Fold, Flee Or Fight

Cleaning The Augean Stables

Michael Connett On Fluoridation

I attended the presentation by Michael Connett on Monday the 3rd of February in the Te Puna hall. The meeting was organised by Fluoride Free New Zealand. Michael is a US lawyer who has recently won a court case against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over fluoride dosing of water supplies. Michael has come out to New Zealand at his own expense to share his experience. Thank you Michael.

Our local TCC councillor Glen Crowther was spotted at the event, along with WBOP councillor Margaret Murray-Benge.

After two trials, the US court found that fluoride is a neurotoxin that can cause significant neurological damage at the current approved dose rates.

The evidence shows that even dose rates of 1.5 mg/liter can result in neurological damage. The court agreed that a factor of safety of 10 should be applied, hence an allowable dose rate of 0.15 mg/liter. The current target dose rate for Tauranga is 0.7-0.8 mg/liter. In EPA speak, the margin of safety is called a Benchmark Margin Of Exposure (BMOE).

Michael stressed that the court case was only about neurological damage, but that there is ample evidence of other damaging effects. His presentation mainly covered neurological damage, with a brief description of other types of damage. Fluoride builds up in the bones and can cause severe skeletal damage, severe teeth damage, poor bone health, bone fracture, and osteoarthritis. Babies, children and the elderly are more susceptible to fluoride toxicity.

In addition, during his investigations for the trials Michael found that there is no good evidence to show that fluoridated water reduces teeth decay. The evidence shows no effect, or even a slightly negative effect, ie fluoridated water may slightly increase tooth decay. Topical fluoride, for example fluoridated toothpaste, which is applied directly to the teeth and gums may be beneficial? However it should not be swallowed.

Adding my own thoughts as an engineer.

There is a problem in using the water dosage rate as a criteria. Toxicity is related to the amount of fluoride per body mass. There is no control over how much fluoridated water any individual ingests. There is therefore no control over how much fluoride is ingested. Hence there is no sensible way to set a dosing criteria.

An adult for example might drink two cups of coffee a day. A baby might drink two litres of formula. The baby would therefore be ingesting far more fluoride per body mass than the adult. Young children are also more at risk because they tend to drink more tap water. Children and young babies in particular are still growing, so they are also more susceptible to fluoride poisoning.

There is an argument that the education department should be providing fluoride free water in schools, and that the health department should provide fluoride free water in hospitals, maternity homes and aged care facilities.

As an extra, fluoride increases uric acid in the blood, and decreases kidney function. This is partly why it causes osteoarthritis. It could also be a factor in gout (Science Direct Research Article).

Note: At the recent National Party Lunch for Simeon Brown he was asked by councillor Murray-Benge about allowing local residents to make decisions on fluoride rather than having central government decide on our behalf. Simeon brushed it off like water off a ducks back. I don’t think we will get much sympathy from the government unless it becomes an election issue.

As Michael said during his presentation, his experience with government officials is that they do not listen, and you get nowhere (unless of course you win in court).

The court ruling is displayed below.


Comments

2 responses to “Michael Connett On Fluoridation”

  1. Chudleigh Haggett Avatar
    Chudleigh Haggett

    Tim
    These guys are purely scaremongering. The so called evidence has no value in a real environment. They have sucked people in to believe that fluoride is toxic or an industrial poison and no amount is good. They conveniently forget that EVERYTHING on the supermarket shelf has degrees of what could be poison in larger quantities. They don’t want to explain how people living in regions where it occurs naturally, aren’t affected by their crazy predictions. They lie barefaced about the incredible success of fluoridation. They say that there’s no evidence. Not true. There’s a mountain of evidence. Bottom line Tim, you have grown up and lived with this additive, and what’s wrong with you? Ah, that’s right, nothing. There’s so much to this,I’d love to sit down and discuss the situation with you. You are a very talented man and I know when you hear the commonsense behind the decision of Govt. You’ll see what I mean.

  2. Juliet Guichon Avatar
    Juliet Guichon

    It isn’t that governments don’t listen to Michael Connett. They listen. They review his claims which are inconsistent with the body of peer reviewed evidence.

    The San Francisco judge relied on false and misleading review despite five other systematic reviews that refuted the claim that fluoridation harms IQ.

    Mr. Connett earns money by claiming that fluoridation is harmful. Therefore, he is in a conflict of interest.

    Please review information from independent sources like public health agencies. They have no financial interest in false claims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *