An emissions trading scheme for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) works by establishing property rights for the atmosphere.. There is, however, no scientific consensus over how to share the costs and benefits of reducing future climate change (mitigation of climate change), or the costs and benefits of adapting to any future climate change

In 2002, the Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand adopted the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (the Act) in order for New Zealand to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to meet obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

In 2008, the Labour Government enacted the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 which added the first version of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme to the Climate Change Response Act 2002

The proposed scheme covered all six greenhouse gases specified in the Kyoto Protocol and was intended to progressively apply to all sectors of the economy including agriculture. ‘Participants’ (who would account for their emissions) were to be few, and high in the production chain of each sector. Their compliance obligation would have been to surrender one New Zealand unit (NZU) or one internationally tradable Kyoto-compliant unit for each tonne of emissions.

People fill up their cars at the petrol pump as they ggo about their day, after all its a necessity, but ow many of us think about the cost of carbon emmissions when filling our petrol tanks, just ow muc is Ardern and her Zero Carbons..Climate Emerency, Code Red screwing you for… and wat is te end game??
Tink of te farmers, te tradies, small businesses wit their work utes, they are certainly bein screwed by Arderns government and the political cronies in te toilet bowl of Wellington. Screwed and Controlled, democratic, human rights severely eroded.

NOTE: CLICK ON TE IMAE ABOVE TO FORWARD TO MY RUMBLE VIDEO ON THIS TOPIC.

FLUORIDE ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL- WORDPRESS BLOG
Fluoride is a neurotoxin which, in high doses, can be harmful. Excessive exposure can lead to tooth discoloration and bone problems. There is enough fluoride in the water already, without adding more.

7 fluoride side effects that should be monitored to achieve desired results-
• Tooth Discoloration. Consumption of too much of fluoride leads to yellowed or browned teeth. …
• Tooth Decay. High intake fluoridated water can lead to the weakening of enamel. …
• Skeletal Weakness. …
• Neurological Problems. …
• High Blood Pressure. …
• Acne. …
• Seizures.

Adding fluoride to public drinking water is a decades-old practice to reduce … through drinking water or other means may lead to serious health issues.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html
Fluorides are compounds that combine the element fluorine with another substance, usually a metal. Examples include sodium fluoride, stannous fluoride, and fluoride Mon fluorophosphate (MFP fluoride).

Some fluorides occur naturally in soil, air, or water, although the levels of fluoride can vary widely. Just about all water has some fluoride. Fluoride is also found in plant and animal food sources.

Once inside the body, fluorides are absorbed into the blood through the digestive tract. They travel through blood and tend to collect in areas high in calcium, such as the bones and teeth.

People have raised questions about the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation since it first began. Over the years, many studies have looked at the possible link between fluoride and cancer.

Some of the controversy about the possible link stems from a study of lab animals reported by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) in 1990. The researchers found “equivocal” (uncertain) evidence of cancer-causing potential of fluoridated drinking water in male rats, based on a higher than expected number of cases of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer). There was no evidence of cancer-causing potential in female rats or in male or female mice.
Most of the concern about cancer seems to be around osteosarcoma.

One theory on how fluoridation might affect the risk of osteosarcoma is based on the fact that fluoride tends to collect in parts of bones where they are growing. These areas, known as growth plates, are where osteosarcomas typically develop. The theory is that fluoride might somehow cause the cells in the growth plate to grow faster, which might make them more likely to eventually become cancerous.

In its review published in 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, labeled fluorides as “non-classifiable as to their carcinogenicity [ability to cause cancer] in humans.” While they noted that the studies “have shown no consistent tendency for people living in areas with high concentrations of fluoride in the water to have higher cancer rates than those living in areas with low concentrations,” they also noted that the evidence was inadequate to draw conclusions one way or the other

Statements from European Health, Water & Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation :- Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the “top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” most of the western world, including the vast majority of western Europe, does not fluoridate its water supply.

Despite foregoing “one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” tooth decay rates have declined in Europe as precipitously over the past 50 years as they have in the United States. This raises serious questions about the CDC’s assertion that the decline of tooth decay in the United States since the 1950s is largely attributable to the advent of water fluoridation

“Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.”
SOURCE: M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000.

Belgium:- “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”

Denmark:- “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.”
Norway:- “In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.

