Andrew your appeals to authority ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) can be easily countered with cases where the medical profession has ignored evidence that shows that established practice was dangerous. For example: the routine use of clinical x-rays for pregnant women went on for 25 years after clear evidence was found that it was causing childhood cancers.
http://www.columbia.edu/~ejh1/papers/teratol2.pdf

Semmelweis died before his hand-washing routine for doctors was accepted.

But you claim the ministry of health would warn us of any problems that turn up. It is a political body and just as vulnerable to lobbying as any other government department. With the same logic one can say that the cabinet has the best information regarding all aspects of the TPPA and we should trust them blindly to negotiate and sign it in total secrecy,.

It is the role of the populace, in a democracy, to continually question and hold to account those placed in authority. Any deviation from this is a step towards athoritarianism.

I accept that this is a democracy, but as Isaac Asimov said "There is a weird belief that your democratic opinions count for more than my scientific knowledge."
I should not have to remind you that I am not stopping you from getting a scientific education to be in a position to decide for yourself, however as I already have a scientific education, I am better qualified to state the facts than a BA or MBA graduate serving sandwiches and freaking out about the trace chemicals in their water, but not the carcinogenic chemicals in what they smoke.

But seriously, what kind of conspiracy is it ? The dentists want us all to have good teeth, less fillings and no root canals ? Sounds pretty lame for a true delusional conspiracy, if the paranoid and delusional people really came up with a conspiracy like that, wouldn't it really be spread through the aeroplane exhaust fumes so that it would poison everyone and make them sterile ? Oh, no... That's chemtrails, a completely fucked up level of derp by half-wits who don't even understand basic chemistry or physics.

Gosh, perhaps there are a whole lot of people who don't understand basic science and are basically scared of things they don't understand ?
Perhaps there is such a thing as fear of the unknown ?
Perhaps then there is a valid reason why we should ignore the entire anti-fluoride argument as it is essentially a fear of the unknown by the neo-luddite community who would rather we all had bad teeth, if any, or dentures.

It is the duty of everyone who can claim to think logically, to actually be able to understand both the argument and the scientific truth. As scientific truth is the only reality that we live, all authority can be only be validated from science.

@andrewreitemeyer The word 'conspiracy' has only be used by you and you alone, with the only exception of @andrewreitemeyer in direct response to your suspicion, explaining why this is NOT about actual or imagined conspiracies.

There appears to be at least two different products which are widely used around NZ for fluoridation programs. One of them appears to be composed explicitly for this purpose. The other one appears to be derived from by-products of an industrial process - basically reconditioned waste, refurbished to meet minimum criteria to be deemed acceptable.

The assumption has been raised that the latter might be cheaper and that this could explain the wide adoption of the product with the lesser quality. This assumption is pretty much the opposite of a conspiracy theory; it completely complies to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor , so much to scientific correctness.

Lesser quality can be read as: containing highly toxic substances. These are applied to all citizens, be it newborns or otherwise sensitive people as well as animals, be it pets or farm animals and soil. Because some of them bio-accumulate, your implicit statement that they can be regarded as traces and therefore ignored (which is anyway only your assumption as you have not given any numbers) is invalid.

Your argument, that those complaining are happily and recklessly accepting higher risks in other contexts is firstly again only an unfounded assumption of yours and secondly irrelevant as (given you are right) consciously accepted risk can not compare to one you have no control over.

The question raised here is really: Are we maybe by using the cheaper product for our otherwise unquestioned fluoridation programs paying much, much more in the long run, not only if taken the long term health care costs but also the social and environmental costs into account?

Strictly speaking we would have already seen long term health care costs rise a few decades ago, if that was the case.
However, what we have seen is that the longevity of the population is rising to the point where the major parties are arguing about the pension age needing to be raised in 20 years time.

@strypey is currently in the process to gather information of the products currently used. Do you, @andrewmcpherson, have information about the products and their compounds that have been used some decades ago? I am sure @strypey would be interested in those statistics.

@andrew BTW, not that I would argue that this is an argument for anything; but as you where mentioning it:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=annual+health+care+costs+new+zealand

"Scientific truth" is an oxymoron. The scientific method requires one to constantly question and test existing working hypotheses there cannot be any absolute truth in science. Also Andrew, your claims would be more acceptable if you could point us to peer reviewed research rather than relatives and anecdotes - these cannot and do not deserve to be answered.

$2508 per person per year. Yet the health system has noticeably improved over time, even in the last 30 years (which is not the same as what I said would be the case).

1. It is not my field of study, nor is it a good use of my time to restudy the previous products. I have a different element to study.

@andrewreitemeyer It is neither my field nor yours, and I have little time to find peer reviewed research in this field. I have more significant research to conduct with my limited time in the specialities I concentrate on.
I have six major projects which require more attention than a diversion into a doctorate of medicine will provide, furthermore it is not going to be a useful use of my time to do so, as I have already used all my available student loan years in 9 years of tertiary study.
As I can neither afford to put my life on hold for 6 years, nor will I be able to pay the fees required, then this $100k question you want me to burrow to answer is unreasonable in the extreme.

Finding research on the net is relatively easy using google scholar or any of the opens science journals found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals.
When Strypey revealed his FOI I was also sceptical but there was adequate research to show that the fluoride formulation, that New Zealand uses, is questionable at best and contrary to expert opinion. In my opinion the matter deserves further investigation. You have not produced any solid evidence to the contrary.

I am not asking that you do the research yourself - merely take the time to a little surfing.

OK, let's summarise: @andrewmcpherson is in favour of fluoridationprograms as he is looking at the beneficial aspects of fluoride and fluoride alone.

Nobody has so far been arguing against that.

Everyone else is worried about barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic being deliberately added to the water supply.

Nobody has so far been arguing in favour of barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic being added to the water supply.

