Mr. Allen,

Your question is flawed. There is no data that shows anything human beings use is completely safe. Show me, for example, the data that says using a cell phone is safe to use. Can you show me any data that proves drinking distilled water is completely safe? There is no such data for any thing.

Science includes the premise that new data can always be discovered; therefore, there are no absolute truths. For this reason, the absolute safety of no one thing can ever be proven.

However, the vast and overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence clearly demonstrates that there is no known health hazard or harm from drinking artificially fluoridated water with the optimal level of 0.7-1.0 ppm of fluoride, even if fluorosilicic acid has been used as the fluoridating agent. This data you can be shown.

Regards,
David Fierstien

Thank you for your twenty cents David, what do cell phones have to do with the safety of my family's drinking water? I can 'choose' to not have a cell phone if i wish, however my family can not avoid the local water supply. Why should my family be 'dosed' with all sorts of unnecessary toxic chemicals such as arsenic, barium, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel and selenium (industrial grade fluoride - hydrofluorosilicic acid, taupo district) when, if I choose to, I, or anyone else, can apply, 'topically', toothpaste (pharmaceutical grade fluoride - sodium fluoride) to which we can spit out and avoid exposing our bodies to these toxins.

NZ Bill of rights Act 1990 states in Part 2 Section 11 Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment. "Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment."

Mark, your quote: "I can 'choose' to not have a cell phone if i wish, however my family can not avoid the local water supply." Here you are changing the question. You asked for proof that CWF was safe. That question is nonsense. Show me the data that anything is completely safe. Seriously, you can't do it. No one can.

Again, your quote: "NZ Bill of rights Act 1990 states in Part 2 Section 11 Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment. "Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment."" And again, you are changing the issue. But I will answer this question -- although I'm sure you will raise another.

The NZ Bill of Rights regarding consent to medical treatment has nothing to do with Community Water Fluoridation (CWF). There is no government agency, in the U.S. at least, that calls CWF a drug. We often hear from the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) that Fluoride is a drug which has never been approved for human consumption by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That is not the truth.

While the FDA has no jurisdiction over community water fluoridation (a technicality of which FAN has taken advantage) it does have regulatory authority over bottled water which is considered a "food." In 2006 the FDA approved the following to be put on bottled water with fluoride levels of 0.6-1.0 ppm: "Drinking fluoridated water may help reduce the risk of dental decay." http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspacka...

Moreover, this is a label from Dannon's Fluoride to Go bottled water, an FDA regulated product. You will see that the FDA does not list fluoride as a drug, or a medicine but rather a Mineral Nutrient. And who better than the "Food and Drug" Administration to cite on this issue?http://www.nutritionvalue.org/Water,_DAN...

Calling fluoridated water a "drug" or a "medicine" is a nonsensical & inaccurate scare tactic with which the FDA does not agree. This question has been brought before the U.S. Supreme Court 13 times, and every time it has been rejected. But more relevant to your question, the New Zealand government has specifically stated that CWF is neither a drug nor a medicine. Therefore, the NZ Bill of Rights on Medical Consent is irrelevant on this issue.

The point that Mark fails to realise is that Industrial Grade fluoride is a higher grade than pharmaceutical grade fluoride, and any way all additives to drinking water must meet the strict international standards for purity and contaminates.
“The cariostatic effects of fluoride are, in part, related to the sustained presence of low concentrations of ionic fluoride in the oral environment,derived from foods and beverages, drinking water and fluoride-containing dental products such as toothpaste. Prolonged and slightly elevated low concentrations of fluoride in the saliva and plaque fluid decrease the rate of enamel demineralization and enhance the rate of remineralization. For example, fluoride at 0,04 ppm in saliva can enhance remineralization.”
**Featherston, JDB (2000). JADA, 131 887-899. “The science and practice of caries prevention.”
This paper demonstrates the effectiveness of Community Fluoridated Water in relation to toothpaste, which relies on a conscious treatment by the user. Toothpaste does no good sitting in the bathroom Cabinet

Thank you so much Chris and David - to spend the time to type up so much 'opinion' in defense of CWF is amazing. To 'troll' through OIA requests in defense of the 'establishment' .... im not actually sure why you are bothering.

