ARTICLE # 1
Fluoride — A costly proposition
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.
Actual written Article
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.
(Commentary to Calgary Herald article of 11 Feb 2011, sent to Letter’s Editor)
Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, Associate Professor of Dentistry and Head of the Preventative Dentistry Program at the University of Toronto, would concur with Dr. Beck's statement.
Dr. Connett To U.S. H.H.S. and Honorable Secretary Sebelius,
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.
1. National Research Council. 1993. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Page 30.
2. Letter from the Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to Albert W. Burgstahler, Ph.D. and others. January 12, 1999. Online at http://fluoridealert.org/nas.1998.letter.nutrient.html
3. McDonagh M, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, Sutton AJ, Chestnutt I, Cooper J, Misso K, Bradley M, Treasure E, Kleijnen J. 2000. A systematic review of public water fluoridation. NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York. Online at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/855
4. Kelly JV. 1993. Letter from John V. Kelly, Assemblyman 36th District, New Jersey State Legislature, to Dr. David Kessler, M.D., Commissioner, United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland. June 3. Online at http://www.fluoridealert.org/re/kelly.1993.pdf
5. Plaisier MK. 2000. Letter from Melinda K. Plaisier, Associate Commissioner for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, to Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington DC. December 21. Online at http://www.fluoridealert.org/fda-2000.pdf
6. Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries. Fluoride Action Network. Online at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. MMWR 50(RR14):1-42. August 17. Online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
8. Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B, Cavanaugh JE, Kanellis MJ, Weber-Gasparoni K. 2009. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes—a longitudinal study. J Pub Health Dent 69(2):111-5.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2010. Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis. EPA 820-R-10-015. Page 109. Online at http://fluoridealert.org/epa.exposure.source.jan.2011.pdf
10. Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker L, Dye BA. 2010. Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS data brief, no 53. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
11. Heller KE, Eklund SA, Burt BA. 1997 Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. J Public Health Dent. 57(3):136-43. Figure 4.
12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. January 2011. Proposed HHS recommendation for fluoride concentration in drinking water for prevention of dental caries. Federal Register 76(9):2383-8. Online at http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/13/2011-637/proposed-hhs-recommendation-for-fluoride-concentration-in-drinking-water-for-prevention-of-dental
13. Sohn W, Heller KE, Burt BA. 2001. Fluid consumption related to climate among children in the United States. J Pub Health Dent 61(2):99-106.
14. Beltrán-Aguilar E, Barker L, Dye BA. 2010. Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS Data Brief. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
15. Burt BA, Kolker JL, Sandretto AM, Yuan Y, Sohn W, Ismail AI. 2006. Dietary patterns related to caries in a low-income adult population. Caries Research 40(6):473-80.
16. Shiboski CH, Gansky SA, Ramos-Gomez F, Ngo L, Isman R, Pollick HF. 2003. The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. J Pub Health Dent 63(1):38-46.
17. VVon Burg MM, Sanders BJ, Weddell JA. 1995. Baby bottle tooth decay: a concern for all mothers. Pediatric Nursing 21(6):515-9.
18. Barnes GP, Parker WA, Lyon TC Jr, Drum MA, Coleman GC. 1992. Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of head start children. Public Health Reports 107(2):167-73. Online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403626/?tool=pubmed
19. Connett P, Beck J, Micklem H S. 2010. The Case Against Fluoride. How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. Appendix 1, online at http://fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride.appendices.html
20. Fluoride and IQ: The Studies. Fluoride Action Network. Updated January 2010. Online at http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html
21. Rocha-Amador D, Navarro M, Trejo-Acevedo A, Carrizales L, Pérez-Maldonado I, Díaz-Barriga F, Calderón J. 2009. Use of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test for neurotoxicity evaluation of mixtures in children. Neurotoxicology 30(6):1149-54.
22. Li J, Yao L, Shao QL, Wu CY. 2004. Effects of high fluoride level on neonatal neurobehavioural development. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 23:464-465 (republished in Fluoride 41:165-70). Online at http://fluoridealert.org/scher/li.2008.pdf
23. Calderon J, Machado B, Navarro M, Carrizales L, Ortiz MD, Diaz-Barriga F. 2000. Influence of fluoride exposure on reaction time and visuospatial organization in children. Epidemiology 11(4):S153. Online at http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2000/07000/Influence_of_Fluoride_Exposure_on_Reaction_Time.417.aspx
24. Yu Y, Yang W, Dong Z, Wan C, Zhang J, Liu J, Xiao K, Huang Y, Lu B. 1996. Neurotransmitter and receptor changes in the brains of fetuses from areas of endemic fluorosis. Chinese J Endemiology 15: 257-259 (republished in Fluoride 41(2):134-8). Online at http://fluoridealert.org/scher/yu-2008.pdf
25. Du L. 1992. The effect of fluorine on the developing human brain. Chinese Journal of Pathology 21(4):218-20 (republished in Fluoride 41:327-30). Online at http://fluoridealert.org/scher/du-2008.pdf
26. Han H, Cheng Z, Liu W. 1989. Effects of fluorine on the human fetus. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:136-138 (republished in Fluoride 41:321-6). Online at http://www.fluorideresearch.org/414/files/FJ2008_v41_n4_p321-326.pdf
27. Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, Wang C, Chen B, Chen X, Zhou M. 2003. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36(2):84-94. Online at http://fluoridealert.org/scher/xiang-2003a.pdf
28. Xiang Q, Liang Y, Zhou M, Zang H. 2003. Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride 36(3):198-9. Online at http://fluoridealert.org/scher/xiang-2003b.pdf
29. Ding Y, Gao Y, Sun H, Han H, Wang W, Ji X, Liu X, Sun D. 2010. The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children's intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. J Hazard Materials doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.097.
30. Ge Y, Niu R, Zhang J, Wang J. 2011. Proteomic analysis of brain proteins of rats exposed to high fluoride and low iodine. Archives of Toxicology 85(1):27-33.
31. Guan ZZ, Zhuang ZJ, Yang PS, Pan S. 1988. Synergistic action of iodine deficiency and fluorine intoxication on rat thyroid. Chin Med J 101(9):679-84.
32. Lin FF, Aihaiti, Zhao HX, Jin L, Jiang JY, Maimaiti, and Aiken. 1991. The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter 7(3). Online at http://fluoridealert.org/scher/lin-1991.pdf
33. National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 507 pp. Online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2010. Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis for Non-cancer Effects. EPA 820-R-10-019. Online at http://www.fluoridealert.org/epa.dose.response.jan.2011.pdf
35. Gupta R, Kumar AN, Bandhu S, Gupta S. 2007. Skeletal fluorosis mimicking seronegative arthritis. Scandanavian Journal of Rheumatology 36(2):154-5.
36. Savas S, Cetin M, Akdogan M, Heybell N. 2001. Endemic fluorosis in Turkish patients: relationship with knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International 21:30-5.
37. Hileman B. 1988. Fluoridation of water. Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years. Chemical and Engineering News, 26-42. August 1.
38. Czerwinski E, Nowak J, Dabrowska D, Skolarczyk A, Kita B, Ksiezyk M. 1988. Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health 43:340-3.
39. Teotia SPS, Teotia M, Teotia NPS. 1976. Symposium on the Non-Skeletal Phase of Chronic Fluorosis: The Joints. Fluoride 9:19-24
40. Singh A, Jolly SS. 1970. Chronic toxic effects on the skeletal system. In: Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization. pp. 238-49..
41. Johnson WJ, Taves DR, Jowsey J. 1979. Fluoridation and bone disease. Pp. 275-293 in: Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. E Johansen, DR Taves, and TO Olsen, eds. AAAS Selected Symposium. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
42. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17(4):421-8.
