Having fluoride in our municipal water is something most of us accept without question.

Professionals have told us that it's good for our teeth and that having it in our water saves us time and effort – less time and money spent at the dentist's office, for example. However, recent findings are telling a different story.

The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) found in 2005 that having fluoride in the water has no impact on cavity rates. Worse than that, the presence of fluoride in our bodies can lead to illnesses such as hypothyroidism, cataracts, arthritis, fibromyalgia, liver damage, osteosacroma and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), in addition to being linked to higher uptake of lead in children (Masters and Coplan, journal of NeuroToxicology).

This is because of the type of fluoride used to fluoridate our water supply – hydrofluorosilicic acid (a.k.a. hexafluorosilicic acid, hydrofluosilicic acid, fluorosilicic acid), which comes from the toxic waste product scrubbed from the smoke stacks of fertilizer plants. This acid contains many things, including lead, aluminum, cadmium and arsenic ( Neil Carman Sierra Club statement in the The Austin Chronicle ( Texas ) - November 27, 2009 ).

There is a pharmaceutical grade of fluoride (sodium fluoride), which has been tested and approved for dental application, but it is cost-prohibitive to add this to our water supply.

Since we are exposed to fluoride in many places (municipal water, some processed foods, restaurant meals, pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables), it's hard to gage just how much fluoride any given person is ingesting. This is a problem since fluoride “dosages” need to be specific to the individual.

Further to this, fluoride is best used as a topical treatment, applied directly to the surface of the teeth, and is not effective at all when swallowed (Cheng KK, et al. (2007)).

The question remains: why are we adding a drug to our water supply? And aren't medicines best used by following a prescribed dosage? And how does one determine the amount of fluoride being ingested on a daily basis?

So why was fluoride ever added to our drinking water? Richard Foulkes, MD was tasked with the job of researching fluoridation in British Columbia in 1973. Based on his 1900 page report and recommendations that fluoridation become mandatory, legislation was passed.

However, by 1992, Foulkes had discovered that many of the statistics that he had used in his research were falsified. He announced his discovery in a statement: "I now hold a different view. …the fluoridation of community water supplies can no longer be held to be either safe or effective in the reduction of dental caries….Therefore, the practice should be abandoned."- Foulkes, 1992.

By November of 2008, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment also announced their opposition to fluoridation. Their full statement is accessible on their website (www.cape.ca).

Apart from the ethical issue of medicating municipal water and the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing cavities, there is the further issue of just how much of the fluoride that's in the water becomes available to us. And, of course, there is a cost involved.

The City Of Ottawa spends over $400 000 per year to fluoridate our water supply. Of the fluoride that's added to the water, les than 1% will make it's way into our bodies. Even if the fluoride being added to the water were benefiting us, is this really the most cost-effective way to give it to people?

Do we have better things to do with taxpayers' money? What choices do we have if we don't want to consume medicated water? What about the environmental impact of the fluoride that goes down the drain? These are questions that we all need to consider.

If you feel concerned about it and would like to voice your concern, or if you'd like more information on the issue, please visit Fluoridation-Free Ottawa's website at: FFO-OLF.

Clare Gallant, Freelance writer.

Fluoride move will hurt poor: experts

Commentary by Dr. James Beck, 02/21/2011

Fluoride removal will NOT hurt the poor. The comments from “experts” bemoaning the coming disastrous increase in tooth decay among children of low-income families following the cessation of fluoridation are wrong.

Fluoride is not an “enamel-building mineral”. Fluoride partially substitutes for a part of the apatite, the hard substance of the enamel, to a depth of about a nanometer (one billionth of a meter), about the thickness of tooth enamel that is worn off in a day.

Stopping fluoridation is not followed by an increase in the incidence of cavities. I have at my side about forty citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles published in reputable journals that give the evidence for that statement. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

James S. Beck, M.D., PhD.

Published as an article on February 4, 2011

In response to your request for comments on the recent change in your recommended level of fluoride added to community drinking water, I respectfully submit the following points supporting the stance that a reduction in fluoride levels is not sufficient, and that the United States should follow the approach of western Europe and end water fluoridation completely:

• Fluoride is not a nutrient, nor is it essential for healthy teeth. No study has ever revealed a diseased state resulting from lack of fluoride, including dental caries.(1,2) No American is, or ever was, “fluoride deficient.”

• Using the water supply to mass medicate the population is unethical. The public water supply should not be used as a drug-delivery system without regard for an individual's age, weight, health status, or knowledge of how fluoride will interact with other drugs they are taking. No informed consent is requested or given, and no medical follow-up is offered.

• The benefit and safety of ingested fluoride has never been proved by accepted medical standards.(6) The HHS has failed to inform the public that there is not a single randomized controlled trial (the gold standard of medical research) that demonstrates the effectiveness of water fluoridation.(3) HHS has also failed to inform the public that the Food and Drug Administration has never studied, or approved, the safety of fluoride supplements and continues to classify all fluoride supplements as “unapproved new drugs.”(4, 5) Lastly, HHS has failed to inform the public that tooth decay rates have declined at the same general rate in all western, industrialized countries, irrespective of water fluoridation status.

• Any benefits of fluoride are primarily topical, not systemic. The CDC has acknowledged this for over a decade(7). The Iowa Fluoride Study, funded by HHS, has reported little, if any, relationship between individual fluoride intake and caries experience. According to the study (the largest of its kind): “achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake , while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake."(8)

• Americans will still be over-exposed to fluoride at 0.7 ppm. According to EPA's recent documents “it is likely that most children, even those that live in fluoridated communities, can be over-exposed to fluoride at least occasionally.(9) At present, nearly 41% of American adolescents aged 12-15 have some form of dental fluorosis(10), an outwardly visible sign of fluoride toxicity. Reducing the fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm will not remedy this problem as national statistics clearly show that dental fluorosis remains significantly elevated at 0.7 ppm.(11) Drinking water is just one source of ingested fluoride; others include foods, beverages, dental products and supplements, pesticides and phar maceuticals. For communities that practice artificial water fluoridation, this is the easiest source of fluoride to remove.

• Infants will not be protected. Infants fed formula made with fluoridated tap water—at the reduced level of 0.7 ppm—will still receive up to 175 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant. In their supporting documents, EPA has not calculated the risks to the bottle-fed infant. In fact, infants from birth to six months of age were completely excluded from any consideration by EPA, despite HHS's own admission that “The period of possible risk for fluorosis in the permanent teeth…extends from about birth through 8 years of age."(12) As the most susceptible subpopulation, the potential for long-term, irreparable damage to developing infants must be seriously considered, and should extend beyond just their teeth.

• African-American children and low-income children will not be protected. HHS's reference(p. 2386) to the study by Sohn et a l.(13) failed to mention that African-American and low-income children were found to consume significantly more total fluids and plain water, and thus receive more fluoride from drinking water, than white or higher-income children. African-Americans have been shown to have an increased risk of developing dental fluorosis, and are at higher risk for suffering from the more severe forms of this condition.(14) Despite receiving high intakes of fluoride, low-income and minority children living in fluoridated communities continue to suffer from rampant and severe dental decay(15-18)—undermining the common premise that fluoridation will prevent these problems. Additionally, low-income children have a greater risk for suffering from all forms of fluoride toxicity, as poor diet exacerbates the detrimental effects of fluoride. This is clearly, therefore, an environmental justice issue.

• HHS has failed to consider fluoride's impact on the brain. Over 100 animal studies have observed fluoride-induced brain damag e(19), 24 human studies have reported lowered IQ in children exposed to various levels of fluoride(20), and at least 6 other studies have found non-IQ neurological effects such as impaired visuo-spatial organization.(21-26) One study of 500 children in China observed reduced IQ at a water fluoride level of 1.9 ppm(27, 28) and another reported a reduction in IQ at even lower (mean=1.3 ppm) water fluoride levels.(29) HHS's new recommendation of 0.7 ppm offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all of our children, including those with iodine deficiencies(30-32), from experiencing similar neurological damage.

• HHS has failed to consider fluoride as an endocrine disruptor. The 2006 NRC report(33) state s that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, and even at low levels can be detrimental to the thyroid gland. Pre- and post-natal babies, people with kidney disease, and above-average water drinkers (including diabetics and lactating women) are especially susceptible to the endocrine disrupting effects of fluoride in drinking water.

• HHS has failed to consider or investigate current rates of skeletal fluorosis in the U.S. According to EPA's supporting document(34), there is a general lack of information on the prevalence of stage II skeletal fluorosis in the U.S. Yet, many of the symptoms of stage II skeletal fluorosis (e.g. sporadic pain, stiffness of the joints) are identical to arthritis(35-40), which affects at least 46 million Americans. People with renal insufficiency are known to be at an elevated risk for developing skeletal fluorosis(33), as crippling stage III skeletal fluorosis with renal deficiency has been documented in the U.S. at water fluoride levels as low as 1.7 ppm.(41) Since skeletal fluorosis in kidney patients has been detected in small case studies, it is likely that systematic studies would detect skeletal fluorosis at even lower fluoride levels.

• HHS has failed to consider fluoride as a potential carcinogen. Bassin et al.(42) reported a significantly elevated risk of osteosarcoma in boys living in fluoridated communities, and thus fluoride may be a carcinogen. Chester Douglass, who has serious conflicts-of-interest concerning fluoride research, has stated that a subsequent study will refute these findings(43), bu t no publication has appeared in the five years since he made this claim. As EPA has still not completed carcinogenicity testing for fluoride, HHS should not support the addition of a potential carcinogen to our drinking water.

• HHS has failed to confirm the safety of silicofluorides. Despite being used in more than 90% of artificial water fluoridation schemes, no chronic toxicity testing of silicofluorides has ever been completed: “No short-term or subchronic exposure, chronic exposure, cytotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, teratology, carcinogenicity, or initiation/promotion s tudies were available” for the toxicological summary for silicofluorides, as prepared for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.(44) However, recent epidemiological research has found an association between the use of silicofluoride-treated community water and increased blood lead concentrations in children(45) – a link that is consistent with recent laboratory findings.(46) HHS has failed to inform the American public that the fluoridating agent used in drinking water is a hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry, and can be laced with arsenic and radionuclides,(47, 48) which are known carcinogens. HHS should not support the addition of a non-tested substance to our drinking water.

Most of the arguments listed above are covered in far more detail in the recently published book "The Case Against Fluoride" by Connett, Beck and Micklem (Chelsea Green, 2010). We urge director Sebelius to appoint a group of experts from HHS, who have not been involved in promoting fluoridation, to provide a fully documented scientific response to the arguments and evidence presented in this book.

Were director Sebelius to do this we strongly believe that neither she nor these experts will want to see the practice of water fluoridation continue. The practice is unnecessary, unethical and hitherto the benefits have been wildly exaggerated and the risks minimized. A scientific response to this book from a HHS team would allow the public to judge the cases both for and against fluoridation on their scientific and ethical merits.

Some time ago I learned that our City is using hydrofluorosilicic acid from a phosphate fertilizer industry in Florida for artificial tap water fluoridation. I discovered that it is that industry's untreated, uncontrolled, untested and unpurified waste by-product and is the unstable poisonous corrosive acid as shown on the City's web site¹ called hydrofluorosilicic acid, with the chemical formula H₂SiF₆.²

It's essentially the recycling of a hazardous waste by dumping it into our drinking water. Our water department buys tons of this acid waste yearly. It can't be given to us free because it's classified as a contaminant by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Dr. J. William Hirzy, PhD, an EPA scientist has said: "If this stuff 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 into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing!..."³

I case you haven't heard, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has issued two advisories, one in November 2006 and another in January 2011, that mothers of infants not use fluoridated water for preparing infant formula.⁴ Why has this not been more widely broadcast?

We are supposed to accept that if we pay pennies per gallon and they slap a new label on the container⁵ this same untreated acid waste can be used by us to keep fluorine from becoming airborne, killing everything in sight and that on the truck-ride here it is magically converted to a safe and desirable health product. How does that make any sense at all?

Promoters of artificial tap water fluoridation claim it is safe and effective in reducing tooth decay when modern scientific research has shown that just the contrary is true. They refuse to look at the evidence. The world health organization has published a report that shows that the prevalence of tooth decay has been decreasing in industrialized countries whether tap water is fluoridated or not.⁶ What does that tell you about water fluoridation's effectiveness?

Here's the real problem. Once it's in the water, it gets into everything we prepare for eating or drinking. It also gets into all the processed foods we buy. Even at 0.7 parts per million (ppm), that's 0.7 mg per litre of water, it is still toxic to your body. In fact, it is slightly more toxic than lead and slightly less than arsenic. These two are only allowed to be present in tap water at 15 parts per billion and 10 parts per billion respectively, yet this poisonous solution is allowed at 4,000 parts per billion.⁷ How does that make sense?

Because of this problem another one is created. This practice has now been recognized beyond any doubt by promoters and opponents of the use of this acid as causing dental fluorosis, a pitting and staining of teeth that is the bane of over 40% of teenagers in North America.⁸ It can cost in excess of $20,000 to repair this problem depending on severity. It also makes tooth enamel more brittle and subject to easier breaking. If this wasn't bad enough, it has been documented during the last decade and a half as being the cause of or aggravating skeletal fluorosis, cancer, high cholesterol, infertility, arthritis, pineal gland damage, pituitary gland malfunction, hypothyroidism, the deactivation of 62 enzymes in your body, birth defects, lowered IQ and many more.⁹,¹⁰

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, Toxicologist and Pharmacologist, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, has said: "If I was an arthritic care individual, I would be eliminating every possible source of fluoride exposure that I could think of."³ That's exactly what some people have done and, using natural remedies, their symptoms have disappeared only to return any time they've become exposed to this toxic waste. Some people can't even bathe in City water because they are so chemically sensitive it elicits severe adverse health reactions for them. Is that fair? Dr. Mullenix has often repeated that it is a neurotoxin, and she has done the research to prove it!³

So why are we still swallowing this substance with our tap water? Why also do our City Councillors refuse to personally respond to request for action in ending the use of this toxic waste product in your tap water? Why also do our medical authorities continue its promotion in light of the mounting evidence against its safety and efficacy? There is only one doubtful reason for maintaining this misrepresented and archaic practice. There are over 40 solid reasons to discontinue it.¹¹

Every claim made in this article is verifiable in scientific literature. For more information visit http://ffo-olf.org.

1. “How is fluoride added to the drinking water?”
2. http://ffo-olf.org/hydrofluorosilicicAcidSpecifications.html
3. http://ffo-olf.org/ffo-olf.html#V4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM
4. http://www.ffo-olf.org/files/ADA_InfantsEgram_20061109.pdf pdf download, http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infa nt_formula.htm paragraphs 3, 4 and 12
5. http://ffo-olf.org/images/hydrofluosilicicAcidWarningLabel.png
6. http://www.ffo-olf.org/images/who-dmft.gif
7. http://www.ffo-olf.org/images/fluorideVsLeadArsenicToxicity.gif
8. http://www.ffo-olf.org/images/prevalenceOfFluorosisByAgeGroups.gif
9. http://ffo-olf.org/HealthEffectsDatabase.html
10. http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
11. http://ffo-olf.org/WhyNotFluoridate.html

Fluoride — Not What They're Telling You It Is

Kelly Johnston
Director of News & Public Affairs

Dear Kelly,

Promoters of adding fluoride substances to drinking water claim that it reduces tooth decay, therefore it's a drug by definition. At one time they even claimed that it could stop tooth decay completely. However, it is now a matter of fact and scientific proof that ingestion of fluoride substances do nothing to either stop or reduce tooth decay, contrary to current claims by health officials who have not done one iota of research themselves. They merely take it for granted that it's safe and effective, parotting that phrase at every opportunity when it is neither. Facts and science are now overwhelming on the harmful effects on our bodies of the ingestion of fluoride substances, especially in our tap water.

1. Claims of hundreds of research publications favouring fluoridation are totally unfounded.
2. Claimed extensive research proving the benefits of fluoridation has never been done.
3. The claimed research and evidence of same has been requested but has never been provided because they do not exist.

Chlorine added to water treats the water to make it drinkable. A fluoride substance added to water treats people. Doesn't anyone know that this actually contravene's the Canadian Food and Drug Act?... It's also against the Nuremberg code on human experimentation because fluoride substances are unapproved drugs. And, the substance used is not even pharmaceutical grade. It's hydrofuorosilicic acid, a toxic waste product of the fertilizer industry. Why anyone would want to drink that stuff with water defies comprehension, logic and rational thinking.

No one should have the right to vote to add a drug to drinking water. It's medical malpractice because there's no follow up for side effects or other oversight. Residents of any city as a group are not a doctor. They should not be allowed to force medicate everyone or anyone by vote. Would any doctor in his right mind ever prescribe a drug saying that you can take as much as you want for the rest of your life. That's exactly what fluoridation does. It's absurd.

It's a pharmacological impropriety of the highest order since there is no controlling the dosage anyone gets, because different people drink different quantities of water. Think athletes, diabetics, laborers, babies, patients on dialysis, etc.

Fluoride — If In Doubt, Keep It Out

Did you know that your municipal government is putting toxic chemicals in our water which come from the scrubbing systems of the fertilizer industry and are classified as hazardous waste. In Ottawa, it's called hydrofluorosilicic acid. Elsewhere it can be called sodium fluorosilicate, or fluorosilicic acid, or any other of many of its synonyms. Are you concerned? You should be. Unfortunately, when these chemicals are used for tap water fluoridation, safety concerns go out the door, or in this case, down the drain.

There is a growing evidence that fluoride does more harm than good. One need only do a bit of research to find the many web sites and studies opposed to fluoridation. One of the most useful web site pages is “50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation”, by Dr. Paul Connett, (available at http://ffo-olf.org/50Reasons.html), a source for much medical information. Most recently, a study published by the National Institute of Environmental Health (December 17th, 2010) linked fluoride in water, at lower levels than what the EPA considers safe, to lower IQ in children.

Fluoride is a toxic substance that accumulates in our bones and tissues throughout our lives. Only 50 percent of it is excreted in adults, only 20% in chlidren. While all poisons have safe levels, common sense dictates it is impossible to monitor fluoride intake in individuals when it is in almost everything we eat and drink, and the amount of water and food ingested varies so widely from one person to another.

A 2008 report prepared for the U.S. Congress by the Congressional Research Service concluded the allowable amounts of fluoride should be lowered in order to prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride in bone, which “is likely to put individuals at greater risk of bone fracture, skeletal fluorosis and arthritis.”

This finding has been ignored. Promoters of fluoridation admit it is deadly at certain levels; one teaspoonful can kill an adult for example, but maintain that its effectiveness at fighting tooth decay offsets any potential harm. However, numerous studies prove that tooth decay has decreased in areas without water fluoridation at the same levels as in areas that fluoridate.

Additionally, in areas and countries that have discontinued fluoridation, dental decay has actually decreased. The main reason for this is, as the Centers for Disease Control have now acknowledged, any benefits from fluoride are topical. Fluoride toothpastes are effective but are not supposed to be swallowed, because of the fluoride.

Recently some news outlets have launched hysterical attacks on those who oppose fluoridation while the medical associations have called opponents hysterical, bizarre and unscientific. More importantly, the U.S. government just released studies confirming the harm caused by ingesting fluoride and now recommends that allowable levels be decreased to an amount lower than what exists in the water of most U.S. cities right now!

The government, and industry funded groups cannot now admit they were wrong because of the huge potential liability, so this is their first step toward a future elimination of this toxin. Expect soon to read a government release saying that fluoride is being removed because of the huge costs involved, and the fact that we can all get enough of it from other sources. There will be no admission of fault, nor any apology to the growing chorus of those “hysterical” voices that tried to protect the public.

So before the hang us out to dry, they should probably pick on the many doctors, scientists, Nobel Prize winners and countries that favor eliminating fluoridation, whose position I support. France has rejected fluoride for “ethical as well as medical considerations”, Austria and Denmark have stated, “toxic fluorides have never been added to our water”, while Belgium echoed most of Western Europe when it stated, “It is not the task of drinking water to deliver medicinal treatment to the people.” Even the union representing the scientists at EPA headquarters have said, “The toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits … are so small, if there are any at all, that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior.”

It’s time for an intelligent discussion to be had on this controversial practice. I believe after that occurs, most people will support Ottawa using the Precautionary Principle which states, if in doubt, leave it out.

Ottawa should stop fluoridating tap water

“Feds warn about overuse of fluoride” (Concord (NH) Monitor front page, Jan. 8, 2011): The Associated Press article cited a study that showed two out of five U.S. adolescents have physical signs of staining and pitting of teeth caused from an overdose of fluoride. This is an outrage.

Canadian Federal authorities have recklessly caused our children to be exposed to toxic doses of fluoride, despite years of scientific evidence showing the levels of fluoride being added to public drinking water was potentially dangerous and unnecessary.

An American national scientific expert on fluoride toxicology, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, says: “The best available studies in the U.S. show no benefit of water fluoridation on dental health.” In fact, the CDC's proposed new lower fluoride levels will still not protect at-risk populations such as infants, diabetics, kidney disease patients and people who consume a lot of public fluoridated water. Thiessen also cites several peer-reviewed studies clearly showing correlations between the presence of dental fluorosis and “a higher risk of adverse health effects, including effects on thyroid function, decreased IQ, and increased risk of bone fracture.”

Hydrofluorosilicic acid such as is used in Ottawa's water fluoridation, is a toxic waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry, and as such, is an unlicensed and uncontrolled medicinal substance, administered to the population with neither informed consent nor any supervision by a qualified medical practitioner for side effects. Its use is based on false claims of safety and effectiveness. It is human experimentation without the express consent of those receiving it and without oversight by any medical practitioner supervision. This is against the Nuremberg Code on human experimentation.

Fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity, and, lacking toxicity testing, constitutes unlawful medical research. The wise thing for this City's Council to do is to impose a moratorium of tap water fluoridation until toxicology tests are done by a reputable, unbiased third party.

Nobody needs fluoride added to their drinking water. The City of Ottawa should issue a moratorium on fluoridation of our public water systems, and Councillors should consult independent, competent scientific authorities on the subject, not parroting authorities who know next to nothing of the health effects of fluorinated substances now found in foods and beverages because too many are processed with fluoridated water.

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

A growing chorus of reputable science is showing that fluoridation of water has little if any benefit and much potential for harm (see www.fluoridealert.org).

Appeal to authority (using phrases like "if it was so bad, Health Canada would ban it") is often the crutch that helps perpetuate spurious conclusions based on incomplete or flawed science. The bad science continues to be referenced by the establishment even in the face of more recent contrary findings and the status quo is maintained.

Examples abound that illustrate this fact: cigarettes, asbestos, lead, pesticides, DDT, thalidomide and transfats harmed or killed many people before they were labeled harmful.

Big organizations do not like to change directions on long held positions. And much of the pro-fluoride research they cite is directly or indirectly paid for by the chemical industry so that negative results are never published and claims of benefit are exaggerated.

Thankfully there are many ethical scientists who, at their own professional peril, have been willing to risk their reputation by publishing results that link water fluoridation to adverse human health effects. So the precautionary principle strongly applies in this case - growing evidence of harm means water fluoridation should be stopped until further study can demonstrate its safety, effectiveness and claimed benefits.

In the end this is all about money - fluoride is an industrial waste byproduct conveniently sold to municipalities, thereby turning a waste product into a revenue stream. This all started in the 1940's when ALCOA and other similar industries were looking for a way to get rid of their fluoride waste products; it paid for the research that promoted water fluoridation and orchestrated its introduction into municipal water systems as a remedy for tooth decay.

The fact that tooth decay trends in countries such as in the E.U. where they do not fluoridate are no worse than where they do, completely undermines the main argument for fluoridation. People get all the fluoride they need from toothpaste and other souces so it does not need to be ingested via water where its bio-accumulative effect can impair health.

Like many other progressive jurisdictions such as Calgary, Quebec City, EU countries, and most of the planet, Ottawa should stop wasting money putting this fluoride substance into our water.

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

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa

Thursday, July, 28, 2011 - 9:09:01 AM

Remove fluoride from city's drinking water

Dear editor,

I want to share my beliefs on the truth about fluoride. Fluoridation began as a fraud by big corporations, bad scientists and powerful politicians. Watch the 28-minute video by Christopher Bryson, an investigative reporter who took 10 years to research and write the book, The Fluoride Deception, which is available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl99zO2Zw4k

Does Health Canada care about the health of Canadians?  Listen to Dr. Gilles Parent, ND and Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D, discuss the recent Health Canada report on fluoride in drinking water on the University of Western Ontario radio program, Body, Mind and Spirit, available at http://tinyurl.com/3ks765k

People do not realize that a toxic waste product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is put into our drinking water. No toxicology studies have been done on this product to show its safety for human consumption. This is an industrial grade product coming from the scrubber stacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which is no longer allowed to go into the air or into Tampa Bay due to its environmental toxicity.

HFSA can't be legally released in the air or water yet it is put in our drinking water!  This chemical is not natural like the calcium fluoride found naturally in some water sources.

Fluoridation needs to end as some studies have shown it causes cancer, hypothyroidism, arthritis and brittle bones and lowers IQ in children to name just some of what science has found and Health Canada pays no attention to.

The precautionary principle must apply here: if in doubt, get it out. I understand our mayor is very interested in the precautionary principle. Maybe he will be our hero and in caring for his constituents, work to give citizens of London a choice regarding fluoride while also reducing taxes as well.

Fluoride for the “believers in fluoridation” is available in pharmaceutical grade in toothpaste and mouthwash.  At present we are being mass medicated with no control over dosage or side effects. No physician can do what the City of London is doing to us. We are told not to swallow a pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste yet that same amount of fluoride is in one glass of London's drinking water.

Why is Quebec 97 per cent fluoride free and BC is even less? Why does British Columbia have a lower rate of decay than Toronto, which fluoridates?

I am a retired registered nurse committed to having the fluoride tap turned off in London so my children and grandchildren can have a choice in the medications they take, which is their constitutional right. It is so easy to turn off that tap.

I have been harmed by fluoridation and no longer drink or recommend London's tap water. I also tell every new mother I see not to make up her baby's formula with fluoridated water, as recommended by the American Dental Association.

For more information, visit ww.fluoridealert.org. Who knowingly wants to decrease the IQ of our children?

Two Rivers Tribune Serving Klamath & Trinity River Communities

Drinking Fluoridated Water is Harmful

By JOSHUA STRANGE, Fish Biologist and HSU Professor

I want to set the facts straight about the serious health hazards of drinking fluoridated water. The recent article on the Hoopa Tribe's policy of fluoridating the community's water supply failed to accurately present the documented harm from ingesting fluoridated water.

My intentions are simply to protect my family and the community from a highly toxic chemical that is being added to the water supply. Unlike the American Dental Association who receives kickbacks from the fluoride industry, I have no such conflict of interest. I am sure that any local advocates of adding toxic fluoride to our water supply have good intentions in trying to reduce the number of tooth cavities. However, once people are aware of the serious hazards of fluoridated water then the safe, responsible solution become clear: stop adding toxic fluoride to the water supply and instead invest those monies in providing free fluoride toothpaste, fluoride treatments during dental visits, and promotion of dental hygiene and healthy eating habits. The facts are clear, applying fluoride directly to teeth has the potential to reduce cavities but drinking and bathing in it over the long term can lead to serious health problems and even premature death. Yes even death.

As a biologist who conducts and publishes scientific research I am well versed in the rules of scientific evidence and the rigor needed in double checking facts and assumptions. As a rule I only use and report on verifiable facts backed by valid scientific evidence. In the case of fluoride, there are no further studies needed on the harm of drinking fluoridated water as the evidence is overwhelming demonstrating the serious health risk of chronic exposure to fluoridated water. And the evidence is shocking and sickening as well.

Dentist are qualified to speak about fluoride and teeth but they are not qualified to speak as authorities on the health impacts of swallowing or absorbing fluoride into your body – that topic is the expertise of doctors and toxicologists and these experts are my sources of information. Many people do not know that the fluoride typically added to water supplies is actually a waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry that is classified as hazardous waste. Yes you read that right; a hazardous waste product from the fertilizer industry is being purchased and added to our water. Fluoride can work to reduce tooth decay (although decay rates continue to climb even with increased use of fluoride) because it is such an aggressive element at replaces calcium in the teeth. This same property however makes it very harmful in the body where it can force its way into tissues such as bones, thereby weakening them and contributing to arthritis, and into vital areas such as the thyroid gland where it replaces iodine.

According to Dr. Brownstein, a nationally renowned holistic doctor, once fluoride is in the thyroid it can cause havoc with the body's functions in a way that can set the stage for cancer, particularly breast cancer. Short of cancer it can lead to serious thyroid problems, with the thyroid regulating growth. Know anyone with thyroid problems or breast cancer that has been drinking fluoridated water? The allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water is a standard based on shorter term studies of young adult men and does not take into account fluoride from absorption through the skin during bathing or ingested in foods that have been processed using fluoridate water. Over the longer term this exposure greatly exceeds safe levels particularity for children who are still growing. This cumulative exposure is why dental fluorosis is reaching alarming proportions in America at over 30 percent. Dental fluorosis is a permanent spotting discoloration that is often visible on the front teeth. If dental fluorosis has occurred it indicates the body is overwhelmed with fluoride and it has most likely been incorporated into bones and glands. Its ability to cause havoc in the glands of the endocrine system and the brain may explain why fluoridated water is implicated in contributing to ADA, ADHA, and other serious behavioral problems in young children. Know any kids like that, especially boys, who have been drinking fluoridated water?

According to Dr. Blaylock, an internationally know neuroscientist and doctor, its not just behavioral problems that have been linked to fluoridated water in scientific studies but also earlier puberty in girls, sleep dysfunction, lower IQ, laziness and low energy, male infertility and impotence, bone cancer, bladder cancer, dementia, and when combined with aluminum in the diet, Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease. This is a serious list of debilitating and life threatening conditions that have been scientifically linked to fluoridated water supplies! There is NO debate – fluoridating the community's water supply is a serious health threat to everyone!

I call upon everyone who is concerned about this issue to attend a soon-to-be-announced community meeting to get more information about fluoridated water and to learn what we can do about it. I urge the Hoopa Tribal Council to place a discussion item on the agenda so they can hear directly from the community and understand the proven facts about the dangers of fluoridated water in order to revote on the issue. It is time to protect the people of this community and put a stop to the toxic fluoridation of our drinking and bathing water. Fortunately, once people are aware of the serious hazards of fluoridated water then the safe, responsible solution become clear: stop adding toxic fluoride to the water supply and instead invest those monies in providing free fluoride toothpaste, fluoride treatments during dental visits, and promotion of dental hygiene and healthy eating habits.

It bears mentioning that fluoride is very hard to filter out of water. Chlorine can be filtered using a Britta or an affordable under the sink filters but fluoride requires very expensive reverse osmosis.

Why Fluoride Should Be Banned From Our Drinking Water

by Doug DiPasqualeSep 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.

Toxicity Level of Fluoride - Can it Cause Serious Health Problems?

http://www.20vn.com/environmental-issues/toxicity-level-of-fluoride-can-it-cause-serious-health-problems-299.htm#.Tkxo-WEZ6Uw
Saturday, May 21, 2011

There is much debate surrounding the use of fluoride in our drinking water. The toxicity level of fluoride is part of the debate, as is the ethics in forcing medication on the masses, the dangers that fluoride poses to human health and even the usefulness of it in preventing dental cavities.

The only countries that really fluoridate the drinking water are Canada, the US and Australia. European countries generally do not add fluoride to their water, nor does Japan.

The general dental health in these countries is comparable to that in Canada, the US and Australia even though they do not use fluoride. So, what is the point of forcing medication (fluoride) onto the general population if it serves no useful purpose?

Not only is drinking fluoride ineffective at preventing cavities, it actually causes several serious health problems. The toxicity of fluoride is a serious concern. Fluoride use has been linked to bone cancer , reduced intelligence in children and fluorosis of the teeth and bones. Studies found that boys aged 6 - 8 who drank fluoridated water were 4 times more likely to develop a rare bone cancer called osteosarcoma than those who did not use fluoride.

The toxicity level of fluoride is routinely exceeded in Canadian and American water treatment. It also stays in the bones and builds up over time to reach dangerous or fatal levels.

It can cause birth defects, bone deterioration, weakening of the bones and teeth and in severe poisoning cases, coma. Symptoms of acute fluoride poisoning are nausea, increased salivation, vomiting and abdominal pain.

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa

Wednesday January 24, 2001 -- Cavity rates declined in several cities that stopped water fluoridation, new studies report, contradicting American Dental Association (ADA) predictions, according to Fluoride Action Network.

Fluoride added to over 62% of US water supplies is supposed to reduce tooth decay but these six studies from dental journals show it hasn't and, in fact, may have increased the likelihood of rotten choppers.

• "No increase in caries (cavities) was found in Kuopio (Finland) 3 years after the discontinuation of water fluoridation," according to Caries Research (1). In fact, when Kuopio was compared to a similar never fluoridated Finnish town, cavity rates in both towns either remained the same or decreased six years after fluoridation was stopped in Kuopio.
• Seven years after fluoridation ended in LaSalud, Cuba, cavities remained low in 6 to 9 year olds, decreased in 10 to 11 year-olds, significantly decreased in 12 to 13 year olds, while caries-free children increased dramatically, reports Caries Research (2).
• East German scientists report, "following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed," according to Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (3). Additional surveys in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg and Zittau found. "Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased... following the cessation of water fluoridation."
• Not only did decay rates remain stable during an 11-month fluoridation break in Durham, NC, between September, 1990, and August, 1991 but dental fluorosis declined in children born during that period, according to the Journal of Dental Research (4)
• In British Columbia, Canada, "the prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community," reported in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. (5)
• In 1973, the Dutch town of Tiel stopped fluoridation. Researchers counted drilled, missing, and filled tooth surfaces (DMFS) of Tiel's 15-year olds, then collected identical data from never-fluoridated Culemborg. DMFS initially increased in Tiel then dipped to 11% of baseline from 1968/69 to 1987/88 while never-fluoridated Culemborg's 15-year-olds had 72% less cavities over the same period, reports Caries Research. (6)

Fluoridation was launched in the 1940's when dentists believed fluoride's beneficial effects were achieved internally, through the bloodstream then absorbed inside the teeth. The Canadians report that "this effect is likely to be minor...The evidence for a post-eruptive (topical) effect,... is much stronger."

Therefore, swallowing fluoride doesn't reduce tooth decay but does cause dental fluorosis -- white spotted, yellow or brown stained and sometimes pitted teeth.

According to the ADA's website "Dental decay can be expected to increase if water fluoridation in a community is discontinued for one year or more, even if topical products such as fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinses are widely used."

"Well, science proves the ADA is wrong about the claimed benefits of water fluoridation and they are wrong about the safety of water fluoridation, too" says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "Studies have linked fluoridation chemicals to increased blood lead levels, neurological defects, brittle bones, thyroid cancer and more," says Beeber. "It's time for the media to challenge the science that supports water fluoridation and present the truth to the public. We've made it easy for the media to access the medline abstracts via the links below. No more excuses."

Other US government studies and statistics support the findings of these six studies and the Canadian government report. For example, children in fluoridated-since-1945 Newburgh, New York, have no less tooth decay but significantly more dental fluorosis than children from never-fluoridated Kingston, New York, according to Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology June 1999.

References

• (1) "Caries trends 1992-1998 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoridation," Caries Research, Nov-Dec 2000
• (2) "Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in LaSalud, Cuba," Caries Research Jan-Feb. 2000
• (3) "Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany," Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, October 2000
• (4)"The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis," Journal of Dental Research, Feb. 2000
• (5) "Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation," Community Dentistryand Oral Epidemiology, February 2001
• (6) "Caries experience of 15-year-old children in The Netherlands after discontinuation of water fluoridation," Caries Research, 1993
• (7) Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation

PRESS RELEASE SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. / Fluoride Action Network

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa

From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: date
Subject:

Title

content

to Fluoridation-Free Ottawa

---