Fluoride Voted Out In Hamilton, New Zealand

In a overwhelming vote majority of 7 to 1 Fluoride was voted out in the city of Hamilton.

After a grueling 3 day hearing today at 10:15 am the council of Hamilton voted for common sense and the overwhelming evidence against the use of mass “medication” through the water supply and  on June 21 2013 the tap will be closed on Fluoride. (Mind boggles as to why we have wait another two weeks but there you have it)

From my heart a big thank you to the people who spend their time, energy and emotional well being on fighting for this cause and may the example set by Hamilton be followed by other cities throughout New Zealand and the world!!!!

14 thoughts on “Fluoride Voted Out In Hamilton, New Zealand

  1. The father of an American friend of mine was one of the leading , Fluorine chemists in the US, he said to his son, ‘if they ever fluoridate our (local) water supply, they will do it over my dead body – the difference between a so-called therapeutic dose and a deadly dose is minuscule and I don’t trust a lowly paid public servant to get that right’. Fluoride is more poisonous than lead and slightly less poisonous than arsenic, and yet you don’t see us begging for them to add lead to our water supply. good on you Hamilton!

  2. In heavily fluoridated/polluted Australia Dentists laughing all the way to the bank – more dentists than ever before and one filling will cost you anywhere between $150 and $400 depending on size FOR ONE FILLING !! you can only imagine the rest of the charges that more and more of the population are unable to afford – and Private Health Insurance becoming unaffordable for more and more of the population – and those who think hazardous waste pollutants & co-contaminants S6, S7 poison Corrosive 8 hazardous waste known as ‘fluoridation chemicals’ are good for your teeth and brain and body – you need to re-examine your thinking power. Potent neurotoxins, toxins & carcinogens that these are should have been banned decades ago. Those on Centrelink at least can get some help at Queensland (Australian) Government dentists but the waiting list is very long. Australia is in dental crisis after decades of water fluoridation/pollution first commencing in Beaconsfield Tasmania in 1953 & USA in dental crisis after first commencing in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 – water fluoridation/pollution is a fraud – disposal of dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants into our drinking water supplies and hence contaminating our food chain has to be stopped for all time, the only answer ever was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the population, not the disposal of hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium etc.. Chronically poisoning the population, pets and environment on the say so of Pro-fluoridation lobby groups with such political power, clout and control is obscene & should be criminal.

    The only answer EVER was to provide access to affordable dental health care services for all the population, not the disposal of hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc., from phosphate fertiliser industries (and aluminium smelting industries) (known as water fluoridation, plus aluminium sulphate) into our drinking water supplies and hence also contaminating our food chain & using the populations’ kidneys as hazardous waste disposal/filtration units.

  3. I don’t see the point of a binding referendum if the very Council that called one can simply overturn it. This is not democracy in action.

    And I second Ken’s point on concentration/dose: the ‘Harvard study’ indicated that fluoride can have a negative effect on children’s IQ – but at concentrations well above that in New Zealand’s municipal supplies. (I notice that this study was cited in the summary prepared for councillors, but the point about concentration was omitted.): http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2013/06/06/fluoridation-where-did-science-communication-go-wrong/

  4. Well, I guess you have a more direct interest in he subject than most Hamiltonians. After all, you are blogging about it and have “picked a side.” Although we are the ones whose health is effected.

    I have the links, thanks.

    I guess you are committed to one side here and will select whatever fits your commitment. But personally, I was pleased during the referendum to hear from the scientists and health professionals. It sounds like you resented the opportunity they had then to counter the pseudo science and misinformation the current lobby group is disseminating.

    The fact remains, though, many Hamiltonians are pissed off with the council ignoring their views.

  5. Congratulations guys. People are still trying to get rid of it in Sydney – the ingrained propaganda in the minds of the politicians is very difficult to budge. One thing I’ve learned is that it’s actually a CRIME for Sydney Water to NOT add fluoride to the water supply! We’re living in a crazy world.

  6. Problem is that we gave overwhelming support for continued fluoridation in the 2006 referendum. Even the Mayor admits that surveys show that support is still there.

    As a Hamiltonian, yes with yhe normal level of apathy, I got a shock yesterday morning to find the council had decided, more or less behind closed doors.

    I was expecting another referendum where the issues could be publicly considered like last time.

    Well, there’s a lesson in this. I do now know who of to vote for next election.

    • Sorry about spelling. But some relevant figures from the Council’s own summary.

      The 2006 binding referendum showed 70% support for continued fluoridation.

      The recent “Quarterly Residents Survey showed 50.20% of participants would like Council to continue adding fluoride to the water supply, 31% would like Council to stop and 18% of participants did not know.”

      And “The results of the Citizens panel on-line survey showed 56.1% of participants would like Council to continue adding fluoride to the water supply and 43.9% would like Council to stop.”

      A clear majority of citizens supported fluoridation. Further – the councils acknowledged that neither hey or it’s staff had expertise in the area. In fact councillors who were in the district health board or who had expressed a public opinion were excluded from voting.