43. Douglass CW, Joshipura K. 2006. Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes and Control 17(4):481-2.
44. Haneke KE and Carson BL. 2001. Sodium Hexafluorosilicate [CASRN 16893-85-9] and Fluorosilicic Acid [CASRN 16961-83-4]: Review of Toxicological Literature. Prepared for Scott Masten, Ph.D., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Contract No. N01-ES-65402. Online at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf
45. Coplan MN, Patch SC, Masters RD, Bachman MS. 2007. Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals. Neurotoxicology Sep;28(5):1032-42.
46. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. 2007. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology Sep;28(5):1023-31.
47. Hanmer R. 1983. Letter to Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D, from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA. Mar 30, 1983. Copy of original letter at http://fluoridealert.org/re/hanmer1983.pdf
48. Hazan S. 2000. Letter from Stan Hazan, General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, NSF International; to Mr. Juan (Pepe) Menedez, State of Florida, Department of Public Health, Tallahassee FL. April 24. Online at http://www.fluoridealert.org/NSF-Letter.pdf
Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, Chemistry,
Director, Fluoride Action Network
St Lawrence Univeresity, Canton, NY
From: Richard Hudon <email@example.com>
Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 10:51:05 PM
Subject: Hydrofluosilicic Acid In Our Water?
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.
References are reproduced on the web site and elsewhere:
- “How is fluoride added to the drinking water?”
- http://ffo-olf.org/ffo-olf.html#V4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM
- 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
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa , Ontario
K1J 8B5 – 613-747-7157
http://ffo-olf.org/ — firstname.lastname@example.org
ARTICLE # 2
Fluoride — Not What They're Telling You It Is
Director of News & Public Affairs
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.
Fluoridation is a house of cards that is about to fall to pieces. First, Waterloo Ontario, November 2010, Now, Calgary, Alberta and Verchères, Québec. Before them, earlier in 2010, Québec City and Gatineau also stopped this foolish and dangerous practice. Now there are strong groups in London & Halton, Ontario. Now, there's also an Ottawa group setting up to end fluoridation.
- Claims of hundreds of research publications favouring fluoridation are totally unfounded.
- Claimed extensive research proving the benefits of fluoridation has never been done.
- 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.
Richard Hudon for
Fluoridation-Free Ottawa – Ottawa Libre de Fluoration
1385 Matheson Rd
K1J 8B5 — 613-747-7157
http://ffo-olf.org/ - email@example.com
ARTICLE # 3
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.
Canadianized from an article written by Councilmember Peter Valone Jr.
The Queen's Gazette, February 9, 2011, New York, NY.
ARTICLE # 4
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.
Based on a letter by John Meinhold, to the Concord (NH) Monitor, January 14, 2011.
1385 Matheson Rd
K1J 8B5 — 613-747-7157
http://ffo-olf.org/ - firstname.lastname@example.org
ARTICLE # 5
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.
Based on a letter by Armand Melanson, to the editor of the Moncton (NB) TimesTranscipt, May 31, 2011.
1385 Matheson Rd
K1J 8B5 — 613-747-7157
http://ffo-olf.org/ - email@example.com
ARTICLE # 6
To: Carleton Place EMC
From: Richard Hudon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Ryland Coyne <email@example.com>; Marla Shook-Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tara Gesner <email@example.com>
Cc: Jerry Flynn <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Duncan Weir <email@example.com>
Sent: Tue, August 2, 2011 6:26:29 AM
Subject: Fw: Tell a friend
What about fluoridation?
Let us harken back to a time when life seemed a bit less complicated.
Someone I know recently wrote to me about going "back to the days before Lead, DDT, 24D and Freon Refrigerants were identified as being real health issues."
He said: “When I worked in the Refrigeration Service Industry in the 1980's, we would think nothing about blowing Freon 12 or 22 charges into the atmosphere. At that time the Freon refrigerants were considered very safe to breathe. We know now that they were not.”
