Mother of two <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:29:55 -0400
Ellen Connett <email@example.com
Over Fluoridation in Ottawa
Dear Dr. Connett and Fluoride Alert Org.,
I am writing to you as a busy mother of two young boys ( ages 2 and 4 years old ) who is concerned about the fluoride level in our community drinking water, which is piped in from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
My youngest son appears to have mild dental fluorosis, and I am suspecting that our tap water is making him ill. I have always used Green Beaver brand toothpaste on the childrens' teeth (this brand is fluoride-free), but this fall, our community of Russell, starting receiving water piped from Ottawa. This "piped" water is the only explanation I can provide for why he has white marks on his new baby teeth.
We recently just came back from a two week vacation from a cottage in Quebec, where our only source of drinking water was bottled spring water.
He has been drinking our tap water since returning (he drinks a lot) and has been complaining of a sore stomach after drinking it. It could be a parasite or a "bug" of some type, but my "mommy instinct" has me thinking it might be connected to our drinking water. This morning; between bouts of vomiting, he asked for water. He started screaming when I reached for the tap, and said specifically," Not this water! This one!" and pointed to a bottle of water left over from our vacation on the counter.
He is drinking the bottled water, and not complaining of a sore stomach. And no longer vomiting. It could be a coincidence, but my instincts had me hopping online to the Dr. Mercola site to refresh myself on the dangers of fluoride.
Ultimately, our family is in a position that we can afford to purchase bottled water; however, like many others, I want to make a difference. Many years ago, I used to work in the Ottawa Mayor's office, working as Jim Watson's scheduling assistant and doing small research errands for him. Jim Watson has recently left federal parliament, and returned to municipal government, once again as the Mayor. I am probably over optimistic, but I may have an "ear".
I have looked online in search of an anti-fluoride advocacy group located in Ottawa, but not found any listed. Does your organization have record of any advocacy groups, or people who I may get in contact with? I have also started composing a letter, but wondered if there may be copies of letters that have been used by advocacy groups which have been successful, and may be used to help me in my efforts?
I am a very busy mother, working full-time, and don't feel that I would be able to head up a group. I also feel that there is no sense in duplicating efforts if a group has already formed. However, I work very hard to advocate for my childrens' health, and in following my "mommy instincts" in the past, I have helped my boys overcome tremendous illness due to Celiac and dairy intolerance. Tap water may very well be on my "ban" list now too.
Any advice you have to offer regarding a drafted letter, and a group in Ottawa is greatly appreciated. I am grateful for the information posted on your web-site, and for the interviews posted with information by Dr. Paul Connett.
Russell, Ontario, CANADA
I read Cindy Mayor's article in "First for Women", regarding fluoride in tap water affecting the thyroid.
I feel like that article saved my life, and I want to deeply thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I had the same symptoms as Cindy, switched to spring water, the weight is coming off and I feel so much better.
I am a grandmother that raises 6 grandchildren, 6 months, 21 months, 10 years old, 11 years old, 13 years old, and 15 years old.
It has been absolute hell for me with the way I have felt for so long, now the improvement is phenomenal.
I cannot thank you enough.
Grandma Mary Moore
From: Diane Sprules <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Mary Pearson <email@example.com>
Cc: Richard Hudon <firstname.lastname@example.org>; and 10 others
Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 5:25:02 PM
Subject: Re: UNITED WE STAND!!!
Following is my letter to Health Canada and their reply.
I will phone HC tomorrow and see if I can find anything more out.
Dear Minister Aglukkaq,
Health Canada has been working on a Water Fluoridation Report for over four years.
Health Canada appointed an "expert panel" in Jan 2007.
The report from that panel was released April 2008 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/2008-fluoride-fluorure/index-eng.php
Health Canada produced a consultation document to the public on fluoride in drinking water, Sept 18, 2009. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2009/fluoride-fluorure/index-eng.php
Public comment was closed was closed Nov 27, 2009.
When will Health Canada's final report be made public? It is now over four years since the initiation of this report and and well over a year since the consultation ended.
My reason for asking is because Halton Regional Council has decided to wait until Health Canada's final report comes out before it votes on whether to continue water fluoridation in Halton. As someone who strongly advocates the cessation of this practise, I am concerned at the long delay during which the citizens of Halton are drinking this toxin.
I thank you for your reply.
Dear Ms. Sprules:
Thank you for your email of February 1, 2011, in which you request further information regarding the publication of the Guideline Technical Document on Fluoride.