The open question is: are there really toxic substances in one or more products used? And if so: are there non-toxic alternatives? And if so: should we take the stance to advocate for using the better product and ruling the problematic product out?

It would be great if we could start two decisions at once, one per each of the first two aspects. But we can't. So I suggest that we first decide on barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic; and then decide on fluoride.

We can then proceed discussing the matter productively with everyone knowing where we stand and talk about.

OK, sorry for the confusion. But second thoughts suggest that we should go from the broader to the more detailed decision. Hence the Fluoride aspect should be the first to agree upon, only if we agree on supporting Fluoride programmes in principle do we have to bother about the actual products to support or dismiss.

I think different fluoridation products are used due to solubility, some like the calcium fluoride are very insoluble so will never be used. There is probably research on contaminants available. Do we have a contamination problem? IE in areas where the 'contaminated' fluoride is used are people showing signs of contamination?

Delivering either medicines or supplements (eg fluorides) through food or drinking water is a health intervention. People can't give informed consent to a supplement delivered by stealth through the public water supply, and large numbers of people have explicitly said they don't consent. Forcing health interventions on people who do not consent "for their own good" is unethical, and frankly, authoritarian.

Also, I challenge @andrewmcpherson or anyone to supply reliable, peer-reviewed evidence that swallowing fluorides improves dental health. You won't find it. Don't take my word for it, Dr Ben Goldacre (currently a Research Fellow in Epidemiology at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) wrote in 2008:

"In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at York University to do a systematic review of fluoridation and its effects on dental health. Little new work has been done since. In the review, 3,200 research papers, mostly of very poor quality, were unearthed. The ones that met the minimum quality threshold suggested there was vaguely, possibly, around a 15% increase in the number of children without dental caries in areas with fluoridated water, but the studies generally couldn't exclude other explanations for the variance. Of course, the big idea with fluoride in water is that it can reduce social inequalities in dental health since everyone drinks it. But there isn't much evidence on that either."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/09/medicalresearch.health

On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that fluorides are poisons which should not be swallowed. Fluoridation advocates keep hand-waving at the low concentrations of fluorides (<0.5ppm) in drinking water, ignoring the copious evidence that fluorides bioaccumulate, especially in the bones and cartilage, leading to conditions like skeletal fluorosis. This happens in both humans and non-human animals, so by pouring fluorides through the drinking water supply, into stormwater and sewage treatment, and then into waterways and the ocean, we are poisoning aquatic wildlife.

I believe there is some evidence that topical application of fluoride to the surface of the teeth has dental benefits. If this is true, redirecting the money spent on water fluoridation into handing out free toothpaste at schools would be both more ethical and more effective in improving dental health.

Other policies which could improve dental health without mass medication include:
* free dental check-ups for all under the public health service
* bringing back school dental nurses

I would also like to note that it is completely unethical to blindly quote @andrewreitemeyer "surf a few research papers on google scholar in a field unrelated to your study and then pass judgement like an expert."

All I see is a critical lack of credibility from the pet experts quoted.

@andrewreitemeyer can you provide a link or something, please?

Perhaps @andrewmcpherson is thinking of Professor Paul Connett when he refers to "a world renowned shrill against fluoridation"?
http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/paul-connett.html

AFAIK the only time Dr Ben Goldacre has commented publicly on the subject of fluoride is in that blog post I linked. He has done a couple of excellent TED talks on the way bad science is used to justify dodgy health interventions:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe

@hubatmcjuhes The link is in my first post on this page. There were a few others that approached the subject but they are behind paywalls.

Remembering that the desired chemical is already diluted way down from kg's of concentrated solution to a small number of ppm, contaminants that exist in the ratio of milligrams/micrograms per kg will be diluted down even further to mere parts per trillion? My gut feeling is that this is a non-issue.

@robueberfeldt the current decision is not about weighing the risks. It is only about the question if water quality is an issue that the Pirate Party would like to stand tall for if we later on would decide to be staunch.
If we don't care about water quality at all, we don't even need to bother about the facts. I have chosen this sequence of decisions to be made to avoid putting lots of effort into providing evidence for something we wouldn't make a party position from anyway. Hence you cannot expect any evidence provided at this point in time.

So can I kindly ask you to revise your vote for this decision and spare the valuable argument for the next round, please?

Accepting for the sake of argument that "correcting" the level of fluoride in drinking water is desirable (as already mentioned, epidemiologist Dr Ben Goldacre says the evidence doesn't support the claimed benefits), this should be done by using material from the same parent rocks that supply the naturally-occurring fluorides. Not by using industrial by-products which are known to be contaminated.

I have shown evidence from my OIA request through FYI.org.nz that a number of toxic substances are being added to drinking water, as contaminants of the industrial by-products (or "co-products") used in water fluoridation. It doesn't matter how much these substances are watered down, as they are known to be bio-accumulative, even the tiniest amounts per day accumulate in organs and tissues over a lifetime, leading to avoidable illness. This is why mercury is being phased out of use, why lead has been removed from paint and petrol, why cadmium turning up in dairy pasture is a concern etc etc.

As I have already mentioned, it is not worth asking an expert from an irrelevant field their opinion on a simple medical matter, unless they are a psychiatrist, a biomedical chemist, a urologist, etc.
An epidemiologist is merely a medically trained statistician, and can not be relied upon to give anything other than advocacy for statistically derived positions.
As a mathematician I know all too well why the famous quotation about "Lies, politics and statistics" implies about trusting statistical observations, particularly when used to advocate a particular position that has had numerous countering surveys over the last 60 years.

The current era would only realistically see problems with industrial waste fluoride in mainland china water supplies.
In NZ, fluoride is added in some local water supplies to counter problems with extremely low levels of fluoride in our rivers. This is important because humans evolved in areas where natural fluoride levels are higher, which makes this trace element vital to our teeth.