In case you don't see the connection, Freon is a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), an organic compound that contains carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, produced as a volatile derivative of methane and ethane. A common subclass is the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), this last one contain hydrogen. They are all commonly known by the DuPont trade name of Freon. Remember CFC's? They are now totally banned across the planet because they deplete the ozone.
From 1971 to 2006 Carrier Canada Ltd used a fluorocarbon code named R11 on chillers, the most dangerous refrigerant of them all for the environment. R11 came as a liguid in 100 and 200 pound drums with each chiller using anywhere from 500 to 2500 pounds of refrigerant, so you can imagine how much of that ended up in the atmosphere.
The hydrofuorosilicic acid that is used to fluorinate our water supply contains 6 parts of that same element fluorine in its composition. To see a complete chemical description of the fluorine element, look here: http://ffo-olf.org/fluorine.html.
For a nearly complete description of the acid, its chemical formula is H2SiF6, look here: http://ffo-olf.org/hydrofluorosilicicAcidSpecifications.html. Also consult the Manufacturers Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) HERE from Brentag Canada, the major supplier of the fluoride substance for details of its poisonous nature spelled out on page 2. The specifications do not mention the radionuclides found in the solution in tests conducted by independent testing laboratories in Toronto and various U.S. cities, but only after being instructed to test for radionuclides.
“Just take a look at the current Mandatory Refrigerant capture and reclaim procedures that are in place to-day.”
Then ask yourself why our local Medical Officers of Health (unelected, unaccountable, medical bureaucrats) think that it is perfectly good medical practice to allow a toxic fluoride substance in our drinking water as a health measure, but that it is so rigidly controlled in so many products such as refrigerants and the like.
Think about it. Isn't there a disconnect here? Does that really make any sense at all?
There are 6 major areas of concern that need to be addressed about fluoridation; these are:
2. Adverse Health effects,
3. Environmental impact,
5. Financial Burden, and
These are fodder for at least six more articles covering each of these concerns.Concerns that are completely ignored and never addressed when governments commission their reviews and studies of fluoridation of our water supplies. Concerns that are completely ignored and never addressed by our local Medical Officers of Health. Concerns that are completely ignored and never addressed by the CMA, CDA, OMA, ODA, Health Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
Yet these concerns are very real when you consider the nature of the product used: hydrofluorosilicic acid, an unregulated, untested, untreated, uncontrolled and unpurified, highly hazardous, toxic waste product from the wet scrubbers of phosphate fertilizer industry classified as a banned contaminant by the US EPA which contains many other contaminants such as arsenic, lead, chromium, and also has radioactive substances such as uranium 238, radium and radon in the solution that is delivered for use as a fluorination product for our tap water.
Do you still want to drink that water? Not me. My chemical sensitivities prevent me from drinking tap water or suffer great discomfort.
I would like to present you another article at a later time on the ethical problems that are created by the mass medication of a population using this acid without the emergency situation that is required for such action to be taken.
Richard Hudon, for
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, K1J 8B5
http:/ffo-olf-org/ — firstname.lastname@example.org
ARTICLE # 7
Letter to London Community News.com
Thursday, July, 28, 2011 - 9:09:01 AM
Remove fluoride from city's drinking water
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?
ARTICLE # 8
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.
Also check out this new call from health professionals to stop water fluoridation:
ARTICLE # 9
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 email@example.com.
CONSIDERABLY MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL
This article is largely based on a similar one from The Lund Report, http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/anti_fluoride_press_release_draws_ire_from_readers.
ARTICLE # 10
Toxicity Level of Fluoride - Can it Cause Serious Health Problems?
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.
The only ways to protect yourself and your children from the devastating effects of the toxicity of fluoride is to stop using toothpastes and mouthwashes that contain fluoride and to filter the drinking, cooking and bathing water in your home.
