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.

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.

Sincerely,

Following is my letter to Health Canada and their reply.
I will phone HC tomorrow and see if I can find anything more out.

Diane

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.

Sincerely yours,

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?

Thank you.

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:

1. What authority allows city councillors to mass medicate the city of Hamilton by the use of Fluoride in the tap water?
2. How is the consumption of Fluoride measured for each individual citizen?
3. 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,

Hello everybody,

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.

Dear Markus:

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
Head, Preventive Dentistry University of Toronto

"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?

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 dougthehealthyfoodie@gmail.com.

1. Animal studies (toxicology studies), and
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."

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.