The Guideline Technical Document for fluoride in drinking water has been modified to take into consideration the comments received during the public consultation period. It has since been through an approval process by two Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committees and is in the final publication process. It is expected to be posted on Health Canada's website in the spring of this year.
I hope that this information helps.
Safe Environments Directorate
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Tue, May 10, 2011 4:44:26 PM
Mary Pearson wrote:
Hello to all,
I just called Health Canada Publications, asking about the long awaited Report on Fluoride , which apparently Halton was holding out for, prior to Council voting. According to the gentleman I spoke to, there is no such thing. There will be no further report. Does anyone have any information on this?
Request for Fluoridation Agenda Item • Hamilton
This is the email I sent to the Hamilton city clerk, the link attached to this is the info from Calgary about fluoride removal.
To the City Clerk [Hamilton]: June 27, 2011
RE: FLUORIDE IN HAMILTON CITY WATER.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the use of Fluoride by the City of Hamilton be placed back on the Agenda.
I would also ask that each councillor receive a copy of this letter as well as the Mayor. Included are attachments from the City of Calgary, which as of 2011 has abolished fluoride from their city water.
There are three questions that I would like to pose to the councillors while reviewing the documentation from the City of Calgary:
In conclusion, we request that Fluoride be abolished from Hamilton's Water. Please place this on the Agenda.
- What authority allows city councillors to mass medicate the city of Hamilton by the use of Fluoride in the tap water?
- How is the consumption of Fluoride measured for each individual citizen?
- Both Public health and the Hamilton Dental association deem fluoride medicinal, without consideration of a citizen's height, weight, and health conditions, when administering fluoride to the citizens of Hamilton.
I look forward to a confirmation date so that the citizens of Hamilton can prepare.
Thanking you for your time and consideration,
Fluoridation of Churchill MB
From: markus bracklius <email@example.com>
Cc: Richard Hudon <firstname.lastname@example.org>; and 30 others
Sent: Fri, August 12, 2011 1:23:59 PM
Subject: Re: ODA Legal Case
I'm sorry to jump in on this thread, thanks for this update.
'Churchill NoFluoride' has been battling for almost 3 years up here in the polar bear capital of the world, I was wondering/asking if anybody in the professional field would be willing to write an official letter to the Mayor, Town council and the residents of Churchill Manitoba regarding the dangers of water Fluoridation?
I could really use your help if anybody is willing.
The Mayor and CAO informed me that they wish to introduce plebiscite, so this September we move to more presentations (my 3rd) followed by a public vote!!
This is the last hurdle here and a victory in Manitoba's gem of the north would be so very beneficial to Winnipeg and Canada as we are so well known for tourism and our environment.
Sorry once again for jumping in here but there are so many contacts here for myself.
Look forward to hearing from those willing.
Mark brackley 'Churchill No Fluoride'
From: hardy limeback <email@example.com>
To: markus bracklius <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Richard Hudon <email@example.com>; and 30 others
Sent: Fri, August 12, 2011 2:52:18 PM
Subject: Re: ODA Legal Case
I always like to know how much it costs to fluoridate. Not just the cost of the fluoride chemicals, but the the extra chemicals that could be eliminated if fluoridation stopped. And then there are the extras.
Who pays for testing the water level for fluoride and how much does that cost? What % of the water works technician(s) hourly wages goes to training, safety, and equipment maintenance related to using H2SiF6? Is there extra liability insurance to cover workers working with this toxin? Does the city promote fluoridation or is this cost transferred to public health? Does the city spend any money on designating a city employee's salary part-time to review the benefits of fluoridation in preparation for the plebiscite?
Usually you have to fluoridate for 20 years in order to save one tooth surface per child, so it's easy to calculate the total cost per filling saved if you know the total population of kids from birth to age 20. Churchill has 250 kids <20 years of age. http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/population/3/churchill.pdf(I would have thought the population was a lot higher...but then I checked a number of sources!)
It probably costs about $10,000 to 25,000/yr to fluoridate Churchill (with the indirect costs I mentioned).
Normally it's not worth fluoridating small towns. In the US the mandatory fluoridation laws only apply to 'cities' with more than 10,000 people because it is so expensive and dangerous to fluoridate.
In Hooper Bay Alaska a fluoridation 'accident' causing one death and the entire town to get sick, was a testament to how dangerous fluoridation is http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/hooper-bay.html
If Churchill is already fluoridating, I bet they have to spend $10,000 to $250,000 X 20 = $200,000 to 500,000 to save the cost of placing 250 fillings over 20 years.