ARTICLE # 11
To: Carleton Place EMC
From: Richard Hudon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Ryland Coyne <email@example.com>; Marla Shook-Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tara Gesner <email@example.com>
Cc: Jerry Flynn <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Duncan Weir <email@example.com>
Sent: Thu, August 25, 2011 1:52:22 AM
Subject: On The Ethics of Fluoridation - for publication
The Ethics of Fluoridation
- The canons of medical ethics require that a drug or procedure, before administration, must have been approved by an appropriate body (usually, in North America, by Health Canada or the Federal Drug Administration in the USA) for its specific use and must be administered under supervision of a qualified professional (physician or dentist in this context).
The recipient must have been informed of the reason for the drug or procedure, the expected benefits and possible side effects and risks.
The recipient must have been informed by a qualified professional and must have been able to question said professional and must have given consent for taking the drug or procedure.
The recipient must have the choice of stopping the administration at will.
The effects of the drug or procedure on the individual must be monitored by a qualified professional and such information must be available to the recipient.
The administration must be controlled with respect to dose or intensity and safety
- Clearly the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies does not meet any of these requirements.
- When challenged under its own ethics code to produce peer reviewed scientific evidence that water fluoridation has improved public health as claimed, the CDC admitted in writing to the Lillie Center of Georgia, U.S., that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim.
- Medical ethics forbid forced medication. Any practicing medical profesional found to force a competent patient to take medication without informed consnent would lose his licence to practice medicine. Yet these crazed medical bureaucrats can get away with forcing whole populations to take medication most of them neither need nor from which they get any benefit.
- The scientific/legal determination of safety [of an ingested product] is based on 2 types of research:
Animal studies (Toxicology Studies)
The actual fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation (silicofluorides) have neither the required animal studies (toxicology studies) nor the required human studies (clinical trials) to determine safety. There are NO CLINICAL TRIALS (randomized, controlled trials) using fluorosilicates.
Human studies (Clinical Trials)
- It is common knowledge that these products are used as a medication for dental caries, therefore: Fluoride is unregulated, unapproved and illegal.
- The Supreme Court of Canada (Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill (Village),  S.C.R. 569) ruled that fluoridation is “compulsory preventive medication” used for a “special health purpose.”
That decision has never been overturned or contested.
Richard Hudon, for
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, K1J 8B5
http:/ffo-olf-org/ — firstname.lastname@example.org
ARTICLE # 12
From: Carole Clinch <email@example.com>
To: David Hill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Mark Brackley <email@example.com>; Richard Hudon <firstname.lastname@example.org>; and 28 others
Sent: Thu, August 25, 2011 4:42:36 PM
Subject: Re: The battle for 'Churchill Manitoba'
The battle for 'Churchill Manitoba'
Thank you for your article on artificial water fluoridation
My sister lives in Winnipeg (Curator for the Inuit Art Gallery at WAG) and alerted me to your article. She knows that I have reasonable scientific evidence to demonstrate that fluoride in drinking water suppressed my thyroid function.
The scientific/legal determination of safety is based on 2 types of research:
1.Animal studies (toxicology studies), and
2.Human studies (clinical trials).
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.
U.S. EPA has stated that they were not able to identify any toxicological studies on the health and behavioral effects of continued use of hydrofluosilicic acid. In a letter by Fox J C, Asst. Admin., U.S. EPA. to Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and The Environment, Committee on Science. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. June 23, 1999, during their Congressional investigation on fluoride, the EPA wrote the following:
“In collecting data for a fact sheet, EPA was not able to identify chronic studies for these [fluoridation] chemicals.”
Hydrofluorosilicic acid is an unregulated, unapproved medication, as stated clearly by the Supreme Court of Canada, Health Canada and the legislation called the Food and Drugs Act, as follows:
The SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill (Village),  S.C.R. 569) states that fluoridation is “compulsory preventive medication” used for a “special health purpose.”
HEALTH CANADA states the following in Petition #299 (Answer #3) to the Auditor General of Canada: “Health Canada does not regulate hexafluorosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride products, the actual products used in water fluoridation, which are allegedly used as a medical treatment to prevent dental disease.”