It is hardly a conspiracy worthy of a "Dr. Strangelove" argument that adding fluoride to the water supply is a soviet plot to sterilise the youth of the country.
It is merely a public dental health initiative to ensure people who can't afford toothpaste every week can keep their teeth in good condition by drinking water.

I apologise if I sound cranky in this reply, but as someone who has formerly suffered from a paranoia based mental illness, I have no desire to entertain conspiracy theories that do not stand up to reasonable investigation.

@andrewmcpherson

An epidemiologist is merely a medically trained statistician, and can not be relied upon to give anything other than advocacy for statistically derived positions. <<

An epidemiologist is an expert in epidemics, ie patterns of disease across whole populations. If there was evidence that differing levels of fluoride in different water supplies made a significant difference in dental health, or that artificially balancing fluoride levels significantly improved dental health, an epidemiologist would be precisely the right expert to evaluate it.

The current era would only realistically see problems with industrial waste fluoride in mainland china water supplies. <<

I have presented clear evidence that both the chemicals used in artificial fluoridation in NZ are industrial "co-products" (to put it bluntly, industrial waste). I have presented clear evidence that at least one of these chemicals, tested by an independent lab, contains toxic contaminants which are a threat to human health even at the most minute levels.

It's become clear that @andrewmcpherson is unable to acknowledge evidence that doesn't fit his confirmation bias. Nor is he able to stop bringing in totally irrelevant strawmen arguments, like references to "Dr Strangelove" to shore up his position. Andrew's commitment to the current fluoridation practice in NZ stands in flat denial of the evidence. Sound policy is not based on this kind of anti-scientific ideological crusade.

BTW @brucekingsbury "A deficiency in any of the trace elements will lead to a variety of different health problems. When those trace elements are lacking in the natural environment to the point where general health is at risk, why not restore them to the optimal level?"

This implies we are talking about mineral nutrients like iron or zinc. My understanding is that fluorides are not essential nutrients that the body needs for normal health and development, although I'd be happy to look at any evidence to the contrary.

Even if they are though, it's well known that NZ soils lack selenium, which is a mineral nutrient, and that lack of iodine can lead to goiter, which is why iodine is added to some table salt. Yet there are no water selenation or water iodination programmes.

Fluoride deficiency is simply a propaganda concept, which allows pro-fluoridationists to wiggle out of the ethical arguments against mass medication. Fluoridation is clearly a medical intervention, and subject to the same medical ethics about informed consent as drugs, surgery etc.

Dr Ben Goldacre is very respected and holds both purveyors of pseudo-science and big pharma to account. His views on fluoride seem quite balanced to me.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/09/medicalresearch.health

The only toxic by-products I have accumulated this last few days have been from disrupted sleep cycles, so I have decided to acknowledge the multiple texts sent by @hubatmcjuhes while I have been trying to sleep.
I am therefore deleting the previous comment which may be too strongly argued from my viewpoint and those outside the party which I have questioned on the topic.

I shall note that @strypey is free to partake of any substance that he feels aids his opinions and that I partake of his opinion on this topic with enough salt to prevent cramps.

I will however reiterate that as a scientist I prefer to go with the scientific consensus on fields outside my expertise, and that I note that the scientific consensus has been in favour of fluoridation of water in New Zealand since the 50s, with evidence going back to the 30s.
This is no more controversial than the smoking cancer connection established in the 30s also.
I do not think that science should be falsified for political opinion, or other forms of personal gain. However that is merely my opinion and I respect that you have the right to be mistaken in your personal beliefs.

That is all I have to say on this topic which has gone over a year now, and we have held a few votes on this over a year ago to determine our position.
I think that it is reasonable to move on to a new discussion on other things.

I was not going to bother with this Party any longer as it is obviously going nowhere but I am compelled to respond to this comment of Andrew McPherson as it explains a lot about how the Pirate Party is just a reflection of our current systems and thinking.

“prefer to go with the scientific consensus on fields outside my expertise”.

Now since this is about health, the “scientific consensus” in the early 1970's was that Homosexuality was a mental disorder. The “scientific consensus” in the 1970's was that “aversion therapy” in the form of ECT (electrocution) to the genitals of children was acceptable – yes New Zealand in the 1970's.

What Andrew is failing to consider is that too much of “scientific consensus” is biased, that is not to say all is, but care has to be taken.

We live in a world full of knowledge – as evidenced by science, but very little wisdom (the lack of intelligent application of science).

The World needs to be led by those with Wisdom which means charting a different course than is currently being followed by all the typical leadership we see in respective countries. Black and White thinking precludes the application of Wisdom.

Truthfully, I am a little disappointed over the way this topic has dragged out. But, at the same time, if you don't like your ideas to be challenged, pondered, and discussed, you'd do well to just stick to believing conspiracy theories at face value if you want to make a political argument.

I guess I never thought I'd agree with @davidpeterson that it is no point contradicting groupthinkers, but I see now that there was some logic behind his statement, which is ironic as he is usually the least logical person in the pirate party.

coming back to miles's comment, homosexuality used to be banned because straight people thought it was icky or some other nonsense about not wanting other people to enjoy something that they wouldn't themselves.
Anti-Fluoride arguments are basically the same, that you don't want people to benefit from something that you don't want to use yourself.
In both cases, we see the falsehood of the "I don't like it, so you shouldn't get to have it" argument.

The point was that if you take the attitude all that is said in the name of Doctors or science at it's face value you can fall into the trap of believing everything you are told is Gospel. The point about the homosexuality was not that it was banned - you don't even read what is written and you call yourself a scientist ?? !! I said it was considered a mental illness as defined in the "scientific" Diagnostic Statistical Manual - try and read what people are saying before you have your next rant...