My friend Dr. Doug Brothwell (see http://www.cda-adc.ca/JCDA/vol-74/issue-10/879.pdf) provides outreach dental services to places like Churchill (does Churchill even have a dentist???...with only 1000 people, I wouldn't set up there myself ...I could not find a dentist listed there with the Manitoba Dental Association).
It might cost $200 per filling ($200 x 250 = $50,000) for Doug to provide the service needed. That's one 10th the maximum cost of fluoridating.
I doubt the kids in Churchill care about the fluorosis caused by the fluoridated drinking water, but at an estimate of 1-4% moderate to severe fluorosis, there might be 2-10 kids who develop noticeable fluorosis that, if they go to the big city (Winnipeg) for university or employment, will have to be treated. That would cost $500 to $15000 per patient and those costs are NEVER used to calculate the total cost of fluoridation.
So ask the mayor why he wants to commit $500,000 to fluoridation when he could save $450,000 and donate the rest ($50,000) to the outreach program that Doug runs.
Please feel free to share this with the mayor.
Professor Hardy Limeback
That means the city pays Then I add in the cost of having to treat the dental fluorosis that is caused by fluoridation alone.
Head, Preventive Dentistry University of Toronto
Who regulates fluoridation substance
From: AT <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Diane Sprules <email@example.com>
Cc: Richard Hudon <firstname.lastname@example.org>; and 9 other recipients
Sent: Tue, August 16, 2011 12:31:54 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Misc. Notices - See Index - 2011-08-15
"Has Health Canada not heard of the Precautionary Principles or the first part of the Hippocratic Oath, or the UNESCO declaration on informed consent and right to refuse harmful treatment?
Who can we hold responsible if we drink lots of fluoridated water, and get dental fluorosis from it but still get cavities?
Why should our elected municipal councils obey a non enforceable guideline to increase fluoride in our public drinking water to a level that causes harm to our children, but not obey the health protective environmental guideline that is six times lower to limit fluoride being discharged from treated sewage into environmental water?
On what ethical or scientific grounds should we trust public health officials who refuse to respond to our concerns, refuse to answer our valid questions, and refuse to even read, let alone act on the most up to date scientific evidence produced by Washington's National Academies of Science, that shows infants are at risk of reduced IQ from the increased amount of fluoride in tap water long before they even get their teeth?
And what Canadian government agency regulates and approves the fluoridation chemicals as safe and effective for the purposes claimed? And how much fluoridated water should we drink when we are really really thirsty since the dose doubles when our intake doubles?
And when would we have enough fluoride in our bodies, since it accumulates in our bones, and displaces our real bone minerals over time? So what do we do then - stop drinking water?
And if people are already getting three times as much fluoride from a cup of tea as they get from a liter of tap water, why do we need to use taxpayer money to add industrial waste fluoride to the entire drinking water supply that winds up accumulating in the downstream environment, mostly the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence water commons, at the rate of one pound of fluoride per person per year?"
Why Fluoride Should Be Banned From Our Drinking Water
by Doug DiPasquale
Sep 13th 2010 9:00AM
Categories: Friends & Family, Health
Originally from http://www.thatsfit.ca/2010/09/13/fluoride-drinking-water/
I woke up to some good news today, when I saw the headline "Green Party of Canada calls for ban on the fluoridation chemicals hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride."It seems that, like me, the Green Party isn't happy with the fact that we indiscriminately pump fluoride into our water supply and wants it banned at the federal level. Go Green Party!
Fluoride has been added to Ottawa 's water supply since 1965, supposedly for the benefit of our teeth. It is widely believed that adding fluoride to the drinking water will help to prevent dental caries (cavities). However, the 1999 Centers For Disease Control study widely cited as justification for the fluoridation of the water supply only looked at topical applications of fluoride in the form of toothpastes and dental fluoride treatments, not ingested fluoride. Never mind that the type of fluoride used in “fluoridation” is neither medical, food nor pharmaceutical grade but a highly hazardous, toxic waste by-product of the fertilizer industry called hydrofluorosilicic acid.
The Green Party's reasons for banning fluoride in tap water are mainly environmental, citing the fact that the fluoride chemicals put into our drinking water are actually toxic by-products scrubbed from the smokestacks of the phosphate mining industry. Also, 99% of this fluoridated water ends up being discharged back into the environment, because none of the processes used to treat sewage water can remove fluoride.
The environmental impact is extremely important, for sure, but I come at the issue from the perspective of how fluoridation immediately affects our health. In 2006, a distinguished panel appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies published a 500 page report about the effects of excessive fluoride ingestion. Their conclusion was that the standard set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of 4.0 parts per million is unsafe and causing “increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis and, possibly, osteosarcoma.” Toronto , as an example, currently fortifies their water to 0.6 ppm.
