ATTN Winston Peters - "Why has the New Zealand Government chosen to use an off-shore owned Chemical Corporation to fluoridate water...?"

By Nadine Connock: Image via RNZ News

On 12/02/25 1:43 pm, Nadine Connock ***********@protonmail.com wrote:

Dear Winston,

Are you able to investigate why Taumata Arowai and the DG are refusing my OIAs and councils are referring my LGOIMAs back to the water regulator and Ministry citing no responsibility? Council replies are also implying coercion and bullying due to fines of $200,000 and $10,000 per day for non-compliance if contravened.

I sent the following regarding what is looking like offshore corporate lobbying.

Why has the New Zealand Government chosen to use an off-shore owned Chemical Corporation to fluoridate water using a biocidal formula of HFA?

I would like to bring your attention to New Zealand’s largest chemical distributor IXOM, which is one of the world's largest manufacturers of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFA) in the global market.

In New Zealand, the Government's chosen source of 'fluoride' for water treatment under the fluoridation directive is HFA.

HFA is not Calcium-Fluoride and it is therefore, not naturally occurring. It is a waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry and classified as a hazardous substance.

The waste product in its gas form is banned as an emission under the New Zealand RMA, and though it is not food grade safe, is somehow permissible to be added to water systemically, in a repurposed solid form.

IXOM, owned by Keppel Industries, applied to the NZ Overseas Investment Office in 2018.

Overseas investment decision for case 201810202 - IX Infrastructure Pty Limited

Applicant - IX Infrastructure Pty Limited

Case number(s) - 201810202

Decision date - 6 Dec 2018

The application detailed the forecasted value of New Zealand business at $233,197,806 and stated their intention to develop and grow Ixom’s water treatment and chemical manufacturing business in New Zealand following the completion of the Investment.

In 2023, Keppel Industries valued its Asset Under Management (AUM) portfolio at $7.3BN and apportioned by geography, Australia and New Zealand at 35%.

In 2022, the global market value of HFA was reported at approximately 4.62 billion U.S. dollars worldwide. By 2030, the global market value of this compound is expected to grow considerably to some 6.1 billion U.S. dollars.

Shareholder and Stock exchange data for investment purposes states the following Fluorosilicic Acid Market Challenges that may hinder profitability:

"Corrosive nature and fuming property of concentrated fluorosilicic acid will hinder the growth of market.

The corrosive nature and fuming property of concentrated fluorosilicic acid especially above 20% concentration may hamper the market growth.

The acidic nature of this compound leaches the lead and arsenic from water delivery plumbing.

Additionally, it is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer industry and claimed to be contaminated with heavy metals and radioactive elements.

Other disadvantageous it a hazardous chemical, when touch with body cause burn to the skin. Inhalation may result in spasm, inflammation and oedema of the larynx and bronchi, chemical pneumonitis and pulmonary oedema.

This factor will hinder the growth of market in the forecast period"

Why has the New Zealand Government chosen to use an off-shore owned Chemical Corporation to fluoridate water using a biocidal formula of HFA?

Have councils been provided with alternate fluoridation options for consultation by the Director General?

Does this directive of HFA, as a repurposed waste product, read to you as an appropriate solution given the warnings of corrosion, lead and arsenic leaching of plumbing systems?

Is there a correlation between Dunedin's increase in lead levels and Auckland and Hamilton's increase in arsenic levels since the introduction of HFA as a water treatment agent?

How will Councils be able to monitor corrosive activity of individual household plumbing?

I would like all government officials involved in the policy implementation of Mana o te Wai and any Three Waters legislation to address the following implications regarding fluoridation of water in Aotearoa New Zealand:

The history of Fluoride and its origins and the subsequent misinformation by NZ councils that the source is "natural".

Calcium fluoride is not being used in NZ, but rather the synthetic hydrofluosilicic acid, sodium fluoride or sodium silicofluoride.

A derivative of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Most agrichemicals in origin are a biproduct of war weaponry industry and manufacture.

Fluoride was claimed to have been used in the holocaust concentration camps.

Chlorine gas in WW1.

https://www.mp.pl/auschwitz/jo...

Please address the now declassified 1944 WW2 Manhattan Project.

https://fluoridealert.org/cont...

"Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide “evidence useful in litigation” against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage.

Facing a threat from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to embargo the region’s produce because of “high fluoride content,” du Pont dispatched its lawyers to the FDA offices in Washington, where an agitated meeting ensued. According to a memo sent next day to General Groves, Du Pont’s lawyer argued “that in view of the pending suits…any action by the Food and Drug Administration… would have a serious effect on the du Pont Company and would create a bad public relations situation.” After the meeting adjourned, Manhattan Project Captain John Davies approached the FDA’s Food Division chief and “impressed upon Dr. White the substantial interest which the Government had in claims which might arise as a result of action which might be taken by the Food and Drug Administration.”

There was no embargo. Instead, new tests for fluoride in the New Jersey area would be conducted — not by the Department of Agriculture — but by the U.S. Army’s Chemical Warfare Service because “work done by the Chemical Warfare Service would carry the greatest weight as evidence if… lawsuits are started by the complainants.

Fluoride studies were then code - named Program F — and conducted at its Atomic Energy Project (AEP), a top-secret facility funded by the AEC and housed in Strong Memorial Hospital. It was there that one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War took place, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium.

