“Kane’s factoid seems disingeniously designed to suggest otherwise.”
Indeed. It isn’t cost effective with water supplies fewer than 1000 people.

I understand it is not cost effective to offer fluoridation to small or rural population populations. That almost 60% of NZ’s total population does receive fluoridated water strongly suggests very high uptake in metropolitan and other areas in which it is effective to supply it.

Kane’s factoid seems disingeniously designed to suggest otherwise.

“The population comparison between fluoridated and nonfluoridated regions would be a more relevant and interesting figure.”
The recent cost effective analysis from massey quotes “Approximately 56% of New Zealander’s have access to fluoridated water”.
http://publichealth.massey.ac.nz/assets/Uploads/Fluoride-poster-draft-5-final-CORRECTIONS-3.pdf

Only 22 of 67 Councils.

Do you have the population totals that these councils serve? The population comparison between fluoridated and nonfluoridated regions would be a more relevant and interesting figure.

Ken, for the record how many people heard you speak at your Auckland presentation last year?

“No, the Council used the information to make a sound decision regarding fluoridation.”
So you totally disagree with what Russell Orr said?

“That is a bit arrogant of you Daniel but it is what we have come to expect.”
How was it arrogant? I wasn’t there. I was just asking who was your expert?
Did you Skype someone in? Showed a letter? Etc.

“Dan the referendum was ‘Non-binding’. Do you not understand that? Councillors don’t have to follow the result of the referendum.”
Yes I know. But just seems like a waste of money.

“Yes, and that is why the Council is looking at diverting the funds originally used to add a hazardous waste to the shared public water supply to a program that actually works.”
$3000 or so isn’t going to fund much. You need at least $50 per child at least (if just targeting children).

“Pretending to be opposed to fluoridation”
I doubt it.

“I notice you “forgot ” to mention the letter you recieved”
The letter which I added into the main post (in case anyone missed that).

I have to laugh at the judicial review threat – have you been talking to the NZ Health Trust – the big business group financing anti-fluoide legal activity?

A quotem on a very unreliable web site known for dishonesty.

But she also said:

“Personally I would love to see all water supplies that Council Manages include fluoride, but there was several communities who seem opposed to its inclusion and as we agreed to run a referendum (albeit non-binding), it should be given much higher consideration than it was last week.”

It’s a matter of demcioracy – as it was in Hamilton. Hamilton councillors ignored their voters and ended up looking stupid as a result – and Hamiltonians were embarrased.