Waimairi Fluoridation Delayed Again

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30313, 13 December 1963, Page 19

Waimairi Fluoridation Delayed Again

Less than a minute after the Waimairi County Council had decided last evening by six votes to three to order its fluoridation equipment, a notice of motion by the chairman (Mr J. I. Colligan) had the whole issue shelved again until the council’s next meeting on February 20.

Mr Colligan said he would then move that the council take no further action until it had the opportunity of discussing the decision of the Court of Appeal on the fluoridation of the Hutt City Council’s water supply. Last evening’s notice of motion will delay the introduction of fluoride into the county water supply for at least another two months. Had the council adhered to its decision to place the order, the equipment would have been available by June. At its meeting last month, the council decided to hold the matter over until written assurances from the Medical Officer of Health in Christchurch (Dr. L. F. Jepson) that the recently reported laboratory tests of two medical research workers in Oxford were not relevant to the fluoridation of the supply.

The council received these assurances in a letter from Dr. Jepson last evening and in general business Cr. W. T. Rice moved that the necessary equipment which had already been approved by the council be ordered and delivered in June.

“It is important that a firm order be placed now for a number of reasons,” said Cr. Rice.

"It is exactly a year ago since this council unanimously accepted the principle of fluoridation. Since then, many red herrings have been dragged across the track from regional government right down to smaller fry in test tubes.

"Costs are up by more than £2OO because of the delay and any further procrastination would be an injustice not only to the children of the county but to the ratepayers who might then be involved in further costs." said Cr. Rice Cr. V. P. Rabbitte seconded the motion. Cr. R. C. Harrow said he did not like the term "small fry” in Cr. Rice's remarks "No matter how small the fry are, they should be taken notice of.” he said. After further brief discussion, the motion was carried with Mr Colligan and Cr J. W. Green and Cr. Harrow voting against it. Cr. O. C. Mitchell, who has opposed fluoridation in the past, was absent. There were moans from several councillors and laughter from the public gallery when Mr Colligan gave notice of his motion. Cr. Rice was immediately on his feet. "A matter of procedure Mr Chairman. Can a notice- of . . .” He, then sat down, adding with a shake of his head that he thought it might have been possible to take the notice of motion at a special meeting of the council.

“I can give your council the assurance that the work cited has made no difference whatever to the considered support of the department in fluoridating public water supplies and that I continue to urge the implementation of this public health benefit,” said Dr. Jepson’s letter. A report of the works committee meeting . quoted Mr Colligan as saying he was dissatisfied with Dr. Jepson’s reply. He said the doctor had made no research into the question himself but was pre-

pared to give the council assurances.

Mr Colligan said a cable should be sent to the experts in London asking them "point blank’’ if they would advise the council to'delay fluoridating its water supply, in view of the recent tests on cancer research which incorporated the use of sodium fluoride, until further tests had been carried out. Cr. A. A. Adcock said such action would be out of order as the council had received Dr. Jepson’s assurances. In reply to a question from Cr. Harrow. Cr. Adcock confirmed that it would be in order for Mr Colligan to send such a cable at his own expense and on a personal basis, if he so desired. Cr. Rabbitte said he would obtain an opinion at his own expense and on his own behalf from the Institute of Chemistry on the difference Which existed between the use of sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride in drinking water, according to the report.