To quote ANY dentist, or dental organisation is irrelevant when it comes to the human brain, organs, etc.....they only have 'authority' when it comes to teeth - that's all. All I am requesting from the MoH is for toxicology data - so why you guys feel the need to get on the 'offense' is rather 'odd'.

If you two can't accept that I have every right to 'question' government when it comes to the health and well being of my family - thats your problem, not mine. If you want to put all of those chemicals i listed above into yourself and your family that is your choice, however i would like to see what science the government has to give me the 'confidence' that i am making the right choice for me and my family.

FYI Dave,

Definition of "Dose" : a quantity of a medicine or drug taken or recommended to be taken at a particular time.

I didn't start the use the term "dose" when talking about HFA.......however the government and council have both used the term when describing the process of CWF through multiple other OIA requests.

The 'sole' purpose of putting HFA into the water is to prevent 'dental caries' - that is, for the 'purpose of treatment'.

These sport of freedom of information requests seem childishly naive but are politically motivated and used as such.

It is impossible to provide toxicological studies to prove anything is safe - trying finding a toxicological study showing water is safe.

On receiving a reply saying, quite truthfully, that the Ministry does not have such studies, Mark Allen will then authoritatively quote this to "prove" that the chemical is not safe. He will of course delete anything that explains to him the stupidity of such questions.

The supplier of Taupo's HFA - Orica has replied to OIA requests in the past stating that:

The below table outlines the latest analysis results obtained from composite sampling of Orica’s hydrofluorosilicic acid for supply to New Zealand water treatment plants. The analysis was completed by an independent laboratory.

Antimony mg/kg <0.09
Arsenic mg/kg 1.1
Barium mg/kg 0.24
Cadmium mg/kg 0.04
Chromium mg/kg 0.4
Copper mg/kg <0.3
Lead mg/kg <0.05
Manganese mg/kg 0.8
Mercury mg/kg <0.05
Molybdenum mg/kg <0.09
Nickel mg/kg 0.3
Selenium mg/kg <0.5

I have no 'political' agenda other than fulfilling my duty as a parent to keep my family safe and i don't care how 'little' the amounts of chemicals are, are they SAFE (arsenic!?) and are they necessary to have in my family's drinking water when we have 'fluorides' in toothpaste that we can topically apply.

Mark Allen:

1. I would have commented to you on Fluoride Free Taranaki, but they blocked me. You are the one asking for freedom of speech and information, and the page on which you are commenting censors those with whom they disagree. That speaks volumes about the hypocracy of those in your camp, on the anti-fluoride side, who say they objectively look at all sources, and yet only want to look at comments with whom they agree.

2.) Under your post, Dave Auld commented on FFT, "Mark, these people do not have any power other than to do as they are told. If they think as intelligent people should do, they are probably out of a job. The planet is in crisis and the well meaning people at the top, which is actually the bottom, have a de population AGENDA21.
In order to keep us busy they employ idiots, a sea of idiots to tie you down." Mark Allen, this was your reply to him: " im well aware of the statements from the likes of Gates, Turner, et al bottom line for them is to see 90% of the worlds current population gone and fluoride in the water is but 1 of many means that they are trying to achieve their goal." This almost proves that you are dilusionally paranoid.

3.) And this comment of yours confirms your delusional paranoia: "I get the impression that someone from the Ministry of Health was 'directed' to my specific OIA in order to 'put me down/off' in my pursuit to seek this information.......in my opinion the response was too 'scripted' to be an average joe bloggs"

4.) Your comment directed at me: " im not too sure why he feels the need to spend the time 'defending' fluoridation ffs unsure " My answer: I'm not necessarily defending fluoridation, I am simply pointing out the failed logic of your question. It is a sad day when a question of that menial caliber can be directed at a public official who must be forced to answer.