I am a scientist. I have developed 2 entire fields of maths from scratch, without assistance, and discovered over 200 confirmed new chemicals from my theory of computational chemistry in the last year, with an additional 300 to 500 estimated to be confirmed this month.
I have an open mind, but not to the point where my brains fall out and conspiracy theories flood in.
If I was to allow conspiracy theories to reign over my reason, then I would happily resign myself to psychiatric intervention rather than talk absurdist bollocks.

A scientist with a huge ego problem... what I was saying has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.. it was historical FACT and as a scientist, perhaps you can learn to look though your cloud of arrogance, and see what was written which patently, you are showing no evidence of doing.

As a non Scientist I am able to look at history and try and learn from the past and the past mistakes, of which there have been many. I must assume that this does not fit your scientific bent, but also absolutely confirms to me that the Pirate Party is going nowhere - well certainly in New Zealand anyway - oh just based on observation...

I have conferred with relevant qualified people on this matter over the last year or so that people have persisted in this topic.
I have confirmation from a pharmacist with a bio-chemistry background & a respected international consulting psychiatrist with a background in general practice and hospital administration and a personal interest in water quality issues due to growing up in a third world country (PNG); that water fluoridation is not worth engaging in paranoid conspiracies over, as the scientific consensus has been well established for 60 years or more, with 80 years of evidence.

This level of crackpottery is frankly as embarrassing as those who deny climate change for reasons of profit.
It is frankly short-term blinkered thinking that does not acknowledge reality or fact or reason.
It can only make a mockery of our political party if we join the ignoble and gullible politicians such as Sue Kedgley in recommending the banning of Dihydroxy Monoxide for being a toxic chemical that comprises 70% of the body mass of John Key.

Of course, the point of chemistry is that all substances are toxic at a large enough dosage, even plain water.
So there is no merit at all in complaining about the toxicity of an industrial by-product being added as a trace element at a level established several decades ago as being suitable for safe consumption.

These facts of science should be known to anyone who actually was awake and paying attention during third-form science or the NCEA equivalent, so I find it rather risible that some people are claiming they never learnt elementary facts covered in their first year of secondary school.

To conclude, what are we as a party of adults if our statements can be disproved by any 13 year old ?
If we are that intellectually bankrupt, then we may as well join one of the major parties in parliament and do politics as usual in this country.

I don't know which but you are failing to comprehend...

I will try and make it more simple for you...

It was a "generalised" point you made - and without looking back I can't remember the exact words but it was along the lines of if you didn't know about something you would rely on other expertise..

I can't be bothered to go into the details as you are refusing to engage your brain...

I don't have a problem about fluoridation.. it was in all the UK drinking water as far as I can remember.

My point was ALWAYS about a generalized statement you made, but clearly, this reality has not dawned on you yet - and it looks like it never will...

First of all, I have over 5000 chemicals to cross-check and then confirm if my estimates are correct this year alone. I do not have the time or money to waste on a student loan large enough to get a tertiary education in bio-chemistry merely for the sake of confirming an argument that others already expert in medical issues have confirmed my position on.

@milesdugmore I do not have the time or money to invest on endless tertiary education at the demands of other people in this argument. I will not be immortal, regardless of what dreamers like Ray Kurzweil proclaim will happen in 30 years time. I will never live the hundreds of years it would take to master all of science and medicine to proclaim expertise in all fields, so it is not a rational statement to say that I require expertise in all fields.

For that reason, it is entirely logical and reasonable to state that outside of my fields of study and interest, I prefer to go with the scientific consensus.
In areas as diverse as climate change, fluoridation, evolution, physics and astronomy I go with the prevailing viewpoints of : it is influenced by people; it is beneficial to health; it is why life exists and changes; it disproves religion as the origins of the universe; it disproves astrology.

To put it all together from what I have learned in this thread:

• There is clear evidence that any benefit for teeth through fluoride only applies by direct contact of the teeth with the substance; consumption has no positive effects to teeth.
• There is strong scientific evidence that fluoride is supporting the health of teeth if the surface of the teeth are exposed to a relatively high concentration (e.g. as in tooth paste) for a relatively long time (a few minutes), e.g. as in brushing teeth.
• There is no conclusive scientific evidence that teeth health benefit from very short exposure of very low amounts of fluoride - as in tab water while drinking. (I have measured it: 15 seconds for 300ml of water).

Still we pay taxpayers money for decades by now for flouridising tab water even though there is no significant/measurable benefit.

@strypey has suggested to think about it even if this would not be enough reason to oppose fluoridation. He then argues that you would want to use a preparation that was created with the proposed health benefit in mind, hence Sodium Fluoride (NaSF) rather than Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFSA). The latter is is cheaper (which is good for a product that is pretty much useless anyway) but comes with more doubts of its beneficial properties and additionally with a whole lot of extra toxic substances as it is not a bespoke medicinal product but a refinement of toxic waste of the mining industry.

I disagree with Strypey in this point, as he makes it sound as if it would be worth fighting for the better substance. But it isn't. Even if we wanted to believe in a beneficial effect of the better substance, then I would argue that tab water is the most inefficient deployment method one can think of.
How much of our tab water do we actually use for drinking? How much do we use for having a shower, washing the car, sprinkle the meadow? How much of it all do we really use for drinking? One percent?

The average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day at home. Roughly 70 percent of this use occurs indoors.

We infest 100% of our tab water in the hope that the few promille that we actually drink will make the difference! Given that we send the most of our tab water down the toilet and into our garden, this approach is simply insane. It is like flooding your house for the purpose of watering a pot of oregano on the window sill.

By doing so we not only treat our teeth with fluoride and all the other by-products like barium, cadmium, chromium, lead and arsenic; we also treat our meadows, cows, sheep, rivers, fish and everything with it.
Bear in mind we are talking about substances that are bio-accumulative, i.e that will not leave your body any more during your lifetime. Every glass of water that you drink and every sausage that you eat from any cow or sheep that has been drinking your water and eating your enriched grass will add up to your lead and arsenic levels.