Ethically speaking, even if fluoridation of the water supply worked the way we're told it does (preventing tooth decay), we're being delivered unregulated, unapproved, unpurified medication via the water supply without our consent. This is completely unethical. Never mind that the daily dose of medications delivered in this way can't be regulated and the effects of fluoridation on the population are not being monitored -- even more importantly, our rights are being infringed upon by our inability to opt out. Fluoride is actually quite difficult to remove from water, requiring expensive reverse osmosis filter systems or distillation. Yet the cost of these systems is not subsidized for those who don't wish to ingest or develop an averse reaction to the fluoride substance used for artificial water fluoridation. And there are plenty of people who develop these adverse reactions
Lets face it, the fluoridation of our water supply has always been a sneaky means for industry to get rid of a highly hazardous, toxic waste by-product. It has never been about the health of the public's teeth. It is known that the effectiveness of fluoride in drinking water for preventing cavities has never been demonstrated, it has only been assumed effective given the effectiveness of topical fluoride treatments. Fluoride works to reduce tooth decay from the exterior of the tooth, not systemically from inside the body. It simply makes no sense to drink it. Fluoride toothpastes are cheap and widely available. This is a viable strategy for getting fluoride for dental health, if one chooses, not by exposing the rest of the body to the risks involved in fluoride ingestion.
Ironically, epidemiological evidence largely indicates water fluoridation to be detrimental to the health of the teeth. Excess fluoride in the diet can actually lead to a condition known as dental fluorosis, where brown discolouration of the teeth with white spotting occurs. A 2007 report by the CDC stated that 40.6 percent of children aged 12-15 now have some form of fluorosis, whereas 36 percent of children 16-19 have fluorosis. While this effect is claimed to be largely cosmetic, it still brings the wisdom of fluoride supplementation into question.
Fluoride isn't even an essential nutrient, according to the National Academy of Sciences, meaning no human disease, including tooth decay, can ever result from a fluoride deficiency. The human body needs no fluoride in order to function at its optimum. The same cannot be said for true nutrients like calcium or magnesium, for instance, which are depleted by the ingestion of fluoride substances even in very small quantities.
Take a look at the ample information on the Fluoride Action Network's site to see the multiple, well-reasoned arguments against water fluoridation. We've been scammed on this from the very beginning. Hopefully the Green Party can make water fluoridation in Canada a thing of the past.
This article is heavily imbued with the writing of The Healthy Foodie (which) is Doug DiPasquale, Holistic Nutritionist and trained chef, living in Toronto . You can email him with questions at email@example.com.
CONSIDERABLY MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL
Churchill to hold September plebiscite on fluoride in water
The scientific/legal determination of safety is based on 2 types of research:
1. Animal studies (toxicology studies), and
The actual fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (silicofluorides Na2SiF6, H2SiF6) have been used for over 60 years with neither the required animal studies (toxicology studies) nor the required human studies (randomized controlled clinical trials or RCTs) to determine safety in order to protect consumer safety and satisfy the legal requirements in Canada.
2. Human studies (clinical trials).
Because fluoride can disproportionately harm poor citizens and black families, Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta Mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, both inductees in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame, as well as Martin Luther King's daughter Bernice have expressed the following concerns about the fairness, safety, and full disclosure regarding artificial water fluoridation:
Dr. Durley wrote, "The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences has designated kidney patients, diabetics, seniors, and babies as 'susceptible subpopulations' that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides. Black citizens are disproportionately affected by kidney disease and diabetes, and are therefore more impacted by fluorides."
Ambassador Young wrote, "I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies' milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist."
In summary, Manitoba Health makes claims of treating and preventing tooth decay while promoting a product (hydrofluorosilicic acid) that has never been approved for such claims for either topical applications through oral exposure, systemic effects through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through the skin while bathing and showering. This has been done without our consent and without conducting the appropriate evaluation processes and approvals.
Fluoride, chlorine comparison invalid
Kimberly Deyong, The Windsor Star
Published: Friday, August 26, 2011
Re: What comes after fluoride? Chlorine? By Dr. Pasquale Duronio, Aug. 24.
How unfortunate that a doctor can think it valid to compare fluoride to chlorine. Hydrofluorsilicic acid is added as medication while chlorine is added to clean the water - comparing the two is pointless.
What comes after fluoride? Aspirin? Why not medicate the water supply to prevent pain and suffering? Neither fluoride nor Aspirin make the water clean and safe but chlorine does.
