L). If this finding were replicated in robust studies, it would potentially be concerning as Aotearoa New Zealand recommends fluoridation of water between 0.7 and 1.0 mg/L.
The US District Court based its findings on 16 high quality studies that replicated the Green et al 2019 study findings.