At other occasions I have argued for regarding SUSTAINABILITY a core principle. The strategy outlined above is clearly massively violating the idea of sustainable thinking. This is true actually regardless of the academic question if short exposure to low quantums of fluoride are beneficial to teeth or not.
That's why I oppose the common practice to taint our good tab water with cheap but toxic substances in principle.

As a end-note to the above: Fluoride is great in toothpaste (just don't swallow. remember: fluoride is toxic); Sugar is not so great but pretty common! If you want to improve the average tooth health across the nation, then consider prohibiting sugar as an ingredient in toothpaste - that would be a proper example of efficient policy without violating personality rights ;-)

Just to clarify, I do not support water fluoridation using any form of fluoride, for the reasons given by @hubatmcjuhes (public money used to buy toxic waste with no convincing evidence of health benefit).

I will reply to the comments by @milesdugmore on the state of the party in the "launching some campaigns" discussion: https://www.loomio.org/g/EatD8u7s/pirate-party-of-new-zealand

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1508/S00039/water-nz-calls-for-government-to-legislate-fluoridation.htm

A further call for the decision to be made nationally, as the science is well established.

As we've already established in this discussion, there are a number of scientists with relevant credentials who do not agree with the pro-fluoridation PR line that "the science is settled", including epidemiology professor Dr Ben Goldacre, and science reviewers the Cochrane Collaboration. I do agree with Water NZ that there should be a national law on adding industrial byproducts from fertilizer manufacturing to people's drinking water, but one that bans it.

Further to the discussion, in chemistry everything is toxic. It is the question of dosage which is key, which is why some people have died from water toxicity from excess water.
This of course, is an academic point which most secondary school students have understood before the end of year 9 or 3rd form.
As emeritus professor Bob Brockie has pointed out in Monday's science column of the Dominion Post, there are scientists who will argue any risible claim they like, eg David Icke and the claim that certain politicians are reptilian aliens such as the Queen of the UK, Al Gore, John Key, etc.
There are also plenty of scientists who will produce a study to suit the target audience and chequebook of the company funding the study. We do not need to look further than the Tobacco industry funding studies that dispute the link between smoking and cancer, even though there are over 400 known carcinogens in a cigarette.

Fundamentally the issue of fluoride is best covered by Gareth Morgan here https://garethsworld.com/blog/health/central-government-is-shirking-its-fluoridation-responsibilities/

Essentially it is an irrational fear of the origins of a trace chemical that is naturally occurring in the areas of the world which human beings evolved in.
It is no more controversial than the adding of trace amounts of chlorine to eliminate bacteria from drinking water.
Yes, in a large enough dose chlorine is toxic, just like any other chemical, but your point is ignoring the basic facts of science and to use your philosophical terminology, is a strawman argument of the phobia associated with the genetic origins of the thing in question.
(Essentially arguing that because it may once have come from guano and passed through a seagull that it is to be avoided by the nature of where it was years ago.)

In case you have not seen the news today, there are now water treatment books of filter paper that can treat up to 4 years drinking water for a person.
http://time.com/4001048/drinkable-book/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/33960237

What can be conclusively said about science is that it is true regardless of who believes in it, it matters not whether the pope of the day believed that the sun orbited the earth as the scientific reality is observable by telescope.
Which brings us to why science relies on peer review, and not outspoken random participants pronouncing that there are no moons orbiting Jupiter, or that the Earth is hollow with a second civilisation living a layer below, or that Reptilians are the political leadership of most nations of Earth.

It is for those reasons that as a scientist, I put more effort into checking my personal research than my associates have in their doctorates, for the simple reason that I expect to seek investment in the outcomes of my research and I will not risk a failed investment simply because I haven't checked the results.

Copying here since I posted this in the wrong thread:

As someone who is mildly anti-fluoridation; I know there are many arguments for the fluoridation of water, and I take the evidence at face value since I can't really be arsed looking into it in depth.

I accept the majority of dental practitioners support fluoridation because of the benefits to society. However there is one thing that in my opinion trumps all the good that fluoridation does.

Fluoridation is forced medication; it is the only medication that is forced on the public with little to no consultation. I happily use fluoridated toothpaste because it is better for my teeth. I drink, cook with and shower in the fluoridated water.

I have seen people try to lump fluoridation in with vaccination (btw I am very pro vax); but there is no comparison; when it comes down to it, no one is coming into peoples houses and sticking needles into children, vaccination is a choice.

@andrewmcpherson is actually correct when he says in the 'scientism and philosophy of science' thread that the party discussion of fluoridation is essentially over. @hubatmcjuhes started out with a neutral view, and in the process of presenting our arguments and evidence for and against, has decided that the arguments against fluoridation are the more convincing. Based on this, and @adambullen 's position, the Pirates should adopt a policy to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to drinking water. The public money currently used to buy fluoride wastes from industry should be redirected into non-compulsory dental health initiatives, such as returning free dental nurses to schools, addressing the dietary issues that cause most dental decay (nutrition-poor, sugar-rich food), and perhaps created fluoridated products like salt (or as @hubatmcjuhes suggests sugar!) that people can choose to buy or not buy. I will put up a proposal to this effect.

The Pirates support both human rights ("positive freedom" of "freedom to...") and civil liberties ("negative freedoms" or "freedom from..."). One of the fundamental of these is the freedom from being subject to health interventions without giving informed consent. In 2010, the UN declared that access to clean drinking water is a core human right. Fluoridation of drinking water is a health intervention, which can only be partially avoided by giving up one's human right to access drinking water from the public supply (consider water used in food production, cafes and restaurants etc). Therefore, water fluoridation is a violation of both human rights and civil liberties, and should be banned.