5.) Your quote: " looks like the 'establishment' are sending their army of trolls......3 different 'identities' all joined the site this year (my guess is within the last 48 hrs) and have only ever 'commented' on my OIA none of the other 2,686 requests WTF!" Again, Mark, you are delusional. I happened across your question and simply wanted to point out the moronic question you posed. Anything beyond that is your own paranoid delusion.

6.) Mark,you don't seem to realize what an idiotic question you posed. Bottled oxygen is considered medicine. Can you show me any proof that breathing oxygen is safe? This was the essence of your question. Do you really not get how logically flawed your question is?

Mark, I'm not a paid troll from the establishment as you have said. I'm just a guy who believes that it is incredibly dangerous to allow paranoid delusionals (as you have shown yourself to be) to have a voice in deciding any public policy whatsoever. Community Water Fluoridation is a public policy.

lmao at delusional?......here is ted turners exact quote:

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

And if you really wanted to, you could have messaged me direct on facebook - you don't have to reply via a forum and you know as well as i do that both sides of the 'debate' remove/block/etc for whatever reasons so lets not go there

Agenda 21 is not a tin hat 'conspiracy theory'.....it is an actual UN Document that most of the world signed up to in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992 so you should read that 'mammoth' document before 'labelling' people crazy
.
Lets not get off topic Dave stick to trying to defend that putting multiple toxins such as arsenic, lead, etc into the drinking water is safe because to most people that is the insane delusion ;-)

"Let's not get off topic, Dave." Exactly. You posed a question that is flawed in its logic. Your question is the topic. I am on topic.

"Agenda 21 is not a tin hat 'conspiracy theory'.....it is an actual UN Document that most of the world signed up to in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992 so you should read that 'mammoth' document before 'labelling' people crazy " Thank you for proving the point.

according to Orica - the supplier of HFA to Taupo's water - HFA safety data sheet states:

Classified as a Dangerous Good according to NZS 5433:2007 Transport of Dangerous Goods on Land.
Classified as hazardous according to criteria in the HS (Minimum Degrees of Hazard) Regulations 2001.
Subclasses:
Subclass 6.1 Category D - Substances which are acutely toxic.
Subclass 8.1 Category A - Substances that are corrosive to metals.
Subclass 8.2 Category C - Substances that are corrosive to dermal tissue.
Subclass 8.3 Category A - Substances that are corrosive to ocular tissue.

So how does adding this to the water make it safe to drink?

As usual with the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby group they use misinformation to try and enhance there position
The Data sheet is a perfect example. This pertains to the concentrated product and is required by law for transportation safety information . This has nothing to do with the added concentration levels of Community Fluoridated Water

So what happens to the toxins? i presume they are 'diluted' but does that mean that they are no longer in the water? at which point does a toxin not become a toxin and safe to consume?

I know that you 3 are interconnected eg, dave is mates with ken, and ken is mates with chris, and your all on the skeptics page blah blah if you wish to debate with me thats fine, direct message me on f/book (like i did to dave but he ignored it and only replied here?) and respect my 'right' to question the government for their safety claim of using HFA in my family's water - as far as i am aware, you 3 are not government officials so please leave MY request for them to handle.

You say comment on the facebook page but as usual with the anti fluoride/vaccine pages,As soon as somebody disagrees with your ideology they get banned, so what is the point . The only way to debate with you in a public domain is in blogs like this. And then everybody can comment on your views, As you friends do to us

I didn't say anything about messaging me on any group page??? i said direct message 'ME' on f/book - but your lack of respect for my request is blatantly obvious as you have ignored the last question in regards to when does a 'known' toxin become not toxin and safe to consume?

please don't label me as a group/lobby, yes i am in some groups on facebook how else do you gather information and view the differing opionions on a subject? but i can think for myself and stand on my own two feet - my 'agenda' isn't politically driven, as i have stated earlier i am doing my duty as a parent for the safety and well being of my family - nothing more.

