I see that Pat McNair has posted the following on the Fluoride Free Hamilton page. Since I can’t comment there, I’m going to respond below, as it seems her recollection of what was said by the speaker is somewhat faulty.

“I attended the free public lecture by Dr Graham Saunders, senior lecturer in inorganic chemistry at Waikato University, last night, titled “Fluoride, Friend or Foe?” which was sponsored by the Waikato branch of The Royal Society of NZ. Despite constantly assuring his audience that his area of expertise was restricted to the chemistry of fluoride (which cannot be disputed), he regularly strayed dangerously off that path onto the “pro-fluoride” bandwagon and showed himself to be obviously well out of his depth when questioned further on dental and medical issues by some of the more qualified members of the audience.”

In fact, Dr Saunders was meticulously careful to acknowledge where his expertise stopped. On at least 2 occasions other audience members gave additional information relating to questions asked by others. He also – as is his right as an expert in the area of fluoride chemistry – pointed out where this had been misrepresented by those opposing fluoridation.

“I was even more astounded to hear Dr Saunders’ reply when he was asked if he had taken part in the Council-run fluoride tribunal in May this year. He replied that no, he had not been consulted, which had really annoyed him and that he had since contacted the council to complain about it. Is Dr Saunders arrogant or just ignorant?”

Dr Saunders is neither arrogant nor ignorant of this issue, & his answer was more complex than it has been represented by Pat. He made it clear that he was concerned that the University’s scientists had not been asked to provide expert opinion to the Council (& in fact a question from the floor asked him specifically – were you asked to provide advice?), but that he had made a personal written submission to the tribunal. He was not able to attend the actual hearings given other prior commitments, and yes, given his inability to attend he had expected that the Council might have contacted him to discuss some of the points that he made in his written submission.

“Surely Dr Saunders is aware that the council had very publicly advertised the tribunal and had asked for written and oral submissions from any person or organisation that had an interest in the issue. All were accepted, read and analysed and the council decision was based on this evidence by a vote of 7/1.”

See above. He was aware and made that written submission.