Program F was not about children’s teeth. It grew directly out of litigation against the bomb program and its main purpose was to furnish scientific ammunition which the government and its nuclear contractors could use to defeat lawsuits for human injury. Program F’s director was none other than Harold C. Hodge, who had led the Manhattan Project investigation of alleged human injury in the New Jersey fluoride-pollution incident.

Program F’s purpose is spelled out in a classified 1948 report. It reads: “To supply evidence useful in the litigation arising from an alleged loss of a fruit crop several years ago, a number of problems have been opened. Since excessive blood fluoride levels were reported in human residents of the same area, our principal effort has been devoted to describing the relationship of blood fluorides to toxic effects.”

The litigation referred to, of course, and the claims of human injury were against the bomb program and its contractors. Thus, the purpose of Program F was to obtain evidence useful in litigation against the bomb program. The research was being conducted by the defendants.

The potential conflict of interest is clear. If lower dose ranges were found hazardous by Program F, it might have opened the bomb program and its contractors to lawsuits for injury to human health, as well as public outcry.

Comments lawyer Kittrell: “This and other documents indicate that the University of Rochester’s fluoride research grew out of the New Jersey lawsuits and was performed in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury. Studies undertaken for litigation purposes by the defendants would not be considered scientifically acceptable today, ” adds Kittrell, “because of their inherent bias to prove the chemical safe.”

Unfortunately, much of the proof of fluoride’s safety rests on the work performed by Program F Scientists at the University of Rochester. During the postwar period that university emerged as the leading academic center for establishing the safety of fluoride, as well as its effectiveness in reducing tooth decay, according to Dental School spokesperson William H. Bowen, MD. The key figure in this research, Bowen said, was Harold C. Hodge– who also became a leading national proponent of fluoridating public drinking water. Program F’s interest in water fluoridation was not just ‘to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents,’ as Hodge had earlier written. The bomb program needed human studies, as they had needed human studies for plutonium, and adding fluoride to public water supplies provided one opportunity"

How can this possibly align with Mana o te Wai?

The question for New Zealand to ask now, is given the NZ High Court ruled fluoridation is a mass medication and is unlawful under human rights due to lack of informed consent, why is Ashley Bloomfield pushing for fluoridation to be nationwide by 31 December 2024?

Who are the main profiteers, given that Ballance and Ixom are the major manufacturers and suppliers of fluoride which as a synthetic derivative from phosphate factories is a neurotoxin, and Fulton Hogan have the transport supply contract.

This is a highly toxic and hazardous substance to transport.

Some councils are advertising it is a natural source which is being used, which is incorrect and they are only monitoring water testing annually.

Phosphate fertilizer industries are profiteering from fraudulent science and using their hazardous toxic waste repurposed for a multitude of purposes. Fluoridation of drinking water is only one of them.

Bifluoride compounds are found in many products, including:

In the production of steel and aluminium

In the production of glass and enamel

As an insecticide and a preservative

In fluoropolymers like polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon)

Rust removers

Automobile wheel cleaners

Toilet bowl cleaners

Air conditioner coil cleaners

Forestry Industry

Given the criminal history of DuPont regarding, Teflon production, PFAS Forever Chemicals, water contamination and toxic waste dumping pollution, does NZ really want to be allowing a unethical US Chemical Corporation to dictate our drinking water standards?

Dow-Du Pont were responsible for the Ivon-Watkins Dow Dixon contaminant poisoning at New Plymouth and that's essentially been rebranded Corteva Agriscience.

These US corporates are still deep within the pockets of NZ primary industries. Are our Govt ministries turning a blind eye in conflict of interest lobbying and vested interests.

Are councils preventing community dialogue on this issue of public health and informed consent due to ignorance or profiteering?

Does this claim to using a 'natural' source constitute a breach of NZ advertising and broad casting standards?

At the bare minimum this claim in of itself is misinformation and the public deserve better.

With the recent ruling out of the USA EPA regarding fluoridation lowering children's IQ, this could well become a claim for the UN Special Rapporteur on water rights.

Will councils address the rights of informed consent?

Will councils be implicated in litigation costs of neurotoxin exposure and contaminants?

Kind regards,

Nadine Connock

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nadine Connock is a Political Science graduate in the field of International Relations, International Development and Politics with a focus on anti-colonial and anti-imperial theory holding institutional corruption to account.

She holds a BA (Hons) in International Relations and Politics and International Development from the University of East London (UK) and a MA in Indigenous Studies from The University of Otago, New Zealand.

Her current research interests involve an analysis of the historical genealogy of war chemicals and their development to agricultural chemicals through an academic framework known as the Genocide-Ecocide Nexus.

Nadine was compelled to contact Winston Peters after his announcement of NZ First to introduce a Fluoridation Referendum Bill.

She felt the public needed disclosure on crucial information relating to offshore corporate lobbying; conflicts of interest; regulator capture, pseudoscientific misinformation; and anti-democratic behaviour relating to New Zealand's fluoridation directive.

To date, she has yet to receive satisfactory answers to her OIA and LGOIMA requests from both Taumata Arowai (NZs water regulator) or the Director General Sarfati, who incidentally has now resigned.

She hopes that by exposing these inconsistencies and fallacies relating to fluoride, the NZ public can be better informed to make their own choices from an informed perspective.