Ok, Allen, I will answer your question regarding contaminants in fluorosilicic acid.

This is how to figure out how much of a contaminant is really being put into water when you fluoridate with FSA:

I will show the math on arsenic, since that is the one everybody brings up. In this batch, arsenic is 4826 ppb, or 4.826 ppm. (Sounds like a big number since the EPA limit for arsenic is 10 ppb in drinking water.) . I got this batch analysis from an Irish anti-fluoride commenter. At the end of this list, the writer wrote, “So, for every 1ppm of “optimal level” fluoride they try to give you, you get 4826 ppb Arsenic, too.” That is way wrong.

Ok. -- FSA is 23% actual fluoride, but it is watered down so the actual amount of fluoride you are getting is 19.8% fluoride, or roughly 1/5 fluoride. So, assuming there was no fluoride in the water, and you want to achieve 1ppm F, you would have to put in 5 ppm of FSA into the water, or 0.000005 Multiply that number by 4.8 ppm of arsenic (because you are diluting the already small amount of arsenic when you add the FSA to water at 5 ppm).
So here is the equation. 0.000005 x 0.0000048 = 0.000000000024 or 24 ppt (parts per trillion).

That amount of arsenic is not even detectable. Now, Allen, if you live in a house built before 2006, you are exposing yourself to more arsenic than that by living and breathing in that home with treated lumber (which most people have) than by drinking this water for a lifetime. Since you are concerned for the welfare of your family, are you going to tear down your house and remove the treated lumber?

Now the above equation assumes you want as much as 1.0 ppm of fluoride, and there is zero fluoride in the raw water (which there never is). So, in other words, if you wanted 0.7 ppm fluoride you would multiply 24 ppt x 0.7 =16.8 ppt . . . and, for example, if you already had .35 ppm fluoride in your raw water and you wanted to top it off at 0.7 ppm you would divide your number by 2, which would equal 8.4 ppt. (.35 is one half of .7 and you want to double the amount of fluoride you already have). 8.4 parts per trillion, Allen. That is what you are concerned about.

8.4 ppt is 1190 times smaller than the EPA limit for arsenic which is 10 parts per billion. This means that you would have to drink 2 liters of this water per day for 1190 lifetimes in order to have a one-in-a-million chance of having a negative health effect from it. And yet you probably live in a home with lumber that has been treated with arsenic as a preservative. Again, your logic is flawed.

And again, I got these numbers from an Irish anti-fluoridationist, and these numbers seem kind of high.

(BTW, Allen, I didn't get your request for private debate via fb.)

TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID (H2SiF6)
AS ANALYZED IN DUBLIN ON 14/08/2000 IN A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
CALCIUM 51 PPM
MAGNESIUM 23.9 PPM
SODIUM(NA) 33.6 PPM
POTASSIUM(K) 6.2 PPM
ALUMINIUM 2.1 PPM
BORON 14 PPB
MANGANESE 571 PPB
COPPER 90 PPB
ZINC 523 PPB
PHOSPHORUS 26187 PPM
BARIUM 168 PPB
IRON 11.85 PPM
SULPHUR 134.9 PPM
ARSENIC 4826 PPB
CADMIUM 4 PPB
CHROMIUM 3763 PPB
MERCURY 5 PPB
NICKEL 1742 PPB
LEAD 15 PPB
SELENIUM 2401 PPB
THALLIUM <2 PPB
ANTIMONY 14 PPB
TIN 4 PPB
COBALT 56 PPB
STRONTIUM 88 PPB
MOLYBDENUM 490 PPB
BERYLLIUM <2 PPB
VANADIUM 87 PP

I'm sorry, Allen. I just scrolled up and saw the list of contaminants you provided in your FSA.

