Waipukurau Campaign

How to become involved:


Waipukurau Fluoridation Information

Letter to Editor 2nd October 2012

Central Hawkes Bay District Councillors met last Thursday to vote on whether they would continue fluoridating the Waipukurau water supply. Viewpoints from both sides of the argument were thoroughly debated along with consideration given to the fact that an overwhelming majority of resident’s submissions were against fluoridation. Councillors voted 6/2 to discontinue fluoridating the Waipukurau water supply.

Several Councillors expressed an interest in pursuing initiatives that have proved successful in other districts educating young people in improving oral hygiene. If implemented these programmes could reach the wider CHB community not just Waipukurau.

Thanks must go to Councillors who have spent much personal time researching this fluoridation issue.
Graeme Rees.

28th September 2012 Hawke’s Bay Today – Fluoride to be removed from Waipukurau Water, Fluoride decision likely to increase inequality

27th September 2012

Central Hawke’s Bay District councillors vote 6 to 2 to stop fluoridation. Only Maitland Manning and Terry Story voted to ignore the community. See Press Release below:

Fluoridation to end in Central Hawke’s Bay

The Central Hawke’s Bay District Council voted this morning 6-2 to end fluoridation in Waipukurau, the only local community with fluoridation.

A survey in 2009 revealed that 80% of residents did not want the fluoride chemical added to their water, but the results were withheld from councillors until the last minute, and fluoridation was retained at that time. This time, 95% of local submissions were to end the practice.

Waipukurau resident Graeme Rees attended this morning’s meeting. “I was very impressed with the thoroughness with which councillors had independently and objectively investigated all aspects of the issue”, he says. “I congratulate the councillors for their due diligence regarding the facts and for respecting the voice of the Waipukurau community in making the right decision”, he adds.

“Fluoride Action Network NZ also congratulate the councillors on making a sound decision on behalf of their residents”, says Mary Byrne “Local body councillors throughout the country are finding that the touted benefit of reduced dental decay is not what it was thought to be and that fluoridation comes with serious risks to health which are simply not worth taking, especially when it is now known than fluoride works when applied to teeth, not swallowed”.

“There are now only 23 councils out of a total of 69 that continue fluoridation in New Zealand.”, she concludes.

20th September

Actual submissions recieved. After counting them oursleves and counting each person, rather than each submission, to allow for couples who used the same submission, there were 99 residnets wanting fluoridation stopped and 5 residents wanting to continue.

9th September 2012
Council decided in June to hold another consultation of the community. Submissions were sought throughtout August. 99 submissions were received with only 14 of them in support of fluoridation. A whopping 85 want fluoridation stopped. The vast majority of submissions were also received from Waipukurau residents.  Council now meets on the 20th of Spetember to hear verbal submssions.

18th August 2012 Hawke’s Bay Today – Anti fluoride groups aims at Central Hawke’s Bay

2nd June 2012  Presentations to the Council’s Long Term Plan were warmly received. There has been a definite shift in this Council. They have now requested that the Coucil staff prepare a report advising them of the considerations of having another consultation or not. The Councillors will meet on the 21st of June to decide what action to take. We are hopeful that the decision will be to turn off the fluoridation without further ado.

28th October 2011 Pleased to announce that progress has been made.  The Central Hawke’s Bay District Council has announced that it is suggesting having the Fluoridation of Waipukurau as an item on the Long Term Plan next year.  It is unlikely they would be doing this unless they wanted to make a change.

Good 2011/2012 draft Annual Plan submissions and presentations were given and progress is definitely being made.  People should feel free to contact the Hawke’s Bay District Council, or any councillor they believe to be sympathetic, and find out if they intend to take the issue further.

March 2010 Complaints regarding the misinformation issued by the Hawke’s Bay DHB during the consultation period were lodged with the Ombudsman and the State Services Commission. These are yet to be resolved.