@strypey Even though it seems as a noble gesture to abstain, just because it is you who brings that proposal forward, I think it is ill-advised. The functionality to vote on proposals is there to evaluate the degree of consensus at a topic at a given point in time. This is to help finding out about diverting concerns so that they can be discussed and in the long run we find the stronger, better positions. If you abstain in the voting because you believe that your strong positions are clear anyway, you actually reduce the effectiveness of the proposal as a tool.

If abstaining would be the right thing to do, then it would be the right thing for everyone and with every proposal. But I feel very strongly that whenever I find something important enough to raise a proposal, I really want a saying in the voting. I also recognise that everyone else feels the same as everyone else has voted on their own proposals.

Please don't take that away from us and abstain form abstaining. Let's keep things simple and easy. Please reserve the abstain option to indicate lack of interest or uncertainty about the arguments brought forward so far.

BTW: It may be worth mentioning that during the last 18 month I have learned that there is clear evidence that fluoridation of tab water actually has a significant positive effect to dental health. In that aspect I have to correct myself.

I still think that there are strong arguments against using the option:

1) Only the tiniest fraction of tab water is used for brushing teeth. This appears to be an insanely ineffective way of distribution, to inject our shower and bathing water, toilet water and gardening water with a harmful by-product only to get a handle on those 200 ml a day used for brushing our teeth.

2) I fully agree with @adambullen and @strypey: Fluoridation is forced medication. And that is just not right for the reasons they point out so clearly.

3) If we really thought that medication through tab water would be right, it certainly would need to be pharmaceutical grade quality, not some sort of refined waste of the mining industry.

4) But I would always thing that forced medication of any kind could only be a last resort measurement. Clearly there are much better options to achieve much better results for general dental health outcomes: @adambullen suggested free toothpaste being distributed through kindergarden and school, education through dental nurses in schools. This and more could be financed by a sugar tax that is currently discussed in many countries (with an according bill having passed in the UK just recently) which has proven to be very effective not only for dental health but even more so as a measurement against obesity.

Conclusion: Can we agree that it is worth discussing to not simply ban fluoridation but develop a broader health policy package that embraces the aim of improving general health and THEREFORE substitutes the ineffective fluoridation with a package of clearly better strategies?

@andrewreitemeyer local referenda may be a better option than banning on the national level. But that doesn't actually address the issue that regardless of the authority being made responsible, wherever the water gets enriched/contaminated: any single person in that jurisdiction cannot avoid consumption of that kind of water.

@andrewmcpherson says the decision should be up to DHBs. It should be pointed out that DHBs are also elected bodies, so having the decision made by DHBs rather than Councils just moves the political hot potato into another political forum.

Politicians have no business deciding health matters at all, as doctors are far smarter than political hacks.

I assume what you mean is that doctors have more knowledge about health issues than politicians, which is generally true. It's also a very good argument against allowing a majority vote by politicians to force people to either a) receive fluoride as a dental health intervention or b) give up their human right to use the public drinking water supply. This is why I disagree with the counterproposal by @andrewreitemeyer

Remember that the proposal is not to ban fluorides. Under this proposal, existing fluoridated products like toothpaste and pills would remain available, and other products like the fluoridated salt and milk sold in some European countries could be made available. Whether and under what circumstances to use fluorides to improve dental health should be a decision made by each patient, in consultation with their doctor, in keeping with the medical ethics against the imposition of medical treatment without informed consent.

If you disagree with this proposal, you are either saying that:
1) Pirates don't defend civil liberties or human rights

2) making people drink fluoride by putting it in public drinking water, possibly without their knowledge, is not a violation of the civil liberty to be free from medical intevention without informed consent

3) The human right to access drinking water, acknowledged by the UN, does not extend to an equal right to access public drinking water supplies

I doubt it's 1), so I think it's more likely to be 2) or 3), in which case I'd like to see those disagreeing with the proposal present an argument in defence of one or both these claims. A link to a previous comment in the discussion would be sufficient.

@strypey there is nothing stopping people from using aquifers such as the petone aquifer , or collecting rainwater should they want fluoride free water.

From the logical point of view, you are arguing that people should not have the right to proven medicine simply because you want a privileged mode of paid access to medicine that is not inclusive of the poor and the diet-constrained.

It is considered a hallmark of free public healthcare that healthcare is a human right, therefore elitist individuals can feel free to opt-out of fluoridation by water filters, aquifers and rainwater collection.
It is better that you make your decision to opt-out individually than to force the majority who actually need this human right to socialised healthcare to fund it individually.
In short, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the few are well catered for by their own individual options than forcing expensive opt-in medical necessities on the majority.

I have no doubt that you wish to be part of the elite who feel better having everything comply with your moral beliefs about the world my friend, but as a pragmatist I know that your needs will be catered for just fine by opt-out methods such as tap filters, aquifers and rainwater.

Furthermore specific to the current proposal by @strypey , human beings evolved for the conditions of other countries where fluoride is naturally higher occurring in the water as a trace element.
There is no big controversy about simply adjusting the level of a substance which we would consume in the countries our ancestors came from.
You may as well make a fuss about iodine, selenium or folic acid for the same ideological arguments that do not have a basis in medical science.

However, it is well-known that certain trace elements are required for the prevention of various conditions, so they are added as a social healthcare standard simply to maintain the basic human right to public medicine that works.
Fluoride is no different, other than it has a prolific and highly vocal nimby crowd who want to pursue a perceived controversy merely because of a well-funded moral crusade.

@andrewmcpherson In direct response to @strypey 's comment that says:

"Remember that the proposal is not to ban fluorides. Under this proposal, existing fluoridated products like toothpaste and pills would remain available, and other products like the fluoridated salt and milk sold in some European countries could be made available."