The number I used (from an Irish anti-fluoride guy) was 4.3 times higher than the number you provided in your list of contaminants. Doing the same math with your numbers, you would have to drink 2 liters of your water for 5193 lifetimes in order to have a one-in-a-million chance of a negative health effect from the arsenic.

thanks for that dave at least were getting somewhere along the track. 'if' the numbers you've used are 'reliable' i can understand the calculations you have made. I had never had an 'opinion' on fluoridation until i looked into the history of it. I have looked at both sides and to this day, i still am not 100% confident either way. There have been numerous studies come out over the past few years that do concern me with a range of health effects, enough to warrant my curiosity and to seek clarification and confidence from our officials. If, as you say, everything is deemed safe then im sure the health officials will be able to provide me with that reassurance. It has been disappointing that, so far, any reliable or timely information from either the MoH website, council, dhb, and orica has been like getting blood from a stone. Its been nearly 18 months all up just to get to this point - and for 12 of those months i was lied to/given false statements (another story)........basically, the information i have been seeking from our officials at all levels should have been a breeze to obtain - yet i still haven't been sourced 1 document???

ps. maybe check your 'other' messages folder - it should be there

Hi Mark,
I think I can help answer your question. This from a publication by the CDC:

"Urbansky reviewed available information on fluorosilicates,
with three objectives:
(1) to enumerate unresolved chemical issues germane
to understanding fluoridation and ascertaining
the fate of fluoride and fluorospecies, (2) to critically
review what is known or reported, and (3) to assemble
a knowledge base to provide a starting point for
future study.34
Urbansky states: "Since [1962], toxicity and adverse health impacts have tested fluoride rather than fluosilicates. As a
recent example, in 2001, the FDA reported that
Americans’ exposure to fluoride had increased from
dentifrices, and it demonstrated that any increases
did not produce observable health effects in rats. Fluoride
salts were continually tested instead of fluorosilicates
because the complete and fast dissociationhydrolysis
(eq 1) of fluorosilicates to fluoride and (hydr)oxosilicates was generally accepted as a chemical fact. Accordingly, no reason was apparent to test fluorosilicates separately.
H2SiF6(aq) + 4H2O(l) = 6HF(aq)
+ Si(OH)4(aq) (eq 1)
all the rate data suggest that equilibrium should have
been achieved by the time the water reaches the consumer’s tap if not by the time it leaves the waterworks
plant. . . "" http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/poll...

So, Mark, according to the chemical equation above (and it's an undeniable scientific fact), of fluorosilicic acid diluted into water, the answer is that people do not consume fluorosilicic acid. The dissociation of FSA into water creates the Fluoride ion and Silica, which is completely safe. Fluorosilicic acid no longer exists, and two separate substances are created, and those two substances exist only in parts per million in your water.

Since people do not consume fluorosilicic acid, why would there be a reason for any toxicological safety data on it? Your question implies that people are consuming FSA, and they are not.

I've seen this question before. This is a scare tactic that opponents to water fluoridation use as a smokescreen but in reality it is not relevant to community water fluoridation.

I hope this helps

David, I do not think it is appropriate for you to be interfering in NZ OIA's when you are in fact American and work for a water municipality. I am not interested in what you have to 'add' - I have seen your debate with Paul Connett and i really did feel embarrassed for you as your american authorities left you out to dry. You were very pedantic in you debate and at every turn failed to address, with substance, any of the scientific literature that Dr Connett presented - you did you best to try to discredit him and failed, Then you tried your hardest to pick faults, often off topic and when that failed you offered nothing to the discussion.

I laugh that you want to quote the CDC - they have ZERO credibility when it comes to safety issues and DONT have any jurisdiction or responsibility in NZ. The CDC have manipulated data and studies HIDING rates of autism in black children. This is only just a recent example - there are plenty more!