Dr. Duronio is attempting to appeal to our emotions (those poor Paraguay children) while ignoring the science that hydrofluorosilicic acid has not shown to decrease caries or be safe for a lifetime of ingestion.
Most of Essex County is not medicated with fluoride in their water. According to a study done in 1999 called Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Health, the rate of dental fluorosis is on the rise in communities that medicate their water with fluoride.
Perhaps this is why the ADA and CDC now caution parents against using fluoridated water for mixing baby formula.
Water fluoridation began as a public health initiative to give poor folks access to dental health. However, fluoride toothpaste is cheap and the health unit offers free dental care to children from low-income families - medicating the whole population makes no sense, especially when the assistant director of the Department of Environmental Health from the AMA is on record saying, "The American Medical Association is not prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation." (div. of socio-economic activities 1965).
And we have to ask: Why has Windsor reduced the level of fluoride and yet claims the current level is safe? The chief water engineer of the WUC is on record (council minutes from May 23, 2006 ) saying, "It should be noted that the WUC reduced the level of fluoride from 1.2 mg/l to .65 mg/l several years ago."
And today, just five years later, the WUC is fluoridating to .6 mg/l. Are we going to be told in another five years that .4 mg is the safe limit? When only one per cent of the tap water is ingested and the rest goes nowhere near our teeth, water fluoridation is clearly a wasteful and useless practice. The scientific fact that some people are harmed by this medication should be activating the precautionary principle - if in doubt, leave it out.
KIMBERLY DeYONG, Windsor
Letter to Halton's clerk
Dear Madam / Sir,
Please notify Councillors and record my opposition to water fluoridation.
Honorable Chair, Mayors and Councillors,
I live in Peel, however I work in Halton. I bring with me to work filtered water from home, because I refuse to consume Halton’s water that is being contaminated with industrial toxic waste. Peel’s Council decided on January 12 to request from Health Canada to take a much closer look at the hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is being used for the so-called ‘water fluoridation’, than it has in the past.
Attached are the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and a Certificate of Analysis for the hydrofluorosilicic acid used in Halton, demonstrating the claim on toxicity stated above. They are relatively easy to read and understand. Many manufacturing companies conduct in-house trainings for all their employees (including accountants and other supporting services) on how to read MSDS, as part of their basic safety-at-work programs. In fact a friend of mine, with a background in political sciences who works as a waiter, told me that it did not take him much in-depth research to convince himself in the detrimental effect of the ‘artificial water fluoridation’. Furthermore even his 6-year old daughter was able to understand, after we ‘translated’ for her that toxic = poisonous.
No reasonable engineer, or other professional or person, should allow such compound to enter the drinking water supply. In fact, Section 20 of Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act explicitly criminalizes such an act.
Mississauga, L5N #a#
Fluoridation Cessation Advocacy vs Activism
From: AT <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: David Hill <email@example.com>
Cc: CHRIS GUPTA <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Richard Hudon <email@example.com>; and 30 others
Sent: Sat, August 27, 2011 1:02:34 PM
Subject: Re: The battle for 'Churchill Manitoba'
Re: "you are not so smart":
I experienced a perfect example of this, last week, as a guest speaker at a posh Rotary Club lunch.
My topic was "Fluoridation fails the 4-way test".
Timing is everything. The three lawsuits had just been launched in the US and I was able to use that information at the end of my talk as a powerful buttress to my arguments and make a strong case for objective criticism of the policy based on simple arithmetic, law and ethics that show fluoridation to be the opposite of Rotarian mission statement: True, Fair, Beneficial, and promotes Good Will.
Sure enough, there was one irate member of the club, deeply offended by what I was saying and stood up immediately to rebut me.
He is a retired doctor and his outburst revealed that he remained convinced of three totally illogical things: fluoridated water is solely responsible for the decline in tooth decay since the 1940s; chlorination of drinking water is people treatment; and fluoridation is water treatment. Four if you count his prevarication that if fluoride is a toxin in water then it's everywhere but also a mineral nutrient in food. (Well if we can get it in food why do we need to put hazardous waste in water? but I didn't say that out loud because my goal was not to alienate but to educate.)
But the most telling thing of all was his emotional response. He was ANGRY! and the more frustrated he became, the less sense he made.
I stayed calm, rational, and articulated compassion for the "old guard" having to cope with the realization that they were tricked and deceived all those years ago into endorsing something they thought was based in altruism and social justice and met the four way test of the Rotarians, but clearly did not.