October 2009 The people of Waiukurau voted 60% against fluoridation, with the number of votes the same or higher than cast in the last local body election. In a display of outright contempt, the Central Hawke’s Bay District council voted 6:1 to ignore the people’s wishes and spend ratepayers’ money installing a new fluoridation plant and continuing putting residents’ health at risk. The Mayor’s pathetic escuse – “We have to take the advice of the Minsitry of Health”. Those voting against the people (for fluoridation): Michael Mullins (proposer)
Trish Giddens
Maitland Manning
Terry Story
Terry Kingston
Hilary Pederson

Against fluoridation:
Michael Waite – congratulations for making the right decision.

11 September 2009

The public meeting to discuss the Fluoridaion of Waipukurau’s water supply was held at 5:30 pm, yesterday. FANNZ applauds the Central Hawkes Bay District Council for the fair manner in which they provided information.

About 40 people attended the meeting with around 10 from the District Health Board. Our man on the spot reported that the public feeling was definitely against fluoride.

The District Health Board had placed a copy of their “10 misconceptions about fluoridation” on everyone’s seat, but this information was clearly shown to be incorrect and misleading as the rebuttal by Mark Atkin, a spokesman from Fluoride Action Network, was available for all to see (for you also – see after John Jukes speech below).

One notable speech was that presented by local dentist John Jukes. John was previously pro-fluoride, but his research and experience in the real world convinced him he was wrong, and he is now very much against the addtion of fluoride to our water supply.

Speech by John Jukes

Good evening, my name is John Jukes. Thank you for inviting me to share my opinion regarding fluoridation of the town’s water supply.

I am a dentist, I have been practising in Waipukurau for 27 years. When I arrived in Waipukurau I believed that fluoridating a water supply was sound medicine. I now believe the opposite.

I now believe that fluoride in the water has very little effect on tooth decay rates. I treat people from a catchment of 12 thousand people. Four thousand i.e. one third have their water fluoridated. I do not observe a difference in decay rates from the fluoridated population to the non fluoridated. But I do observe a difference when the oral hygiene and the diet is poor. I also believe it is foolish medically and is contrary to a basic medical ethic.

Tooth decay is caused by sugar. Tooth decay is not caused by lack of fluoride. Fluoride is not a nutrient.

When fluoride is put in the water supply it not only changes the structure of our growing teeth but also changes the chemical composition of our entire skeleton. Our bones have taken thousands of year to evolve to where they are now. To change the chemical structure of the population’s bones, especially without telling them, seems foolhardy if not cavalier.

I routinely observe fluorosis of the enamel. Dental fluorosis is the first sign of fluoride toxicity or fluoride poisoning. I first observed this when I arrived in Waipukurau. I rang the provincial dental health officer and told him. His reply was, “A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind horse,” and I was encouraged to stay quiet. I found this response both disconcerting and alarming. It was this that stimulated my further reading on the subject.

The fluoride not only gets into our bones but also into our soft tissue.  The fluoride ion is chemically a very active substance. It not only permeates our body, it also combines with other chemicals and aids them in crossing tissue barriers. For example, if I want iodine to penetrate further into soft tissue I combine the iodine with fluoride—this is called povidine iodine and it penetrates further into the tissue.

If one wished to bring fluoride therapy to bear, with regard to tooth decay it can be very adequately applied using a fluoridated toothpaste… which should be spat out, not swallowed.

The studies I have read show an increasing volume of evidence linking fluoride with an array of pathology: hormonal, neurological, carcinogenic, inflammatory, and structural. The questions about fluoride as a toxin are vast. The World Health Organisation links certain arthritis with early stage skeletal fluorosis. There are animal studies and statistical studies linking fluoride with increased bone cancer. Yet I feel we have so little knowledge of fluoride’s negative effects that we are in no position to advise that it be taken systemically, that is by swallowing it.

There are many studies now showing that fluoride has a minimal influence on decay rate in teeth and that diet and oral hygiene are the overwhelming dominant factors.

Since the cervical cancer experiments in National Women’s hospital in Auckland the new ethic of informed consent has been added to our ethical code. When treating a patient firstly they must be fully informed, and secondly, they must consent to the treatment. Fluoridating a water supply is medically treating a population that is neither informed nor consenting. Fluoridation of a water supply is unethical.

When the twin city studies were done in New Zealand the experiments were done with sodium fluoride, yet we put an industrial grade fluorosilicate in the water. This opens another can of worms.