      Of the remaining 8 councillors, 7 voted to stop fluoridation.

      As you can imagine there are plenty of angry Hamilton rate payers and parents who will be carefully considering their vote next elections.

    • When I lived in Holland I was a fluoride convert. We had it as one of the first countries. I didn’t have a say in the matter at the time. I was a child.

      In fact when first approached by the anti fluoride activists I said I was pro fluoride in Hamilton on one of the first Hamilton farmers markets.

      It wasn’t until I started to really informing myself on the issue after I started really researching many puzzling issues that I began to have my doubts about fluoride and mass medication full stop.

      My understanding was that this was a public hearing in which anybody concerned pro or contra could have their say after which the council would have to make a decision.

      Nice to know you are reading my blog sometimes. I keep abreast of my blogs position in the NZ blogosphere on yours.



      • It was a hearing – but I think not public. Key thing, though, is very few people knew it was even going on. I was vaguely aware because a friend of mine told me he was going to be active in the campaign (he opposes fluoridation). But I heard nothing else until yesterday morning. I had been expecting a campaign and another referendum. I think justified because the last referendum was binding and we shouldn’t expect a group in council to overturn a majority decision like that.

        My point is that because of the, in effect, rather sneaky way it was done the majority viewpoint was demonstratably not the same as the remaining councillors.

        When you say you have been “really informing yourself” what has that entialed. Have you considered the same evidence that the dental and health authorities have? Where have you obtained your information? Have you relied on a lobby group?

        Did you consult scientific experts or groups like the local Science Media Centre – who have realesed infomration about the issue today?

        • First of all, my information about Fluoride or how I got by the information is not relevant to the Hamilton decision. I did not take part in the hearings nor have I been involved in any activism concerning the issue.

          Second the hearings which took place over 3/4 days where public and you could have been part of it.

          For you information the hearings have been open online for anybody to log into when they were taking place and are still online if you want to make yourself familiar with the evidence presented. One of which by a doctor presenting 800 peer reviewed rapports on the toxic endocrine disrupting qualities of Fluoride.

          Open hearings lasting 3/4 days, online coverage 24/7 and abundant evidence presented to the tribunal. It seems to me they made an effort to do this as transparent as possible.

          Maybe this is why that was a good thing. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

          • Yes, I could have been part of it – and might well have been – IF I HAD HEARD ABOUT IT!

            That is a key problem – I think many Hamiltonians got a surprise to hear the news yesterday when the whole issue had been off their radar.

            Yes, I know, lobbyists are very much aware of what is going on – but the general public isn’t. One of the dangers of loobyists.

            Hamiltonians are clearly in favour of fluoridation (even the Council admits their polls show that). So it was rather undemocratic for a group of councillors to take on themselves the decision to change the referendum result. I would have thought democracy would imply this should only be done by another referendum.

            After the fact – yes I can get, and have got, the information and am pleased about that. But it would have been nice to know beforehand.

            I think you are on shaky ground to argue that sometimes it’s better not to inform the public (as the article you recommend). That never goes down well – and one thing about a public decision after extensive discussion (as in the referendum we had) is that people are more likely to accept the decision. I don’t think they will accept this one.
            While the particular lobby group consider this as a victory, I imagine the issue will keep coming up because of the health concerns. And maybe even a pro-fluoridation lobby or pro-science lobby will become active.
            The reason I asked about your sources of information (You raised the issue of being informed – not me) is that I realise it is only human to indulge in confirmation bias. I think you do this with your reference to “a doctor presenting 800 peer reviewed rapports on the toxic endocrine disrupting qualities of Fluoride.” It’s easy to latch on to that and ignore the information on concentrations. The overwhelming scientific conclusion of the professionals is that these sorts of dangers are not relevant at the concentrations used in fluoridation of municipal waters.

            There is a lot of information like that being bandied about which careful examination shows to be inappropriate. And the Council itself acknowledged they have no expertise in this area. It appears they have succumbed to the pressure of a highly organised lobby group.

            I have gone through the on-line printed information supplied by the council – that is consistent with this conclusion. However, I am going to now go through the videos of the oral presentations.

            I am concerned, apart from the serious democratic issue, that the scientific aspects of this issue may not have had fair or equal presentation. Or that there was no chance for scientific opinion on the claims of the lobbyists.

            We shall see.

          • I am a Dutch woman who arrived here 8 years ago and I don’t even live in Hamilton and I knew about it. You are a well informed blogger and a politically aware New Zealander and you were not?

            Here is the link to the open hearings and the article in the newspaper announcing the tribunal beginning



            I am all for informing everybody anytime anywhere as my blog shows but the research concerning the avoidance of cognitive dissonance sows that he who get’s his bit in first has the advantage. It has taken the many, many ordinary and concerned citizens years to get their side heard because of the exactly that mechanism.

            They are not the lobbyists. The lobbyists where the ones who spend half a million just before the referendum and got their bit in first.

  7. Pingback: Fluroide Voted Out Of Hamilton Water Supply. | the real STEVE GRAY

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s