You respond saying:

"... you are arguing that people should not have the right to proven medicine simply because you want a privileged mode of paid access to medicine that is not inclusive of the poor and the diet-constrained."

And when you say:

"It is better that you make your decision to opt-out individually than to force the majority who actually need this human right to socialised healthcare to fund it individually."

You ignore the numerous places where a number of Pirates have brought into the debate the possibility to discuss alternative means, e.g. raising a sugar tax to fund cost free dental health products delivered to the people by cost free dental nurses ins schools.

People are responding here to the concerns raised and trying to work towards a common ground. But this is made impossible as long as you refuse to relate your comments to the discussion.

The alternative proposed is unworkable so long as it requires harm to be done before funding an ambulance at the proverbial bottom of the cliff.
I am backing the side of the argument that says "let's fence off the cliff rather than place an ambulance at the bottom".
The argument that @strypey makes is that people should have "the civil right to wander off the side of a cliff, so long as there is an ambulance at the bottom".

Hopefully these analogies will help you see this discussion in less divisive language than what I have previously framed the conversation in.

I withdraw and apologise for any residual comments, however I do not think it wise to delete half the thread as it would censor what has been said in history.

Further to my abstention comment, I'd like to say, as a non-scientist and unqualified member of the general public myself, that I find disagreements such as this in the scientific community to be very perplexing. So often it is a pissing match of the quantity rather than the quality of the scientific studies for or against, which decide such things, and very often the backers and funders of such studies also need to be weighed and judged, blurring the lines even further for someone like myself.

This proposal steps aside from the scientific arguments, it's about the ethics of the practice. As it says in the proposal text:
"Regardless of the evidence for and against its efficacy and safety, Pirate policy on fluoridation should be to ban the practice, on ethical grounds."

This is an argument about the limits of regulation. Lawrence Lessig sums this up nicely in a section in his book 'Remix', entitled 'Rediscovering the Limits of Regulaion':

"The parent who beats his child with a two-by-four because the child didn't clean his room is not wrong to insist his child clean his room. He is wrong because however right the motive, means are always subject to measure. A parent, an army, a government: they all must be certain that their devotion to truth does not blind them to the consequences of their actions. There's only so much a government can do. Where we find that limit, we must then find other means to the legitimate end."

I have no problem with fluoride being available as an opt-in dental health treatment, and no objection to redirecting the money used to subsidize public water fluoridation into giving fluoride to lower-income people if they want it. At present, lower-income people (like me) who don't want it have to spend time and money seeking an alternative drinking water supply. Is it ethical that we have to go to these lengths to avoid an otherwise compulsory medical intervention? That's what this proposal is really asking.

EDIT: To quote the UK All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation:

“The right to refuse treatment is accepted as fundamental in a free society, and has been enshrined in human rights legislation, the Patient’s Charter and elsewhere. There is thus a moral imperative on a Government (whether or not it sees itself as legally bound) which can possibly be lifted only in cases of national emergency, and/or highly infectious and/or life-threatening epidemics.”

Re-reading through the proposal text again, I see where you're coming from. Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I'm ethically opposed to fluoridation of the public water supply. However, I'd also disagree with the contention in the proposal that the public reticulation of potable water is in any way "gratis". While our PM has recently suggested that "nobody owns the water", as Toby Manhire pointed in his column, we still have to pay for it. It's definitely not gratis. Some suggest that our water bill payments are levied to pay for ongoing infrastructure maintenance and filtration expenses, not for the raw product itself. I'd argue that such costs should be being borne within our existing land rates, but privatisation of such essential services as water and electricity supply has done away with any such logic. With privatisation came the drive for "profit before people". The cynic in me therefore wonders at the real motivation for introducing fluoride in our water supply. I find it hard to believe it is truly just about public health. However, attempts (as suggested or implied here) to poison their customers, on such a large scale, surely wouldn't benefit water companies, in the long run.

I really don't know what the answer is here. I know I don't like it, from an ethical standpoint. I'm very much in favour of "opt-in" rather than "opt-out", but I don't know of a feasible solution where mass delivery of water is concerned.

I have decided that the comments on this thread are far more toxic than the alleged toxicity of fluoride itself, henceforth I will cease to participate in this thread, which is long past reasonable debate.

My final comment is that I remain of the metaphoric opinion that it is better to fence off a clifftop, than to opt-in to an ambulance service at the bottom of the cliff.

OK, three pirates have agreed. According the 3-pirate-rule those are entitled to start an initiative, e.g. a group. May I ask @strypey and @adambullen if we should form a group aiming at working out a more concise dental health policy proposal in which a fluoridation ban may have a place in a broader context, possibly including a sugar tax to finance educational and material support to effectively and efficiently increase the dental health in NZ?

This group should by all means be open to every interested member and as a starter I would particularly hope for @robertfrittmann as an interested but undecided member and @robueberfeldt as the reasonable sceptist to be part of the discussion.

I would mention @andrewreitemeyer here as well if I wouldn't know that as the president of PPI he has matters of much higher priorities to attend to.

If at least two other pirates like this post, I will open such a group. :walking:

@andrewmcpherson your objections are noted, and I agree with you that it's best (for you and for us) if you don't make any further comments on the topic of water fluoridation.

I like your suggestion @hubatmcjuhes for those of us who take this view to get to work on a detailed policy proposal. Can I suggest we do that by opening a new thread specifically on fluoridation in the Policy Incubator subgroup, rather than by starting a new subgroup? I think avoiding the proliferation of subgroups with overly narrow purposes will help new members get to grips with how we organise discussions in Loomio.

I'm amazed this was even considered as a worthy policy of discussion for PPNZ, as it should be so so so far out of scope. Sigh.

I'm amazed this was even considered as a worthy policy of discussion for PPNZ, as it should be so so so far out of scope. Sigh.