I said something to the effect that we can all forgive the decision made then as a result of that innocent idealism, but now that the information is available, ethics and justice must replace cherished but mistaken beliefs on fluoridation.
When I said my little piece about how all municipal drinking water is borrowed from the environment and returned there, some seemed to have a light bulb go on.
Can the International Joint Commission grasp the idea that fluoridation is a direct pollution of the Great Lakes Water Commons, do you think?
In my speech I had softened them up in the beginning with a neat little discussion about the difference between advocacy and activism and presented myself as someone effecting change from within.
This I think was the key to their acceptance of the information I gave that would otherwise be rejected as coming from "the other side".
Letter to Council
Here is a copy of the e-mail that I sent Riverview Council and cc'd Dieppe and Riverview Councillors - its time to start calling all councillors and ask them to look at the caliber of the research and credentials for the experts claiming that fluoridated water is bad for health and does nothing for our teeth!! Not to mention the unsubstantiated claims and lack of logic and inconsistencies rampant throughout the public health and the dental association's positions on fluoridation!!!!
Here's a copy of the e-mail sent out during the wee hours: (October 25, 2011)
Dear Mayor Sweatland and Riverview Council,
I must admit, my colleagues and I are disappointed that we were unable to motivate you to look further into the credentials of the experts as well as the caliber of research that indicates that drinking fluoride does not reduce tooth decay and does contribute to a number of chronic health conditions. However we do understand that Moncton Council are awaiting your opinion and that you felt that you needed to take a position.
I would like to mention that after Dr. Léger's presentation, I was tempted to ask for 2 minutes to comment on his presentation, since he commented on my presentation. I chose not to ask since I didn't know if that would have been appropriate and I'm not sure if my comments would have influenced any of your decisions, but for the record, here are the claims made by Dr. Léger that I would have liked to comment on.
The claim that Hexafluorosilisic Acid (the product used to artificially fluoridate water) at 0.7 ppm meets the NSF standard for safe levels:
This claim has been thoroughly investigated by Carol Clinch in Waterloo, and Clinche's research has shown that the NSF standard has somehow been given without any source studies to substantiate this approval - for details see Clinch Attachment. Note: the research index contains a number of other reports by Clinch that any of you are free to ask for at any time..
The claim that "systematic evaluation studies" are legitimate ways to determine which studies should be considered.
This is what public health and dental associations claim time and time again. And this is so frustrating because this kind of rhetoric dismisses the peer reviewed and published criteria that is held in the highest regard by the academic world. When you add the fact that these "systematic evaluation studies" end up approving data from unpublished studies that have been found faulty by leading researchers and dismiss data from peer reviewed studies published in respected scientific journals then I feel it is fair to say that something just isn't adding up with these supposedly trustworthy "systematic evaluation studies".
In fact, I was dying to comment when Dr. Léger claimed that tooth decay rates increased in the cities of Dorval, Québec, and Dryden, Ontario, after fluoride was removed from their water. I have seen the studies used to support these claims and these correlative studies have never been published because
1. they only looked at kindergaten aged children,
2. did not take into consideration the fact that fluoridated water delays tooth eruption and
3. did not isolate enough variables such as diet and oral hygien habits amongst the sample group studied.
In other words, these studies were never published and found to be invalid by researchers. Dr. Limeback form the University of Toronto himself assured me of this when I asked him about this last May. To see Limeback's credentials, please open the attachment with links to interviews with qualified experts.
The statement that dental disease is the second highest chronic health problem for children.
My colleagues and I are aware of these statistics and completely agree that dental disease is a very serious condition. However, since there are respected studies showing no significant difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated regions and non fluoridated regions as well as published peer reviewed studies showing that fluoridated water presents a number of health risks, we feel that talking about the predominance of dental disease amongst children as well as people of lower income clouds the questions at hand which are:
Is fluoridation of water actually effective at reducing tooth decay?
Does fluoridation of water present health risks?
Those are the big questions.
And even though your Council has taken a position, I do hope that as residents you will look further into the research. I do hope you will look for yourselves to see the credentials of the experts as well as the research they cite that is being dismissed by our dental and public health associations.
Once again, to accept the idea that "systematic evaluation studies" is how dental and public health association rightfully decide which studies are to be considered is to dismiss the academically acclaimed peer review process. Add the fact, as mentioned, that these "systematic evaluation studies" end up approving data from studies that have never been published further undermines the credibility of these "systematic evaluation studies".
Fluoridated toothpaste = don't swallow, fluoridated water = swallow
One of your Councillors righfully questioned Dr. Léger about this obvious inconsistency not to mention lack of logic.