In speaking of canned worms there is very little study on the environmental effects of flowing all this fluorosilicate into our water. Consider the quantity of that fluoridated water flowing into the TukiTuki from Waipukurau.   It has been observed, when a fluoride level, much lower than our drinking water, enters the Columbian river, the salmon don’t run.

So, as I say the questions are vast. The science to support fluoridation is questionable.   The evidence against fluoride increases by the years. I reiterate:

Tooth decay is not caused by a lack of fluoride.

Fluoride is not a nutrient.

Science is continually proving its toxicity.

It is medication.

It is impossible to fluoridate a water supply using informed consent.

Therefore, with today’s standards it is unethical.

I believe, through observation and study, that the fluoridation of Waipukurau’s water supply is foolish. Thank you.

Getting the facts right by Mark Atkin of FANNZ.

The following is a response to the statements made by the Hawke’s Bay DHB in relation to fluoridation and Waipukurau, by FANNZ. Remember – all DHBs have contracts with the Ministry of Health to promote fluoridation and deny everything said against it.

DHB Point 1. “Independent reviews of studies from around the world continue to find strong evidence that water fluoridation benefits oral health(between 30% and 50% reduction in tooth decay).”

Fact: The only independent review of international standing was the York Review in 2000. It found over 90% of studies were too unreliable to use. Of those left the range of results was so wide (5% harm, zero benefit, from little to 64% benefit) that the Board decided that no reliable conclusion could be drawn regarding claimed benefits and safety until better quality studies were done.

In 2005, the British Medical Journal stated that fluoridation promoters continue to quote UNRELIABLE STUDIES to further their cause. It is these unreliable studies that the Hawke’s Bay DHB refers to.

The only reliable study in Australasia was a 2004 Australian study (Armfield and Spencer). It found no permanent benefit from fluoridation. It found socio-economic status determined oral health, REGARDLESS OF FLUORIDATION.

Regarding ceasing fluoridation: Tooth decay in Timaru declined after fluoridation stopped. Timaru now has less tooth decay than any fluoridated South Island community.

Point 2. “Studies conducted after the introduction of fluoridated toothpaste in 1974 continued to report benefits from fluoridated water in addition to the benefits from fluoridated toothpaste use.”

Fact: Again, these studies were not reliable. It has been accepted since 1999 that any benefit from fluoride is from surface application, such as toothpaste. Fluoridated water is too low in fluoride to have surface benefit. Even the US government’s fluoridation-promoting CDC stated in 1999 that swallowing fluoride is unlikely to have any effect in reducing tooth decay. Yet 10 years on, most dentists don’t know of the change in theory.

Point 3. “Fluoride is the 13th most common element. This means that all people are exposed to dietary fluoride because it is common in the environment.

Fact: Being common doesn’t make something safe: mercury is common in New Zealand seafood.

Fluoride is mostly bound up in nature, so it doesn’t usually get into people’s diet. When it does it becomes “the single largest water-borne threat to human health” according to UNICEF. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient – the body has no need for it. Before European arrival, Maori had virtually perfect teeth with as little as 0.01 ppm fluoride in the water.

Point 4. “There is no scientific literature showing fluoride at 0.7 to 1ppm is not safe.”

Fact: The York Review 2000 found no evidence to support claims of safety. No fluoridation-promoting agency has ever conducted research into adverse health effects from fluoride (as far as we know, and commented on by the York Review).

The US National Research Council was asked to assess the EPA’s 4ppm standard. The NRC found that 4ppm was not safe, AND COULD FIND NO LEVEL OF FLUORIDE THAT WAS SAFE, INCLUDING 0.7 – 1 ppm. It reviewed a number of studies that showed harm at 1ppm.  Further, the standard safety margin for medicines is at least 10, and ideally 100 (allowing for varying susceptibility and intake). With known harm at 4ppm, the maximum limit in water would be 0.4ppm – half of what we have in NZ.

Point 5. “[Advanced skeletal fluorosis] requires the ingestion of much larger amounts of fluoride than anyone in New Zealand would be exposed to.”