Your comment here is interesting, David, and it reminds me of a similar comment I made once, in a thread in the Internet Party's Loomio (which no doubt @williamasiata remembers) on the issue of abortion. That particular discussion came from out of the blue, and was only open for debate and voting for four days. At the time I was very vocally against that proposal, due to my own experience of IVF treatment. However, even if I had been in favour of the proposal, I would still have been against the way the proposal was handled procedurally.

Something I have learned since those days is that a political party needs to have policy on all manner of issues, whether they be considered "core values" or not. As it says in the FAQ's on the main PPNZ website, we are not a single-issue party.

While we concentrate on our core issues of internet rights, copyright reform, patent reform, personal privacy and government transparency we realise that these policies are not separable from other areas of policy. For example it is not tenable to call for internet based civil rights but to ignore other civil and human rights. Therefore we are open to taking stands on other issues and formulate policy along Pirate Principles. This is the attitude take by most modern Pirate Parties.

Although I am of a mind with most Pirates here on the issues we hold as "core values", I am outspoken on civil and human rights issues too, particularly about disability, diversity, and inclusion issues. I trust that my own particular emphasis, as with the fluoridation issue raised here, might be treated equally with respect by other Pirates, even though it isn't about technology and privacy related issues.

There has been a lot of debate in the past about if PPNZ is a single issue part, a core values party, or a broad platform, or some mix of all three.

It is my view it would be foolish for PPNZ to be too thinly covered over too many areas too soon. It dilutes down the brand and the message, both would be critical flaws for PPNZ to take.

At PPNZ's current (barely alive) status it would not take too many stubborn members (less than you could count on one hand) and they could push through absolutely any ludicrous proposal they wish.

Which when you think about it... strikes me as highly undemocratic in a way, for so so few to determine the wide policy path of a part (which we'd hope) would be representing tens of thousands. While there are only a few members, we should only concern ourselves with very few policies, when we have later a small number of members then we can concern ourselves with a very small number of policies, then when we have a medium number of members we can cover a modest medium number of policies. And so on and so on. Would be the fairest approach for not just the present, but al

You need to also think about overhead of policy maintenance and campaign pushing, a too broad platform is not viably supported by a very small base.

First PPNZ needs to do ONE well executed comprehensive election campaign focused on the fundamentals, only after that point (which we've never came close to doing) then we can think about where to build out from there.

And getting distracted with fluff is only taking us even further from getting that done first.

There has been a lot of debate in the past about if PPNZ is a single issue part, a core values party, or a broad platform, or some mix of all three.

As I mentioned above, I sourced the quote about PPNZ not being a single-issue party from the Party's own, official, public-facing website, from the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) section. If that cannot be relied upon to be an accurate representation of the current disposition of the Party, then what can be?

At PPNZ's current (barely alive) status it would not take too many stubborn members (less than you could count on one hand) and they could push through absolutely any ludicrous proposal they wish.

That sounds to me like you're not particularly in favour of the "Three Pirate Rule", a fundamental precept of swarm management. In my view, policy is not set in concrete, and is subject to change if enough members vote against it. All policy statements should have a mandatory review period, and should be able to be challenged even before such a period expires if sufficient members deem it necessary. If any three pirates in agreement can create a workgroup that establishes a proposal for a new policy to be voted upon by the membership (of whatever size), then any three pirates in agreement can also establish a workgroup to see that the previous policy gets brought back before the membership (of whatever size) for review. That's the way I see it working. I may be wrong on this.

I'm starting to have second thoughts on the issue. I think there are merits to using alternate delivery methods IE salt. It is easily possible for individuals to consume more than the daily requirement of fluoride through alternate food sources if fluoride is added to water. By adding fluoride to water we remove the one thing that people could easily use to control their own fluoride consumption.

I buy iodised salt and I would buy fluoridated salt as I think my diet is insufficient in both. I think the Pirates could support looking at alternate delivery methods. Using salt is less efficient and will cost the country more in dental bills but taxpayers seemed to have rationalised this in Europe.

On a completely unrelated (but still Health-related) issue, I'd like to mention that I'm attending a consumer workshop this week, on the subject of establishing electronic health records in Auckland. Similar to the current discussions about electronic voting, there are considerable privacy and security issues involved in any such plan, which I intend to challenge the organisers on. I'm attaching the invitation which I received. RSVP's have now closed, sorry, although I'd welcome any input from other pirates here on questions we should be asking at the workshop.

If we are still looking at working collaboratively with the Internet Party, this is one subject we could conceivably work together on, IMHO.

I've just come back from the NEHR Consumer Workshop. It was interesting to hear that, in light of recent high-profile public-sector IT failures in NZ, there were more questions put to the facilitators today about privacy and security issues than about functionality and implementation.

One of the most chilling things I heard today was that (and I'm paraphrasing here) placing our medical records online will not make them any less secure than they are now. Just think about that for a minute and let it sink in. The implication here is that our confidential medical records are currently at risk of being divulged, either by malicious intent or unintentional leaks.

At present the NEHR project is in the very early stages of scoping, and putting together of a business case as a proposal. There has been no firm decision made on a particular vendor to provide the service, although a live (but currently closed) demo is available from one prospective vendor. In fact, there is not even a firm decision to go ahead with the project at all, yet. The project team is expecting to outsource the online service from a third-party, and the software package will be proprietary, as there are no known open source electronic health record systems in the world at present, to the knowledge of the project team, and it is a highly specialised field.

Should the project get the go-ahead from the Government, it will become mandatory, under an implied consent model, and everybody within the catchment area will end up having their health records available online. There will be privacy and permission controls available, and consumers / patients will be able to determine who has access to their records. There will be an audit trail so all access to our EHR file can be tracked.

It is my opinion that there are still a lot of privacy and security questions to be resolved before any such system goes live. However, it seems to me that these questions cannot / will not get answered until it is too late to back out.