Health

As a general rule PPNZ policy should be based on evidence, where properly peer reviewed research is available, and not on ideological grounds. This is especially valid for health policy and Dr. Goodacre's work is a good basis for health policy foundation. All medical trial results should be made published and all research, paid for in full or in part by the public should be made free access.
Also the problem of harmful externalities, especially those that affect health, should be dealt with in ways that prevent or ameliorate damage at the cost of the product producer.

I did an Official Information Act request using FYI.org.nz about the chemicals used in water fluoridation, and who supplies them. What I learned really alarmed me:
http://www.webcitation.org/6Owyo6zcM

Most of the Councils which responded said they used HFA (hydrofluorosilicic acid) sourced from the NZ of Orica, an Ozzie mining chemicals company. It turns out it's true that their HFA is made from byproducts (they use the euphemism "co-products") of superphosphate fertilizer production:
http://www.orica.co.nz/files/Fluoride/HFA_safety_data_sheet_shess-en-cds-020-000000015539.pdf

Worse, the guy from the Palmerston North City Council also included an ingredients list, also from Orica, which seems to indicate that the HFA they use has measurable amounts of barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic (1.1g mg/kg!)
http://webcitation.org/6OEm5FMTD

Is adding industrial byproducts containing toxic heavy metals (which can bioaccumulate in cells and soils) really a legitimate health intervention?

It would seem that NaF Sodium Flouride would be a better choice, having a lower social cost for the same benefit.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901113000087

Please let us keep the discussion away from fluoride @strypey as it is not a good look as a party to discuss conspiracy theories about health.

Just because a topic may be linked to conspiracy theories is no reason not to discuss it. People who believed that the government were spying on them were dismissed as conspiracy theorists; it turns out that they were right.

Here we are looking at the safety of the fluoride additive not the question of whether there is some sort of insidious plot.

If hydrofluorosilicic acid is being used instead of sodium fluoride as a cost cutting measure then there is a very good reason to talk about it.

I would very much like PPNZ to become a democracy where there are no taboo subjects and discussion is based on well supported argument.

@andrewreitemeyer when a recovered mental patient such as myself tells people that their "crazy radar" is going off about a certain topic being discussed, it is usually a good indicator that the topic is in fact a paranoid delusion strong enough to get someone sectioned under the mental health act 1993.

Frankly, the whole Fluoride in water topic is prone to advocacy of quackery from paid astroturfers in the states who would like to make all sorts of pseudo-scientific statements about toxicity and pineal gland calcification.

However, as the entire topic of biochemistry is simple enough to consult with a friendly pharmacist, then I would suggest that a reality based approach to science would be in order.
Incidentally, my neighbourhood pharmacist has confirmed last week that the entire Fluoride controversy is in fact a load of paranoid bollocks that won't stop him brushing his teeth with fluoridated water and fluoridated toothpaste.

@andrewmcpherson please read the research posted it is NOT about whether fluoride should be used but which chemical formulation is safe Which one do you have in your water and toothpaste?
.

I agree with @andrewreitemeyer that no topic is taboo when we discuss evidence-based policy, and water fluoridation is the subject of a vigorous public debate at present. Even some dentists are now speaking out publicly against the practice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhZXChLyk90

A parliamentary health committee has proposed shifting the power to make decisions about fluoridating water from local government to central government: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11165098

The Greens have a (fairly non-committal) policy on water fluoridation which recognises over-exposure is an issue:
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/health-policy

The topic is also being discussed by prominent people in Mana:
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/06/the-science-is-not-settled-on-the-benefits-of-fluoridation-of-water-supplies/

Getting accurate information about exactly what chemicals are being used, where they come from, and what is know about them, is essential to having an informed opinion on this subject. This is why I made the OIA request, and why I shared the results here.

I would say that it is irrelevant to deciding what the medical effects of fluoride are when they have already been determined to be safe (at the quantities used as standard) over 60 years ago.
Furthermore, if fluoride was really unsafe, then at the least I would have been advised to not use it by my Uncle Dr. Ian Munt, who has 2 medical degrees and over 30 years of practical experience in medicine.

My personal opinion is that it would be best decided by the ministry of health, and not councillors who have tried to ban dihydroxymonoxide from a complete lack of understanding of basic science.

The concept is simple, do we accept the advice from qualified scientists, doctors and dentists who we could expect to tell us if there is a problem, or do we take onboard the advice from those people who would have a problem with public health initiatives to the extent of paranoia ?

@andrewmcpherson My understanding is that @strypey s initiative is not so much about questioning fluoridation as such - but more so the implementation details of that practice.

He has evidence that some products that are used for fluoridation programmes in NZ are better than others. Better - in the meaning of: less toxic by-products used in the compound. The possible argument that toxic substances are a non-issue if being diluted to a high enough degree doesn't count for substances which can bioaccumulate in cells and soils. Those must be avoided where ever possible.

So this initiative is actually not about fluoride, but about barium, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic (1.1g mg/kg!) and other toxic substances.