My problem here is that i have asked for safety data from several authorities here in new zealand and they have FAILED to provide anything thus far after 2 and a half years! If you actually read the responses given they have said the information i am seeking is publicly available - i have asked as to where and they have FAILED, yet again to provide that information. In fact they first referred me to waternz but they said they did NOT have the information. So i asked again and they FAILED again so now all i am asking them is to confirm they do not actually have the information. The Min.of health have said they rely on a whole body of evidence of its safety and that is what i want to see, for myself, because i simply have no confidence. Endorsements are opinion not evidence.

I find it VERY strange that you are so interested in NZ's CWF since you do not even live on this side of the planet. Your little group, you, ken and chris have no respect towards anybody who wishes to question the safety of CWF and seem to enjoy throwing insults around the internet - to the point of 'trolling' people. The amount of time you guys spend on this is alarming.......for what? Do you get paid? Do you have shares in the companies supplying it to the councils? do you enjoy forcing your CWF onto people who do not wish to have it for their families? You and your little group have been asked to stay of my OIA's as you are NOT part of the 'authority' that holds the decision for my water. You also have and are able to contact me on facebook - i remember you stopped communicating to me on there when i asked if you were pro-choice. This will be my final response to you as respect works two ways and you have shown zero!

This 'whole' experience that i have had will be used to show my local community what a fraud and farce CWF is! I have 277 documents that show legitimate concerns over the safety of fluoride and im happy to share them - all im asking for is something from MY (not yours) government that can reassure me that there is no harm being done to my children, especially my AUTISTIC son! As you found out with Dr Connett there is so much scientific literature that does not agree that it is safe.

It's disappointing to see New Health Trust (a front organisation for the Natural Health industry) and Fluoride Free New Zealand, an adjunct of the industry funded Fluoride Action Network continually harassing various government departments with vexatious OIA requests.

Mr Allen, you should be aware by now that no scientific paper that has been through the rigours of peer review would honestly state the 'safety' of anything. What so-called 'Gluckman - Skegg' report highlighted in 2014 was that following a systematic review of the literature there was indeed no evidence of harm. This remains unchanged.

The only 'scientific' literature I have seen since the 2014 review, that refutes such a determination, is from an anti fluoridation activist in the UK who is using his doctorate as an economist to make ecological comparisons in UK linking CWF to hyperthyroidism. Unsurprisingly the paper does not hold much weight given it's failure to control for key variables and / or consult with actual experts.

I hope this satisfies your request.

Regards

Luke Duane Oldfield

Luke, are you a new zealander? because if not, i will restate that i do not appreciate your input into my OIA request to the NZ min.of health. Your reference to the skegg review is beyond hilarious. You want me to take a so called 'independent review' seriously when the majority of the review is being compiled by a long list of 'active' pro-fluoridationalists? Their conclusions were already made before they started!

I have seen plenty of various, multinational concerns from people that actually have the qualifications and authority to speak on concerns i have. Why is it that the doctors of Neurology, toxicology, pediatrics and biochemistry are the ones raising the alarms versus the dentists, politicians, economists who promote it and refuse to do the due diligence in these concerned recommendations?

How many times do i have to state that i am here as a concerned parent of an autistic child. i am not a member of some group, to which i have already been accused - a parent who cares enough to question very legitimate concerns i see coming from the professionals who actually specialise in the specific fields. I am not interested in anybody's OPINIONS - I am using my 'right', to hold my government to account by questioning their position on this matter and the only information i am interested in, is theirs, as they hold the responsibility for my children's health, nobody else.

I hope you can respect that Luke and anyone else who feels the need to chip in their 10 cents.

"Luke, are you a new zealander? because if not, i will restate that i do not appreciate your input into my OIA request to the NZ min.of health."

Hamilton, New Zealand

"Your reference to the skegg review is beyond hilarious. You want me to take a so called 'independent review' seriously"

They cite evidence in one of the most comprehensive systematic reviews compiled in recent memory on the safety of CWF. Clearly your only gripes about the review was that it was undertaken by person's actually qualified and delivered an outcome you didn't agree with.

"when the majority of the review is being compiled by a long list of 'active' pro-fluoridationalists? Their conclusions were already made before they started!"