Fact: The  World Health Organisation states that much “arthritis” is actually early stage skeletal fluorosis, misdiagnosed.

This arthritis/skeletal fluorosis affects about half a million NZers and costs the NZ Health system $2 billion per year. Discussing advanced (Stage 3) skeletal fluorosis is irrelevant and unhelpful.

Point 6. “The DHB does not deny that most countries have rejected WHO’s recommendation [to fluoridate].”

Fact: WHO only recommends fluoridation “if total fluoride intake is less than ‘optimal’”. This is based on the now rejected theory that fluoride works by swallowing – it doesn’t, so there is no ‘optimal intake’. We already get double what early researchers considered ‘optimal’ anyway. WHO also refuses to take responsibility for any harm arising from fluoridation: some recommendation!

Point 7. “Cleansing processes during manufacturing ensure that final products (fluoridating agents) conform to the New Zealand standard.”

Fact: The NZ standard allows the following heavy metal contamination per kilogram of fluoride compound:

Arsenic, lead, and selenium – approx ½ gram;

Mercury – 1/10 gram,

Nickel – approx 1 gram,

Antimony and cadmium — 1/7 gram

The Wellington Regional Council has advised that neither it nor its supplier tests for compliance with these levels. This is not food grade. It is slightly clarified industrial waste.

Point 8. “There is no clear association even in people with skeletal fluorosis. Two studies subsequent to Bassin’s study have shown no association.”

Fact: Bassin showed that exposure to fluoride BETWEEN THE AGES OF 6 AND 10 SPECIFICALLY, for males only, caused a 500-700% increase in bone cancer in teenage males. An earlier New Jersey Health Department study showed the same. Animal studies support this also. Where a person is living when they manifest the cancer is irrelevant, and getting skeletal fluorosis later in life is irrelevant, hence the related statements by the DHB are irrelevant and unhelpful. However, a 2009 study showed significantly higher blood-fluoride levels in bone cancer patients. No study since Bassin has contradicted Bassin’s findings. The DHB has failed to produce the 2 studies claimed.

Point 9. “CDC have advised that there may be a risk of very mild to mild fluorosis for infants fed primarily with infant formula mixed with fluoridated water.”

Fact: The CDC is facing ethics charges for downplaying the risks from fluoride. The New Zealand Standard report on infant formula makes the warning, without limitation on the level of damage. The National Research Council review in 2006 noted a number of studies linking dental fluorosis with other more serious health damage – dental fluorosis is not just cosmetic. Humans have evolved to keep fluoride out of breast milk even if the mother is exposed. Fluoridation results in a baby getting 250 times more fluoride.

4 September 2009

The Central Hawkes Bay District Council is sending out submission/survey forms to every household in Waipukurau asking if they want fluoridation continued or not. Now is the time to speak out. Send in the survey form to the Council, make a submission, and ask to be heard by the Council. The Council has just sent out an information letter with pro- and con positions, from the Hawke’s Bay DHB and FANNZ respectively. The DHB “information” contains the usual misrepresentations, including misrepresentation by omission. FANNZ will respond to this misinformation shortly.

FANNZ applauds the Council for providing information in an open and unbiased way. There are other Councils in NZ that could learn from this example.

A public meeting will be held at 5:30 pm, 10 September at the Waipukurau Community Hall.

You can also see the Council’s info on the survey at: http://www.chbdc.govt.nz/fluoridation-for-or-against/

A public meeting and film screening on the evidence against fluoridation was held on 29 August at the Tavistock Tavern. The meeting first saw an interview with award-winning investigative journalist Chistopher Bryson about his book “The Fluoride Deception”. Bryson’s ten-year investigation uncovered the true reasons for fluoridation, inextricably intertwined with commercial interests.

The “Professional Persoectives” video followed, featuring some of the world’s leading researchers and experts on the harmful effects of fluoride. Three of the US National Research Council’s panel on fluoride spoke.

Attendees were able to ask questions of Mary Byrne and Mark Atkin from Fluoride Action Network NZ, and Sarah Fox of Health Freedom NZ, both Fluoridation-free NZ Coalition.