White Out

C S Lewis in his book ‘The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe’ raises the notion of a ‘deeper magic’ (when one who is blameless willingly dies on behalf of the guilty and may return to life). Lewis’ main character, Aslan goes head to head with the White Witch in an effort to save the recalcitrant Edmund Pervensie from himself. Her understanding is only of the ‘deep magic’. Aslan wins and she feels she’s been jipped since she only knew about the deep magic! Nothing worse than a girl in melt down mode. It’s the classic story within a story.

There’s a melt down scenario going on as I write, a story within a story. The fluoridation of our local town water supply. My local District Council doesn’t express a view on fluoridation, but they were asking people in Waipukurau (the only water supply that is fluoridated in CHB) whether they a) wanted to continue adding fluoride to the water supply or b) wanted to stop adding fluoride.

Surveys were sent to households but the surveys are Non binding (according to the FAQ sheet) on the basis that “there are many things the Council must consider before making a decision to continue adding or stop adding fluoride to the Waipukurau water supply. The survey results as well as open submissions and advice from various experts would enable Councillors to make the most informed decision.” The wording to ‘consider’ here applies equally to those who are being ‘consulted’ with.

Informed Consent
This goes to the much ‘deeper issue’, a legal one in fact, of an individual’s right to give an informed consent on the subject of an issue as potentially life-affecting as the fluoridation of our local town water supply. The main problem I had with the ‘non-binding’ basis is that there needed to be a prescription of the process ‘the various experts’ would adopt so as to overcome any arguments that the parties have simply agreed to agree or disagree as the case may be. That process in my opinion needed to be adequately described and wasn’t, though it could have been in the Council website.

Information with arguments ‘for’ or ‘against’ would be included with survey/submission forms. The ‘debate’ information will be supplied by reputable groups i.e. Ministry of Health and the Fluoride Action Network (NZ).

Fundamentals
“To understand the fluoride issue it’s important to grasp the fundamentals with regards to the chemistry of fluoride and the history and motivation of its discovery. Fluorine is a naturally occurring element however it is an unstable element that has more protons than electrons, thus needs to take electrons from other elements to render it stable.

In nature fluorine is kept stable by binding with such elements as calcium or magnesium resulting in natural fluorides (Bryson, 2004). These naturally occurring fluorides are found in water systems such as rivers and dams. This is where much confusion about the fluoride issue starts. Fluoride occurs naturally yet the general public believe, and authorities and scientific bodies present, other forms of fluoride as chemically the same and attribute the same biological effects. This is scientifically incorrect.”

Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies
The suggestion that fluoride be introduced into the public water supply came in 1939 by a Dr Gerald Cox who worked for the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh, the same region as Alcoa of which the Mellon family owned large shareholdings (The Fluoride Deception, 2009).

Cox’s idea of purposefully fluoridating the water supply was criticised by many at the time, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and American Dental Association (ADA). The AMA was concerned because, as it stated in 1943; “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems. The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1 part per million or more of fluorine…” (American Dental Association. 1943).

The ADA, meanwhile, was concerned because of its view that, “… the potentialities for harm far outweighed those for good” (American Dental Association. 1944). In 1951, some six and seven years later, without any scientific evidence to prove the safety of fluoride in water supplies, the ADA and the AMA both endorsed the practice of fluoridating the public water supply. The Public Health Service also endorsed the practice a little later (Waldbott, et al; 1978).”

To the extent that it’s a start, that’s an introduction to this story within a story. Stay with me as we try to understand how those beginnings reach us here in Waipukurau and look at information that gives us meaningful data by which to give our more informed consent in the issue of fluoridation in our public water supply.

Council Decision
It’s a bit after the fact now since Council has gone with the fluoridation anyway. Still, there’s no statute of limitations on info-sharing and I don’t see this issue going away any time soon. Councillor tenure on the other hand can sometimes have closer than they think Use By Dates. This issue is a deal breaker.

* This is 1 of a 7 part blog. The NEXT blog is entitled ‘A Tooth for a Tooth’

UPDATE: as at 26 December 2010
The original link to the phrase ‘non-binding’ was http://www.chbdc.govt.nz/faq-fluoridation-consultation/ but has been removed from the CHBDC website.