The amount of fluoride in a pea sized amount of toothpaste is the same that's in a glass of Moncton water. Where is the logic in telling people that its dangerous to swallow toothpaste because that could lead to excessive amounts of fluoride over time, yet its ok to drink as much fluoridated water as you want. And this isn't even factoring in the amount of fluoride that is in processed food and drinks, since food and drinks that are processed with fluoridated water are full of fluoride at all kinds of levels that are hard to determine. And yes, everytime fluoridated water is boiled, its concentration of fluoride increases. The main reason why toothpaste company's warn about swallowing tooth is to protect these companies from any liability.
The claim that fluoridated water reduces tooth decay rates by 20 - 40 %
How can the "systematic evaluation studies" that dental and public health association rely upon to make this claim when there are respected studies such as the one by Statistics Canada, as well as from the World Health Organization showing no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non fluoridated regions. In other words, if Dr. Léger's claim is correct, why would any respected study ever find anything other than at least a 20% reduction in tooth decay rates. Once again, it just doesn't add up.
I could go on and on about the lack of logic and inconsistencies that are rampant throughout the reports supporting public health and dental associations' policies on water fluoridation, but what my colleagues and I are hoping for is that the decision makers in Moncton will take the time to listen and see for themselves the caliber of the research and the credentials of the experts that are being dismissed by public health and dental associations.
To finish, I'd like to mention one point that I'm sure we can all agree upon which is that essentially diet and oral hygiene determine how healthy a person's teeth will be. I for one would much rather see the $100 000 per year that Moncton spends on fluoridation go towards an educational campaign that could truly lower tooth decay rates without exposing people's tissues, glands and organs to hexafluorosilisic acid.
Once again, thank you for your time and consideration, and please feel free to contact me at any time for references and resources about water fluoridation.
On behalf of everyone with Fluoride Free Metro Moncton
Riverview Rejects Fluoridation Cessation
Below are the English and French press releases that will go out later today regarding Riverview's hasty decision making process. Dieppe's name will be added unless they honor our request to reverse their decision and consider the info that our group has to offer them on the 14th of November which is the arrangement that Dieppe agreed to last week - please say a prayer to help Dieppe honor their original agreement and please call or e-mail Dieppe Councillors asking them to reverse their decision until they hear from us on the 14th. Good night and G-od Bless! Jai and Amen to all : )
Fluoride Free Metro Moncton
Disappointment by Riverview's Hasty Decision
Hundreds of members and supporters of Fluoride Free Metro Moncton are disappointed to say the least by little time Riverview Town Council spent examining the credentials of leading researchers as well as the peer reviewed research that these experts cite claiming that drinking fluoride does not reduce tooth decay and contributes to a number of chronic health conditions.
The presentation of studies from organizations such as Statistics Canada, the World Health Organization and other respected studies that found no difference in tooth decay rates when comparing fluoridated regions and non fluoridated regions were not enough to motivate Riverview's decision makers to look further into the question of whether or not fluoridation actually reduces tooth decay. And more importantly, two large binders full of published and peer reviewed studies demonstrating how drinking fluoridated water can contribute to a number of chronic health conditions coupled with statements and interviews with nobel prize winners in Medicine, Chemistry as well as a legion of some of the world's most respected doctors of toxicology, biochemistry, human physiology and even doctors and dentists explaining how drinking fluoride can damage tissue structure, as well as glandular and organ function were not enough to convince Riverview's elected officials to ask Moncton for more time in order to explore the merits of the evidence that fluoridated water may very well be jeopardizing the health of their constituents.
Councillors agreed that many of the points raised merited further investigation, but nonetheless chose to push a decision through.
Olivier Weil who presented on behalf of Fluoride Free Metro Moncton explains: “Unfortunately, this reaction is common when municipalities are presented with data for the first time. Calgary took ten years before finally taking a good hard look at the science claiming that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and presents a number of health risks. But more and more cities are learning from the experience of other regions. In 2011 alone, 18 cities and towns in North America have voted to cease fluoridation, and we're still confident that Moncton Council who have been reviewing research since last spring will show that Moncton lives up to its claim of being one of the most intelligent cities in the world and choose to cease fluoridating our water.”
Weil added: “ The challenge is always for decision makers to go beyond the unsubstantiated assurances made by public health and dental associations in order to truly look at the caliber of research and the credentials of these highly respected experts claiming that fluoridated water does not reduce tooth decay and does contribute to a variety of chronic health conditions.”