May 2007: A study of European public opinion on water fluoridation, published in the journal Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology, reports that the “vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation.” According to the study, Europeans opposed fluoridation for the following reasons:-
“Many felt dental health was an issue to be dealt with at the level of the individual, rather than a solution to be imposed en masse. While people accepted that some children were not encouraged to brush their teeth, they proposed other solutions to addressing these needs rather than having a solution of unproved safety imposed on them by public health authorities whom they did not fully trust. They did not see why they should accept potential side effects in order that a minority may benefit. In particular, water was something that should be kept as pure as possible, even though it was recognized that it already contains many additives

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

On 9 November 2021, the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill passed its third reading in the House. The Bill moves decision making authority on community water fluoridation from local authorities to the Director-General of Health.

The Bill describes:- powers and duties of the Director-General in relation to making directions for or against water fluoridation…duties of water suppliers (including local authorities) in relation to implementing Director-General directives about water fluoridation.

In deciding whether to make a direction to fluoridate, the Director-General of Health will be required to consider:- scientific evidence on the effectiveness of adding fluoride to drinking water in reducing the prevalence and severity of dental decay also whether the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water outweigh the costs, including consideration of local oral health status, population numbers, and financial cost.

Water suppliers will be required to fluoridate a water supply if directed to do so by the Director-General of Health. Those already fluoridating will be required to continue to do so.

Fluoride is one of the most abundant elements found in nature. Water is the major dietary source of fluoride. Water fluoridation was once heralded as one of the best public health achievements in the twentieth century.

Major concerns about excessive fluoride intake and related toxicity were raised worldwide, leading several countries to ban fluoridation. Fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine, the thirteenth most abundant element in the earth’s crust. It is released into the environment naturally in both water and air. Other important sources of fluoride are tea, seafood that contains edible bones or shells, medicinal supplements, and fluoridated toothpastes
The recommended intake for fluoride is expressed as an adequate intake rather than recommended dietary allowance, because of the limited data available to determine the population needs. The adequate intake for fluoride is 0.7 mg daily for toddlers, rising to 3 mg daily for adult women and 4 mg daily for adult men. It remains unclear whether fluoride is truly essential

Although Dental Association’s strongly supports fluoridation of community drinking water supplies, however, strong contradictory opinions also are held
Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment… The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-water borne disease) is a form of medical treatment.

All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.
1 Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation.
2) With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.
3) Does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it is against that neighbor’s will) Is it right that the Director- General of NZ should have this right??
4) The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical. Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others.
5) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden:
6) “Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy
7) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water.
8) Fluoridated water is not the only way people are exposed to fluoride. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water

It is now widely acknowledged that exposure to non-water sources of fluoride has significantly increased since the water fluoridation program first began
The level in mothers’ milk is very low. Considering reason #6 it is perhaps not surprising that the level of fluoride in mother’s milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006). This means that a bottle-fed baby consuming fluoridated water (0.6 – 1.2 ppm) can get up to 300 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby.

There are no benefits, only risks for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006).

No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. No regular measurements are being made of the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bones, hair, or nails of either the general population or sensitive subparts of the population (e.g., individuals with kidney disease).

There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007).

Randomized trials are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”

Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth.

Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.

Fluoridation is not necessary. Most western, industrialized countries have rejected water fluoridation, but have nevertheless experienced the same decline in childhood dental decay as fluoridated countries. (See data from World Health Organization).

Too much fluoride per individual can caused serious health issues. One size does not fit all.
I have also listed a number of health risks when too much fluoride is consumed on another blog on my website.

Please see link above to more information on my Rumble Video.

Going back in history… The Bill of Rights 1688 NZ. A further key rights document in English history is the Bill of Rights of 1688. This document declared that the monarch had no power to dispense with the law without the consent of Parliament. Members of Parliament were to have freedom of speech within Parliament.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990…Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, opinion, expression, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference. New Zealanders also under this Act have freedom of Association and Freedom of Movement also Freedom of Peaceful Assembly.

Under Ardern’s government they have introduced the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 and amended that Act to ‘The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Act (No 2). This Act can be repealed, modified, extended, increased or decreased just as the government chooses at its own discretion with no consultation with the people of New Zealand.

The NZ Bill of Rights Act only exists on paper as Ardern and the governor general of NZ and all the political cronies in the cesspit of Wellington have found justification that te COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Act 2021 (No 2) will over-ride the NZ Bill Of Rights of 1990.

For further information please follow arrow above the lins to my Rumble Video on this subject

If you have not yet signed up to, joined my website please do so now… thank you

Carol Sakey