This is defamatory, where is your evidence, why would they do this? evidence please - not empty rhetoric.

"I have seen plenty of various, multinational concerns from people that actually have the qualifications and authority to speak on concerns i have."

Who? All I have seen is 4 dentists in New Zealand none of whom have the backing of the NZDA, Ministry of Health, Otago School of Dentistry or NZDC.

"Why is it that the doctors of Neurology, toxicology, pediatrics and biochemistry are the ones raising the alarms versus the dentists, politicians, economists who promote it and refuse to do the due diligence in these concerned recommendations? "

Because you're making it up? Show me one respected public health organisation that actively campaigns against water fluoridation. The only global organisation I am aware of is IAOMT which is a crank organization put together by natural health peddlers.

"How many times do i have to state that i am here as a concerned parent of an autistic child."

Appeal to authority (logical fallacy), my nephew is autistic, has no relevance to this discussion.

"i am not a member of some group, to which i have already been accused - a parent who cares enough to question very legitimate concerns i see coming from the professionals who actually specialise in the specific fields."

Are you sure you want to go on the record stating you're not connected in any way to the Natural Health industry?

"I am not interested in anybody's OPINIONS - I am using my 'right', to hold my government to account by questioning their position on this matter and the only information i am interested in, is theirs, as they hold the responsibility for my children's health, nobody else."

Actually, you're just wasting people's time and money to just your own agenda - a time honoured tradition of anti-CWF groups

"I hope you can respect that Luke and anyone else who feels the need to chip in their 10 cents."

Rhetoric without evidence is just that... note how it is asked you don't include and ranty politics.

Please add bonafide references to any future claims you make regarding safety and efficacy. When I say bonafide I mean not from FAN or any of their industry funded sub organisations and from non peer reviewed sources.

Regards

Luke

Edit: Referring to your autistic child is an Appeal to emotion.

An appeal to authority logical fallacy would be the misuse of titles in a manner frequently undertaken by FAN.

Lets just be clear here, you, dave, ken and chris have all chimed in on MY right to OIA my government to seek information I have every right to. I do not 'owe' you guys a single thing. You guys have shown me zero respect but i will reply once to you Luke/Duane (hard to tell as you sign off with Luke here but your facebook profile is simply Duane). Is this 'attention' you guys give me what anybody else should expect if they so require information from the min.of health, or I am the exception?

The EPA back in 2006, added fluoride to its list of recognised developmental neurotoxins, alongside arsenic, lead and mercury - thats why my sons medical position is relevant - two and a half years waiting for our authorities to supply any safety data (not opinion) i have compiled well over 250+ documents that show legitimate concerns and over a dozen since the skegg review. As for the skegg review it is 'minute' in comparisson to the york review so you trying to pump it up to be this 'massive' 'systemic' review of the literature is farcical.

As for you saying im wasting peoples time? It is our government claiming the "safety and effectiveness" of cwf, not me - and all i want is THEIR information THEY rely on to make such claim - not yours, unless YOU actually have the AUTHORITY to determine what goes in my water - which you DONT.

If you want references - no problem i'll happily share everything. you can contact me on facebook, your buddy Dave knows which Mark Allen i am. Now please respect my request and leave it to the AUTHORITIES to respond. Or, if you so wish, you can keep disrespecting my request and show my community just what sort of abuse to expect if they decide to question the authority. Because i have nothing to hide - I have records of 'every' correspondence i've had along my 2.5 yr journey with my local council rep, council, orica ltd, dhb, waternz, min.of health + all of my OIA thread - this included and it ALL will be shared with my community because they deserve to know as much as i do about what exactly is being put in our water and how limited the safety information on it actually is proving to be..

All users are reminded to keep their annotations respectful and constructive.

Annotations are not a general purpose discussion forum, and must be focused on helping requesters obtain the information they are seeking. Debate of the kind above does not qualify.

Comments on this request are now closed.