Métro Moncton Sans-Fluor
Déçu des décisions hâtives de Riverview
Des centaines de membres et supporteurs du groupe Métro Moncton Sans-Fluor sont déçus du peu de temps que le conseil de ville de Riverview a consacré a l'étude de preuves avancées par des chercheurs experts qui réclament que la consommation de l'eau fluorée non-seulement ne mène pas à une réduction de la carie, mais contribue plutôt à un nombre de problèmes de santés chroniques.
La mise de l'avant de données provenant d'organismes tels que Statistiques Canada et l'Organisation mondiale de la santé, ainsi que d' autres études, indiquant l'absence de différence entre les taux de carie dans les régions fluorée et ceux des régions non-fluorée, n'a pas suffit pour motiver les décideurs de Riverview de revoir la question: est-ce que la fluoration mène vraiment à une réduction de la carie?
Encore plus remarquable: disponibles étaient deux grands cartables remplis d'études démontrant que la consommation d'eau fluorée peut contribuer à des problèmes de santé chroniques, d'énoncés et d'entrevues offertes par des scientifiques experts et gagnants de prix Nobel en médecine et chimie, de références à un corps de docteurs de renommée mondiale en toxicologie, biochimie, physiologie humaine, et même des explications de médecins et dentistes sur les mécanismes par lesquels la consommation d'eau fluorée peut causer des dommages à l'intégrité de nos tissus et des fonctions de nos glandes et organes. Les représentants municipaux élus de Riverview n'ont ici point trouvé cause de demander à la ville de Moncton une période de réflexion afin d'examiner le bien-fondé des preuves que l'eau fluorée puisse en effet être en train de nuire à la santé de leurs citoyens.
Les conseillers se sont dit d'accord que l'affaire méritait un examen plus approfondit mais ont décidé de forcer une décision hâtive.
Olivier Weil, qui a fait la présentation au nom de Métro Moncton Sans-fluor, explique: « Malheureusement, ce genre de réaction est commun lorsqu'un conseil municipal est appelé à faire face à la question pour la première fois. Ce fut dix ans à Calgary avant que la municipalité s'y mette. Mais de plus en plus de municipalités tirent profit de l'expérience d'autres régions. Rien qu'en 2011, 18 municipalités en Amérique du Nord ont choisit de mettre fin à la fluoration. Notre groupe demeure confiant que le conseil de ville de Moncton, ayant examiné les preuves depuis ce printemps, sera à la hauteur de la réputation de Moncton comme étant parmi les villes les plus intelligentes au monde. »
Weil a ajouté que: « Le défi est toujours d'oser aller au-delà des assurances des associations de santé et dentaires publiques, afin de faire un examen approfondi des études qui sont à l'appui des experts hautement qualifiés et indépendants qui avisent que l'ingestion du fluor ne réduit pas les taux de caries mais contribue à toute une gamme de problèmes de santé chroniques. »
From: Robert Pinarreta <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Citizens of Mississauga against Water Fluoridation <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:53:25 AM
Subject: [Citizens of Mississauga against Water Fluoridation]
Robert Pinarreta to Mayor McCallion, Mississauga
Today I received a letter from Mayor H. Mcallion in regards to my concern of the dumping of HFSA in our water system and responded with the following:
Dear Mayor McCallion,
I Thank you for taking time out to address what I and many now see as a major health concern effecting every citizen of Mississauga. I do not claim to be a biochemist as such I have included an attachment from a Mississauga resident and expert in the field, Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS, Head, Preventive Dentistry U of T in regards to the fluoride and type of fluoride being dumped in municipal waters.
Please find some time to give the attachment some consideration. The rebuttal in light of mounting evidence against the effectiveness of adding toxic Hydrofluorosilicic acid sounds more like rhetoric than fact. For all current and future citizens of Mississauga I sincerely ask you that you to consider [ending] the addition of Hydrofluorosilicic acid to our municipal water system.
3213 Eden Oak Cres.
Cindy Mayor Letter to Brampton Guardian - Nov 25, 2011
I read with concern the letter from OMA President Dr. Stewart Kennedy praising the benefits of water fluoridation.
If Dr. Kennedy had reviewed the science on fluoride and water fluoridation he would know that dental researchers, Health Canada, the CDC and dental organizations agree that fluoride’s primary benefit is topical, not systemic.
Dr. Kennedy, keeping that fact in mind, please tell me what dose would be appropriate for a baby that has no teeth and how you or any health professional will monitor and control that dose?
Please state what measures you or your organization have taken to protect babies by informing new parents and the public about the potential adverse effects of water fluoridation on the developing child.