What’s in the Water (Fluoridation)?
In Auckland fluoride is added to the water supply. Unlike chlorine which might be used to remove toxins from the water, the sole reason given for fluoridation of water supplies is to improve dental health. Effectively fluoride is being dispensed (like a drug) through the water supply.
Fluoride is an industrial waste product which, due to its toxicity, can have a detrimental effect on people. We are told that if the dosage is low enough then no harm is done, but not all experts agree.
In 2006, the US National Academy of Science reviewed existing data and concluded, "On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means."
Nobel prize winner (medicine) Dr Arvid Carlsson said,
"I would advise against fluoridation. Side-effects cannot be excluded... In Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances."
And Dr Charles Heyd (Past president of the American medical association) said,
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."
Now some of you might be thinking - "Who is this bloke, a greenie? Surely chemicals in our water don’t really matter".
Well, actually, I do care about the environment and I think chemicals in our water do matter. Your water supply and the purity of it, is of primary concern. The release of any toxin into the water supply is not acceptable, as it does damage to the environment in the long term, as well as pose a risk to those who drink the water.
What I support : I support a binding referendum of Aucklanders on whether Fluoride should be added to the water supply.
Water Delivery Services (35 Year contracts)
There has been concern raised about the long term contract being offered to United Water (a multinational company) to supply Auckland’s water distribution service.
I am opposed to this type of long term deal. I am about keeping it lean and getting the best deal for Aucklanders. An open tender process with a 4-5 year contract ensures competition and the opportunity for local businesses (or a council works department) to compete.
I have studied post graduate economics (Auckland University) and understand in detail what economists call "monopolistic behaviour". It is recognised that creating a monopoly is generally bad for the consumer, as profit-making organisations use their market power to increase profit and so consumers (those of us who use the water) pay more. In fact, we New Zealand taxpayers fund a "Commerce Commission" that, amongst other things, seeks to limit monopolistic behaviour for this very same reason.
What I support : Awarding council contracts through open and transparent tender processes for sensible time frames. I am not ideologically for or against a council works department - we just need to get the best job at the best price.
What I am Against : Long term contracts that give monopoly powers to multinational corporations.
Being Sneaky (Profiteering of Water)
What I am going to tell you really happened here in Auckland city.
Auckland City introduced direct charges for water and waste water. These charges were based on the volume of water used and billed separately from the rates account. It turned out that it wasn’t very cheap either with many families paying well in excess of $1000 a year.
Now I am not against people paying something for the water they use. It does cost money to collect water and send it down pipes to your home.
But here is the issue : It was discovered that the council had not been charging just the cost of water but instead had been making a very tidy profit from selling water at more than cost. What happened next I find most objectionable. Instead of reducing the price of water or giving a credit back to overcharged customers, the council decided to accept secret donations from Metro Water. In total, citizens were overcharged $324 million and this was all hidden from you and me. Even after the whistle was blown the policy continued though at a reduced level.
What I support : Water and waste services at cost only. Open disclosure of these costs and calculations.
What I am against : Sneaky behaviour, hiding figures, charging people more than the actual cost of water and waste services.
"Do you have a specific question? Click here to submit your question and read previous answers."
“Hello! Thanks for dropping by. This is my comments column in which I will briefly (and I trust in an interesting way) update you on thoughts, items of interest, opinions and news.”
Follow Colin on: