A critique of the current statement provided by the Ottawa Public Health (OPH) office to all those who question fluoridation of Ottawa's water supply, would you be good enough to read this critique of same. Sentences and phrases are numbered for easy referencing.

Preamble

Please consider this before reading the following content: a child of 7.5 kg ingesting 1 liter of water containing fluorine ions from fluoridated water is getting 10 times the dosage of an adult weighing 75 kg ingesting the same. There is no dosage control. It's the only drug that's administered without a prescription. You can not give the same amount of any medicine to a child as one would an adult. This is a medical and pharmacological impropriety of the highest order. You just don't do that.

If you doubt that fluoride is a drug, please think it through: adding any fluoride substance to the water supply is done to prevent or reduce tooth decay: this is the claim made by all promoters of fluoridation. Tooth decay is clearly defined as a disease: this is the claim made by all medical and dental professionals, and by promoters of fluoridation. Taking anything with water to prevent or relieve a disease clearly defines it as a drug, as medicine. Therefore, fluoridation is tooth medicine, plain and simple. Fluoridation is therefore a drug delivery system while the substance used is being passed off as a water additive.

The additional problem with water fluoridation is that Hydrofluorosilicic acid (H₂SiH₆ - HFS or HFSA), is a contaminant banned by the EPA. It is used instead of any kind of medical or pharmaceutical grade of fluoride chemical, if such a thing even exists. It's a toxic waste product of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry. Ask our water treatment plant manager. He knows.

This acid arrives at our water treatment plant in an unapproved, untested, unregulated and unpurified, highly hazardous, toxic stew containing cancer causing and neurotoxic substances. It most often contains, but is not limited to, the following contaminants: Fluorine (F), Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), Lead (Pb), Arsenic (As), Mercury (Hg), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Phosphorus (P), Iron (Fe), Iodine (I), Silver (Ag), plus Uranium238 (U238), Barium (Ba), Radon (Rn), Cobalt (Co), Radium (Ra), Polonium (Po) and other radionuclides. Plus, none of these are in a bio-available form.

Dr. J. William Hirzy Senior Chemist at the U.S. EPA Headquarters stated back in 2000: “If this stuff (hydrofluorosilicic acid) gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it's a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant.” Yes, by the time it reaches our water treatment plant in special tanker trucks, it has magically become tooth medicine. Now that's amazing! isn't it? That's what you are swallowing with every gulp of city water you drink. There has to be a better way to dispose of this contaminant.

The critique

Here then is the critique of the statement currently issued by you on behalf of the OPH office in response to my letter to Councillor Holmes.

1. "Fluoride and the possible effects of adjusting its level in drinking water is one of the most intensely researched areas of public health with several hundred recent publications."

The Ottawa Public Health Office has been unable to provide a single example in writing of the contents of such publications that fully support the statement that it "is one of the most intensely researched areas of public health" and detailed citations to at least 20 more such publications that support the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation agent in our water supply.

Our national team and I, along with reliable individuals all over the world have searched the Internet and libraries for medical, dental, pharmaceutical, paediatric and numerous scientific journals as well as all forms of periodicals, papers, and reports throughout North America and the rest of the world dating back over 80 years about fluoride and Artificial Water Fluoridation (AWF) using HFS. We have actually examined, and not simply reviewed, all of the data behind the claims of benefits found in the few, small number of all published data. We have found no evidence in the literature for any benefits in the reduction of dental caries to justify the expense of adding this toxic waste product to fluoridate any water supply.

However, the real surprise was finding NO evidence of toxicology studies or clinical trials addressing the use of HFS as a water supply additive. These are specifically required for all water additives, notwithstanding whatever claims are made for its use. Additionally, NSF60 and Health Canada require that toxicology studies be done by unnamed parties for the use of HFS. Inquiries to NSF, Health Canada, the EPA, the CDC, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the manufacturers, the suppliers, the transportation company, and the water department of the City of Ottawa affirm that no such studies are extant. Your own office has refused to respond to request for such toxicology studies. Such silence on these requests thereby confirmed that they do not exist.

The best that one valid and credible research report that we found was that in one single study, only six tenths of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces would be saved from decay by the swallowing of the fluoride substance injected artificially in drinking water. However, when one accounts for the delay of tooth eruption caused by AWF, as discovered in a number of reports, even this tiny apparent saving totally disappears.

Since originally writing this critique in February 2011, we have received the long list of reference documents from the OPH office that purports by inference to support the safety and effectiveness of fluoride as medicine for tooth decay. The problem here is that all publications referenced therein do not specifically address HFS (H₂SiH₆), but mostly Sodium Fluoride (NaF) and in a few rare cases, Calcium Fluoride (CaF₂). These are therefore irrelevant and invalid to any discussion or as proof of effectiveness and safety of AWF, since AWF of Ottawa's water supply exclusively uses HFS. This flagrant and fraudulent misrepresentation of facts detracts the uninitiated from pursuing legitimate inquiry into the subject of AWF. This type of disinformation may be subject to criminal prosecution and civil action in a court of law.

We are familiar with all of the studies mentioned in that phrase. Unfortunately, everyone of these were self-serving Government reviews. Each was a whitewash of the concerns that are very disquieting about fluoridation.
In their recent book Fluoride Wars (John Wiley, 2009), which is mostly supportive of fluoridation, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr concede an important point on such studies when they write:
“There is one anti-fluoridationist [fluoridation cessation advocates] charge that does have some truth to it. [They] have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the cost and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favour of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together the reports (10 are named) are rife with names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.”

How can such reviews be accepted as unbiased and not be a whitewash of AWF? And, Since when have expert committees and organizations been arbiters of scientific truth? When you stop to think about it, this is a governmental invention so silly it hardly deserves comment. Nonetheless, more on this later because of its perceived seriousness.

Does reviewing these major studies mean that they have been read or thoroughly examined? Is OPH a human person that does the reviewing, or does that mean that everyone working for the OPH office has read or examined one, some or all of the contents of each of the reviews? I don't think so. The number of reviews extant on fluorides is so voluminous that I do not think that would be possible, however, I am open to be contradicted in my opinion.

Furthermore, how is it possible for Ottawa Public Health to have reviewed non existent "major studies" on the use of HFS as a fluoride substance in water fluoridation when none exist. Furthermore, from the list supplied in the past, there is no indication that the review done by Ottawa Public Health was thorough and in depth, since it contains no data on HFS: it did not result in an objective and unbiased apprehension and full comprehension of the contents and the intent of these reviews. The cursory nature of responses to our email and written letters are a determinant indicator.

I assume that the first word "All" as used here refers to the reviews and not to "all" OPH staff. Three recent reviews in Ireland (2002), Australia (2007) and Canada (2008) are striking examples of a great waste of time and tax dollars in support of the now discredited and ineffective fluoridation of our water supply for the purpose of reducing dental caries.

Ireland: The Fluoridation Forum "review" was published with the participation of only pro-fluoridation experts and government employees

Australia: The Australian national Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has endorsed fluoridation since 1958 and produced a report used extensively as a reason to implement fluoridation in Australia. It used large portions of the York Review but without its caveats.

Canada: This review was undertaken by Health Canada when growing opposition to fluoridation began to surface. The panelists for this review were by far the most biased that could ever have been selected. More on this later.

Each of the above, on close scrutiny, clearly fall into the category of a whitewash of fluoridation.

It is only reasonable that if you do not look for adverse effects, or leave them out of a review, you will not find them. We have read most of the contents presented by the Canadian Government's panel of experts and found that the majority of them actually used some reports that were over 50 years old, and that most of them were of very poor quality and design, they did not account for confounding factors, and left out conclusions contrary to the support of fluoridation. Evidence by Canadian and International experts and fluoridation specialists and researchers were submitted, ignored and omitted because they were contrary to the desired outcome of the panel. More on this later.

On close scrutiny, we find that all of the reviewers on the Canadian panel were from the dental community, had very little or no expertise in toxicology or fluoridation research and all of them were fully supportive of water fluoridation. Hardly an unbiased selection of individuals to report on water fluoridation's possible health effects, when they specifically claim that they found no support for adverse health effects.

The U.S. EPA's own 2006 NRC review concluded that even at low levels, chronic ingestion of fluoride substances can have serious, deleterious effects to a significant number of people when a proper cohort is examined. Promoters and supporters of fluoridation claimed that the U.S. NRC review was not relevant because it looked at fluoride levels of 4 ppm or greater. This is a serious, false and misleading misrepresentation of that report. It is not an accurate report of that review. Numerous studies, research findings, peer reviewed article and reports were actually read, not merely reviewed, by that panel that contained less than 4 ppm of fluoride. They found that there was sufficient concern of harm to health for further research to confirm or refute these concerns. To date, no efforts have been expended to pursue such research. One wonders why?

Also, anyone knowledgeable in the workings of toxicology studies knows or should know that high dosage use is a standard practice in understanding the toxicological impact of ingestion of any toxic substance. This kind of doublespeak is misleading and unacceptable from a body that is meant to protect the public from harmful health effects from potential toxic substances. The statement contains the tired old phrase "safe and effective".
a. That phrase is a simple parroting of the old claim that still remains to be validly, credibly proven. The evidence of safety has now been totally refuted. Many people become ill or have an existing illness aggravated by the ingestion of fluoride substances. I am one of those that have been so affected. Having removed as much of any amount of identifiable traces of fluoride substances from my nutrition and drinking purified water has allowed me to start returning to health. My own doctor can hardly believe the results.
b. As to effectiveness, the only things that the HFS used to fluoridate our tap water is:
1. clearly and irrefutably effective at causing dental fluorosis among a significant number of children,
2. returning over 99% of the acid back to the environment where it was banned in the first place,
3. wasting our precious tax dollars, and
4. causing harm to the health of a significant subset of the population: those many of us with chemical and environmental sensitivities.
Furthermore, how can anyone reach such an illogical conclusion from data that does not include even a single study, review, research or article on the actual product used in fluoridation, to wit: HFS? Why does no one see this absurd inconsistency?

Who are the unnamed organizations or individuals making claims to the contrary? Such an approach to discrediting anyone and everyone questioning, or opposed to, or advocating for the cessation of, water fluoridation is unprofessional and unworthy of our OPH office. It is not worthy of my tax dollars to read such trashy propaganda from this office.

How generous of the OPH office to offer up such a gratuitous conclusion. It bears repeating here that if one doesn't look, one won't find. By omitting all contrary evidence to their forgone conclusions, they have erred on the side of misrepresentation and disinformation. Using this statement to negate bona fide inquiry and opposition to fluoridation is an evasion of responsibility and due diligence. What is one to make of the many hundreds of references to evidence found here: Second Look, here: Complete References - The Case Against Fluoride and here: Health Effects Database? Have any OPH office staff even bothered to take the time to examine the contents associated with the claims made by those seeking the cessation of this health initiative? Is there fear of getting an education that can not be obtained from the conventional but mistaken sources of information on AWF? Is your very life at risk for seeking such information?

Proclamations, pronouncements, statements, declarations and endorsements in support of fluoridation are not science. These are given by individuals in charge of government or prestigious organizations who astoundingly have no or very little knowledge of the science behind the effects of fluoride substances on the human anatomy. They are also a sign of the greatest weakness of all, that of using the authority and prestige of their position to influence those who are for whatever reason incapable of seeking the correct knowledge for themselves on this most vital of subjects. It is also a sign of disrespect for respected scientific researchers who work diligently in uncovering the real truth about AWF. This is now thankfully and dramatically in the process of changing. Isn't it time the OPH office to acknowledge the new findings on fluoridation?

What about dental fluorosis? It is not a cosmetic effect as ignorantly claimed by promoters and supporters of fluoridation. It is not as innocuous as it is made out to be. It is illogical that fluoride targets only the teeth once ingested. If the fluoride in this industrial toxic waste does this to children's teeth, what else does it do to the rest of their delicate developing bodies?

It is a well known bio-medical fact denied by the fluoridation promoters that fluoride has a deleterious impact on the thyroid gland, the pituitary gland and a definite calcifying effect on the pineal gland and that it damages the whole endocrine system. There is further reputable scientific evidence also denied by the fluoridation promoters that acute and chronic exposure to fluoride causes the lowering of IQ, rheumatoid conditions such as various arthritic conditions and that it significantly contributes to Alzheimer's because it facilitates the transfer of aluminum across the blood-brain barrier. The Fluorine ion (Fluoride) is now also well documented but again denied by the fluoridation promoters to be mutagenic, neurotoxic and carcinogenic, not the least of which is its contribution to a 30% increase in deadly osteosarcoma (adolescent bone cancer) in fluoridated areas versus non fluoridated areas. Please look at the references already supplied above.

It is also known that many of these authorities imply that they have the scientific knowledge when they have it not and will accuse their opponents of not having such knowledge or of not possessing the ability to understand it. Both of these claims are false and discriminatory, and are used to intimidate anyone questioning or opposing fluoridation. It is time that these travesties be rectified in the case against Fluoride. I am no scientist or chemist but I can easily understand it all as can you.

When challenged under its own ethics code to produce peer reviewed scientific evidence that water fluoridation using HFS has improved dental health as claimed, the CDC admitted in writing to the Lillie Center of Georgia, U.S., that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim. Yet our Canadian authorities continue to make the same arrogant, shameful and misleading statements that it does so.

a) There is absolutely no statement extant that the WHO (World Health Organization) has directly endorsed water fluoridation. That is an error of fact that should without fail be removed from the standard statement provided to all who question water fluoridation. One may legitimately infer that they appear to endorse water fluoridation, however, it is clear from the following that the WHO does not de facto support fluoridation:

“dental and public health should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride program...”
and,
“where a population has a high level of dental awareness and uses toothpaste there is no need to supply fluoridated water.”
Source: Nutrients in Drinking Water, Water, Sanitation and Health Protection and the Human Environment, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2005.

b) According to World Health Organization (WHO) figures, the most fluoridated country in the world, Ireland at 66%, does not have the least tooth decay. The five countries with less tooth decay (Finland, Denmark, UK, Sweden, and the Netherlands) had little or no water fluoridation (the rate was 10% in the UK).
Source: Groves B. Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death. Dublin, Ireland: Newleaf; 2001.

But wait, there's more:
c) The world health organization has published a report in which a graph shows very clearly that cavity rates are on the decline in all industrialized countries whether the country is fluoridated or not. Can one then believe that this implies that the fluoridation is effective?



and
d) what about this graph that shows so little difference between Ontario and Québec tooth decay rates, yet Ontario is heavily fluoridated compared to Québec.

That Dr. Cooney credits the practice as he does is totally irrelevant because it is without any evidence in facts or science. He has incessantly refused, by his silence, to provide any information to support this statements of benefits of water fluoridation. All we hear is hyperbole and vacuous statements. Current scientific research denigrated by proponents of fluoridation everywhere shows irrefutably that the contrary to Dr. Cooney's statement is true.

Is anyone not aware that Dr. Cooney is in error in this statement? Maybe there simply is fearful of questioning his integrity?

There are NO benefits from fluoridation to any resident of any community. This is the kind of sweeping polemic used by AWF promoters who do not even have a basic knowledge of the deleterious effects of the Fluorine ion (Fluoride) on any biological life.

The elderly and infants are most at risk of harm to their health from swallowing Fluorine ions with every gulp of water and beverages and every bite of food that are prepared with fluoridated water. Seemingly reasonable proponents of fluoridation only claim its usefulness for children.

Fluoridation is by far the most disastrous health initiative ever perpetrated on any population in the last century. It has been proved that it is based on fraudulent science used to liquidate a polluting industry's toxic waste on the pretense that it can prevent tooth decay. Today, those targeted for tooth decay prevention is less than 17% of the whole population, yet the whole population is being medicated with this false tooth medicine.

People such as myself who have been exposed to fluoridated water for over 25 years are loosing their teeth in record numbers. I believe that he is not aware of this. Of course he can not be if he refuses to look at the evidence.

Fluoridation promoters have no valid proof of all of their claims for favouring fluoridation. We have asked for it and it is still forthcoming, as is the case for the OPH office.

Ask the promoters (mostly from the medico-dental bureaucracy, some from industry with vested interests) for their proof that it works, and please, don't simply say we must believe their vacuous statements, empty rhetoric, baseless endorsements and unsupported claims...

If fluoridation works so well, why have I lost all of my teeth after over 30 years of ingesting fluoride ions with my city's water, in spite of flossing, brushing, rinsing with fluoridated products, eating mostly nutritious foods and getting the best dental care available while putting many thousands of dollars in dentists' bank accounts.

If fluoridation works, communities that have been fluoridated for over 30 years should have no cavities: the opposite is unfortunately true.
Why does the state of Kentucky have the 5th highest toothless rate in the U.S. due to cavities:
• 92% fluoridated West Virginia 37.8% toothless,
• 94% fluoridated Tennessee 31.5% toothless,
• 80% fluoridated Missouri 26.2% toothless,
• 83% fluoridated Alabama 26.0% toothless,
• 100% fluoridated Kentucky 23.7% toothless,
while Hawaii, which is only 8% fluoridated, has the lowest rate at 9.6% tooth loss from cavities. But wait, there's more.
Why do the children of Newburgh, NY, have some of the worst cavity rates in the U.S. having been fluoridated since 1945, while Kingston, NY, which has never been fluoridated has lower cavity rates?

One can conclude from the above that the greatest advantage of fluoridation is that everybody ingesting it from all sources are having their bodies ravaged by the Fluorine ion released when that acid is put into the water. The only differences in the reaction of different people is caused by their genetic makeup, their current health levels and their resilience to resist and repair the damage that is done by that chemical bully.

Did they read all of the documents given to them to glean useful information to show both sides of the controversy? Was it a balanced panel or were its members selected to give the results expected or desired by the dental lobby and the industry?

Were the panel members a balance of professionals from objectors to and supporters of fluoridation? There are no medical doctors, immunologists, cardiologists, endocrinologists, epidemiologists, gastroenterologists, oncologists, haematologists, nephrologists, neurologists, pathologists, paediatricians, pharmacologists, radiologists, rheumatologists, toxicologists, urologists or biologists, ecologists, environmental scientists, soil scientists, inland fisheries experts or veterinary specialists on the Expert Body on Fluoride and Health with some knowledge and recognized competency in fluoride chemicals and their toxicity? That would have been reasonable for this task, considering the pervasiveness of possible health effects now suspected to exist from the fluorine ion present in the water from fluoridation. However, all members were supporters of fluoridation. A look at the names, their professional qualifications and their past support for fluoridation allows us to conclude that the panel was not a balanced one.
Health Canada Fluoride Review Panelists
Steven M. Levy, Iowa College of Dentistry - known to be very pro-fluoridation as an Iowa dentist;
Jayanth Kumar, New York State Department of Health - head of New York State Dept of Health's fluoridation program;
Christopher Clark, University of British Columbia - known to be very pro-fluoridation;
Dr. Robert Tardif, Université de Montreal, Ph.D. and pharmacist (toxicologist), no fluoridation toxicology expertise - known fluoridation promoter;
Michael Levy, Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec and fluoridation promoter with the Québec government;
Albert Nantel, Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, MD, toxicologist, no fluoridation toxicology expertise and fluoridation promoter with the Québec government.

It had to be clear to those at Health Canada who selected this panel where the sympathies of these panellists lay. So why exactly are we listening to them and those who promote fluoridation based on such paltry qualifications?

To add insult to injury, there was a shocking omission from the panel. As you can see for yourself, a foremost Canadian Dentist, Dr. Hardy Limeback, was passed over as a reviewer. Dr. Limeback was eminently qualified for such a review. He holds both a DDS and a PhD in Biochemistry; he was then the former president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research and a professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto and has his own dental practice. He was a respected member of the U.S. EPA NRC Fluoride review panel. However, he does not support fluoridation. Instead, a staunch New York fluoridation promoter was asked to be on that panel along with a fluoridation supporter from Iowa.

Hardly a balanced panel of reviewers as one might expect if a balanced report was being sought that would be supportive of the protection of the health of all Canadians.

On cancer, IQ and other possible adverse effects of fluoridation, the panel voiced no concern whatsoever, in spite of a vast amount of data currently available to indicate that there exists the possibility of harm from water fluoridation. The report constantly use the euphemistic phrase that the “Weight of evidence does not support a link between exposure to fluoride and increased risks of ... (pick your disease or illness).”

On the subject of cancer, the panel completely ignored the massive 1970's epidemiological data amassed by Dr. Dean Burk and Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, that showed increased cancer rates in fluoridated versus non fluoridated cities in the U.S. A smaller study on osteosarcoma, an adolescent form of bone cancer that is usually fatal, as was the case for Terry Fox, by these two eminent biochemists was also ignored. They also dismissed the most rigorous research ever performed, by Elise Bassin, on osteosarcoma on the mere strength of a letter from her very own thesis mentor, Chester Douglass, that purported to refute her research on the promise of a future study. He was at that time also on the payroll of the Colgate Company.

Furthermore, a list of documents issued occasionally by the OPH office in support of water fluoridation contains numerous references, however, none of these refer to the use of the actual chemical used in water fluoridation. The chemical in these documents address Sodium Fluoride (NaF), a known toxic substance, but not HFS, a chemical compound much more pernicious and hazardous to human health.

One may also read this information on the Health Canada web site here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/2011-fluoride-fluorure/index-eng.php

One needs to put this review into context. It was undertaken at a time of growing opposition to fluoridation in Canada. Québec, as well as three towns in the Niagara region of Ontario, had recently stopped fluoridation after many years. Several other major cities were also actively engaged in reviewing their programs, including Hamilton, London, Oakville, Sarnia, Waterloo and Calgary. Is it any wonder that anti-cessation proponents wanted to strengthen their hand.

Submissions by such luminaries as Dr James Beck, PhD, Biochemistry, Calgary University, Dr. Robert Dickson, MD, PhD, Calgary University, Dr. Kathleen Thiesen, PhD, Dr. Connett, PhD, Carol Clinch, BA BPHE, and many others were almost totally ignored or were omitted altogether from the review. Be mindful of the comments in number 10 above.

When challenged to produce the evidence of any research they may have done, the OMA responded that they could not find any such research. That effectively put to rest the falsehood pronounced by Dr. MacLeod, then President of the OMA, that there is overwhelming evidence that our drinking water in Ontario has been and is safe when it is fluoridated. There is not one iota of such evidence available anywhere: there is no proof. The OMA does NOT do any research. They simply parrot what other "authorities" say about the so-called safety and effectiveness of AWF. It is amazing that this statement should repeat such a falsehood.

What overwhelming evidence? There is next to nothing available. This is an extermely egregious statement of hyperbolic proportions. What little presumed evidence that exists is incorrect, fraudulent or manipulated to give the results desired by those making the pronouncements or commissioning the research. Nothing new here. Science for hire has been a hallmark of industry for more than 50 years.

The OPH office must not be aware that the term anecdotal is abusively used here. Real experiential data is being demeaned as worthless, when it is the most precious information for proving that something works or does not. It is the experiential data from experiments that proves or disproves something in science. Though one must concede that verbal reports of symptoms and problems as they relate to one illness or another are not experimental, they are experiential and should not be dismissed in such a cavalier manner, especially when being reported by thousands of people, albeit ignored by professional medico-dental bureaucrats. Do not doctors prescribe potent medications based on anecdotal reports of symptoms from their patients? So, why use this argument to discredit opposition to fluoridation?

In a court of law, when there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence of a crime, the conclusion is always one of guilty. The evidence of harm to human and animal health and to vegetation from fluoride is so overwhelming that promoters and supporters of this assumed health measure can no longer ignore it. Should it not be so for you and the whole OPH office?

That phrase is a simple parroting of how medical bureaucrats dismiss real evidence of adverse health effects discovered to occur when Fluorine ions (Fluoride) are ingested. The research given in the Second Look web site previously referenced, in the 2006 U.S. NRC review and in the book The Case Against Fluoride by PhD's Dr. Connett, Dr. Beck and Dr. Micklem is a lot more thorough and in much better keeping with objective reality than the fraudulent and faulty research used to support the promotion of fluoridation. This approach to dismissing valid data is unworthy of the OPH office and should not even appear in this statement. It is discriminatory, disrespectful and irresponsible. Here again, this kind of statement can easily dissuade many residents from pursuing the fluoridation controversy to help bring an end to it. Oh, right, isn't it the objective of this whole statement to retain the status quo? Don't rock the boat!

I can assure you that all of the data on the web sites mentioned in this response document are not selective or a partial examination of the issue. Their veracity is beyond doubt. Have you or the OPH Office consulted any of the referenced documents presented in the past years? I challenge you to do so and come up with the same conclusion.

Anyone who drinks six 250 ml glasses of water per day at 0.7 mg/L would then consume 1.05 mg of this Fluorine ion toxin along with all of the co-contaminants present in the original toxic stew! What about athletes, labourers, diabetics, persons on dialysis, firemen and others who may consume in excess of 10 liters of water per day? At only 6 liters of water per day, one would ingest 4.2 mg of that toxin. They are being poisoned and they don't know it! This is NOT protective of THEIR health!

Furthermore, a recommendation to do something is not a mandate to do so. It's time to have a re-evaluation of this unlawful practice. The oral practices of the 1950's are far behind us and much has changed in oral health that requires that we revisit this practice and all of the current science, not just accessing reviews and studies, that indicates that changes are in order.

So, this admits that excessive intake can happen! So there is no guarantee that a large number of residents can avoid being overexposed to fluoride. Isn't that what the OPH is supposed to help prevent? How does the OPH propose to do this?

That is all well and good, however, that does not eliminate the fact that between 1% and 5% of the population is hypersensitive to toxins, and fluoride being one of the most toxic, this policy is not protective of those individuals. Once again here, it is important to understand that the application of a protocol or a recommendation is not a mandate to do something that will be harmful to a subset of the population.

Wow! This is impressive. Great conclusion. Please excuse my flippancy, but I am truly unimpressed with this observation. This is just a red herring, a distracting statement that has nothing to do with the fluoridation of Ottawa's water supply.

How can this be true for the numerous persons who may consume in excess of 6 liters of water for whatever reasons as pointed out above?

Yes, most people already get exposed to fluorides from their mouthwashes, toothpaste and other sources. Also, most people don't make the connection that once in the water, fluoride gets into all foods and beverages prepared for our consumption using that same water.

Oops! Then why are we adding to the toxic load? If we are already getting all of that "Fluoride from other sources, why then add more of it using our water supply?

This is a spurious claim that evades a number of questions. What are those unnamed opportunities and at what type and amount of cost?
a) natural spring water from unnamed sources that may be contaminated,
b) bottled water that is from tap water and sold without any further processing purchased from retailers at great cost,
c) bottled water from unknown sources that is neither tested nor regulated purchased from retailers at great cost,
d) distilled water that may be purchased from retailers at great cost,
e) the City does not defray the cost of such purchases for those who must avoid tap water due to chemical sensitivities,
f) the City does not and can not control the quality of bottled or distilled water,
g) no federal or provincial authority controls the quality of bottled or distilled water,
i) drinking bottled water inevitably contributes dangerous biphenols to peoples diet.
All the above may have health impacts and costs that have yet to be determined. Limiting ones exposure as suggested constitutes spurious and bad advice, not what I would expect from a medical bureaucracy presumably concerned about the welfare of the residents of our City.

So, the OPH office is admitting once again that one can be overexposed to fluorides. Are you not aware that the OPH office is putting the City at risk of a lawsuit from tea producers and suppliers by accusing them of poisoning their consumers? You must then be aware that long term (chronic) exposure to fluoride is equally bad as short term exposure to a large (acute) dose. Why? Because fluorides accumulate in the bones of those who consume fluorinated water, foods and beverages. It is a fact of life that 5 grams of fluoride consumed at once will kill you rather quickly, however, it will take 10 grams over 10 years or more to kill you because of the absorption and accumulation effects. Please, check it out.

That may be true, however, is the City prepared to pay the cost for such systems for those who are unable to drink the City's tap water but can not afford them? Aren't usually the most vulnerable to health problems from ingestion of toxic substances such as the Fluorine ion?

Some final points.

2. Any substance used to help reduce tooth decay is classified as a drug by Health Canada regulations. However, HFS is neither a regulated nor a controlled drug. This is against the Canada Food and Drugs Act, Section 1(1).

"Drug" includes any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in

(a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in human beings or animals;
(b) restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions in human beings or animals; or
(c) disinfection in premises in which food is manufactured, prepared or kept.
So, why are we using this acid in our water?

Furthermore there are no toxicological studies anywhere for HFS as required by the NSF60 standard for water additive, whatever their intended purpose. This fact was actually admitted in a recorded Water Utilities Commission hearing on water fluoridation held earlier this year, No Safety Studies Exist for Fluoride in Drinking Water, YouTube video, time: 0:04:47, and here: Safety Studies Do Not Exist for Fluoride in Drinking Water pt 2, YouTube video, time: 0:02:23.

And, The scientific/legal determination of safety for use of products for medicinal/water additive purposes in Canada, the U.S. and in most industrialized countries is based on 2 types of research:

1. Animal studies (toxicology studies), and
2. Human studies (randomized controlled clinical trials).
The actual fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (silicofluorides H₂SiF₆ (HFS), Na₂SiF₆) have been used for over 30 years with neither the required animal studies (toxicology studies) nor the required human studies (randomized controlled clinical trials) to determine safety in order to protect consumer safety and satisfy the legal requirements in Canada.
So, where is the concern for our safety. Ongoing use is not an escape from vigilance when doubts arise about consumer use of a toxic product, especially when uncontrolled mass medication of all residents is concerned.

4. Holding a plebiscite or referendum on this is both uneconomical and unreasonable. I would love for this City to go that route, because fluoridation would lose as it has in most cases where it's been done in recent years, because most people today are adamant about authorities dictating to them what is good or not for them, not to mention the knowledge they would gain about the lack of innocuousness of hydrofluorosilicic acid. But, more important than this, adding fluoride to tap water automatically defines it as a drug (medication), as seen above, because it is proposed as a treatment for a human diseased condition. It is not used to treat the water, to make it more drinkable. However, neither the public as a group nor Council can lay claim to being licensed medical practitioners. It is beyond their purview. As it is therefore medical malpractice for non medical persons to prescribe medication, especially using a substance that is neither controlled nor approved by Health Canada as a drug, shouldn't fluoridation be immediately stopped until such approval and controls are in place and sufficient medical personnel are assigned to provide full oversight for side effects and proper medical follow-up?

5. The claim is that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay. Yet, it is a fact that less than 1% of the presumed beneficial substance actually gets to the emerging teeth in children. The rest literally goes down the drain: baths, showers, dishwashers, clothes washers, lawn and garden watering, driveway and window washing, etc, plus in commercial (car washes and dry cleaners come to mind), industrial uses and to put out fires. Nearly half a million dollars is spent purchasing, handling and otherwise maintaining the equipment and safety of employees handling the substance. And, if the claims of effectiveness of effect are true, how is it that the data used clearly shows that only six tenths of a tooth surface of a possible 128 tooth surfaces is saved by the effects of fluoride ingestion (Brunelle and Carlos, Journal of Dental Research, Volume 69, pages 723-727, 1990, Table 6) ? Wouldn't you agree that this a monumental waste of scarce tax dollars for such a minuscule benefit?

6. Since less than 1% of the fluoride substance goes to the teeth, where does the other 99% go? Back to the environment where it was originally banned by the EPA in the first place. The phosphate fertilizer industry can not dump their waste product into the air, or its converted version, hydrofluorosilicic acid, into any waterways, into the ground or the ocean, because it's an environmental pollutant banned by the EPA. Yet, magically, once it is sold as a product for fluoridation, it seems to be perfectly safe for us to drink (ref. Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 Before The Subcommittee On Wildlife, Fisheries And Drinking Water United States Senate June 29, 2000). How rational is that?

7. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is known to contain arsenic, lead and chromium in significantly toxic quantities (http://www.nofluoride.com/chemical_analysis.cfm). Fluoride is also almost equally toxic to lead and arsenic: a little less than arsenic, a little more than lead (Lead vs Fluoride vs Arsenic Toxicity). Yet arsenic and lead are only allowed to be present in tap water in parts per billion, whereas fluoride is allowed in parts per million. Where's the logic in that?

8. Dental Fluorosis. This unfortunate development over the past 30 years is now endemic in all fluoridating countries, but almost non-existent in non-fluoridating countries. U.S. data shows 40.6% of children 12-15 years of age now have dental fluorosis (CDC Report, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf, page 2, figure 2). Pitted, cracked, spotted and stained teeth, formerly called "mottled teeth" have been proven beyond any doubt to be caused by fluoride substances ubiquitously present. Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, Associate Professor of Dentistry and Head of the Preventative Dentistry Program at the University of Toronto, has calculated that costs of repairing fluorosis of teeth can range as high as $20,000 per person depending on the severity of the condition. Is the City of Ottawa prepared to pay the cost for having contributed to this massive teeth problem by fluoridating its water?

9. How can a claim for effectiveness be justified when non fluoridating countries have had equivalent caries reduction rates to fluoridating countries? See this dramatic WHO graph that proves this: WHO-DMFT also shown above in point number 7.

10. In the numerous presentations witnessed across Canada in recent years we have noticed that the people we entrust with health issues are so extremely weak in their knowledge that they actually embarrass themselves by their lack of information in a job where they are supposed to know the information requested. Many have actually attempted to cover up their lack of information by presenting disinformation in dissertations filled with irrelevant data, incorrect or distorted science and by eloquent but empty rhetoric. This shameful situation must be remedied before we continue to sink into a quagmire of disinformation due to this lack of knowledge on the part of those entrusted with our health and well-being.

11. Fluoridation causes more dental damage than any other factor and also causes periodontal disease. Dental fluorosis is hypomineralization. Both are vastly more profitable to dentists than filling cavities. It makes more sense to stop giving people what is causing their disease, than to try to treat the symptoms of the disease while still giving them what is causing it in the first place.

12. Between 1% and 5% of any given population have chemical sensitivities that preclude them from ingesting toxic chemicals. Swallowing fluorine ions with their food and drink is a travesty against these people who mostly do not know that they are ingesting this substance that is a poison to them, and the practice should be stopped if only for that reason. In all fairness, the suffering and health costs of this 1% to 5% is not worth it when more effective methods can be implemented to alleviate tooth decay in a population where tooth decay is on a decline as in ours. The bigger problem faced to day is dental fluorosis, often leading tooth decay, and is a direct known cause of fluoridation.

13. The Health Canada review insists that the use of fluoride in drinking water is safe and effective . That phrase is a simple parroting of the old claim that still remains to be validly, credibly proven. The evidence of safety has now been totally refuted. Many people become ill or have an existing illness aggravated by the ingestion of fluoride substances. I am one of those that have been so affected. Having removed as much of any amount of identifiable traces of fluoride substances from my nutrition and drinking purified water has allowed me to start returning to health. My own doctor can hardly believe the results.
As to effectiveness, the only things that the hydrofluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate our tap water is:

1. clearly and irrefutably effective at causing dental fluorosis among a significant number of children,
2. returning over 99% of the acid back to the environment where it was banned in the first place,
3. wasting our precious tax dollars, and
4. causing harm to the health of a significant subset of residents: the many of us with chemical and environmental sensitivities.

15. A Civil Engineer by the moniker of jwillie6 from Louisiana has said, “I know that people drink only ½% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining 99½% of the water with this toxic industrial waste fluoride chemical (Hexafluorosilicic acid - H₂SiF₆) is dumped directly into the environment through the sewer system. For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this outdated practice. That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink. The company CEO would be arrested immediately if they dumped their toxic waste fluoride into a river. The only way they can do legally is to run it through the community drinking water system first. It is an absolutely insane condition. Fluoridation surely is in contention as the most wasteful and most polluting government program. Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them or adding it to salt would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.”

16. It's time to retire fluoridation because it doesn't work, wastes money and is harmful to health. Topical application may help, but drinking it to prevent tooth decay is as foolish as drinking sunscreen to prevent sunburn. People should not be forced to consume a drug against their will.

Richard Hudon
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 8B5 — 613-747-7157
http://ffo-olf.org/ — ffo-olf@rogers.com