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT definition of “DRUG" is as follows: “includes any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in: the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in human beings and animals”
Artificial water fluoridation disproportionately harms infants, blacks, the elderly, those who drink large volumes of water, and those with hypersensitivities or medical conditions, more often than healthy, white adults, as described in the NRC 2006 Review on Fluorides and other authoritative sources: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Clinch_2009_Social_Justice_equals_Protecting_Vulnerable.pdf
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.
Common sense suggests that something is wrong with this scenario.
ARTICLE # 13
Is Fluoridated Municipal Water Needed?
Yes and No.
by Thornberg Pediatrics
The Collier County Board of Commissioners is addressing this issue at their meeting on September 13 at their offices located on the third floor of the Administration Building at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail. us1.campaign-archive1.com
(This article was originally written as an informational piece that was to be distributed to physicians throughout Collier County. The editors decided not to run any opinion pieces on the fluoride topic until after the September 13 meeting.)
Collier County Commissioners: donnaFiala@colliergov.net;
FLORIDA - The DeLand-Deltona Beacon
The Beacon's Opinion
Time to let go of fluoridation
posted Aug 11, 2011 – (I think I missed this when it was first published – at least I don't remember it)
Let's forgo the argument about whether ingesting fluoride is good for one's teeth. Let's just assume it is. Plenty of dentists and other health officials say it is.
But whether fluoride is good for teeth isn't the right question for the DeLand City Commission. The City Commission comprises a physical-therapist assistant, a restaurant owner, a retired transportation training officer, a lawyer and an educator.
They can hardly be expected to decide who's right, between the equally passionate pro-fluoride and anti-fluoride camps. There are doctors on both sides, by the way.
The proper question for the DeLand City Commission to answer is whether it is a good idea to spend taxpayer money to fluoridate the city water.
And the proper answer is no.
Residents of DeLand already ingest fluoride from all kinds of sources. Some fluoride occurs naturally in most water, so anything made with water is likely to have some fluoride in it.
Deltona's city water has between .017 and .21 milligrams of naturally occurring fluoride per liter. That's a good start. Health officials recommend that a public water supply contain no more than .7 milligrams per liter.
Where can people make up the difference between the naturally occurring fluoride in their water, and the optimum amount for teeth?
Well, how about french fries? They contain fluoride. So do beer and wine, infant formula, baby food and juice. And, don't forget toothpaste.
A 1999 study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association reported that 70 percent of the soda drinks tested by the researchers “had fluoride levels exceeding 0.60 ppm, which is considered to contain sufficient fluoride so that dietary fluoride supplements are contraindicated.”
Public-health officials, recognizing that people nowadays are getting fluoride from many sources other than their city water, recently lowered the recommended maximum amount for public water supplies.
DeLand is the only water supplier in West Volusia that adds fluoride to its water, although most city suppliers in East Volusia add it. However, among the 56 small and large, private and public, water systems in Volusia County, only eight add fluoride, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There's also the danger to city employees to consider. Fluorosilicic acid, which DeLand uses to fluoridate its water, is extremely toxic. In 1994, when a tanker truck spilled 4,500 gallons of the stuff on Interstate 4 near Deltona, 2,300 people had to be evacuated, and more than 50 people went to the hospital complaining of effects from the fumes. Even a teaspoon can be a lethal dose, according to a 2001 report for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Then, there's the cost. DeLand estimates it spends about $75,000 a year fluoridating the city water.
So, let's review. Municipal water fluoridation, while common, isn't universal (it isn't even common in West Volusia). People, including children, have many commonly available, inexpensive sources for fluoride. Some residents object strenuously to the addition of fluoride to their water, and are forced to pay to filter it out. There is a danger to city employees. DeLand is stretching every dollar to try to provide basic services to city residents.
Even fluoride proponents should agree that municipal water fluoridation is no longer good public policy.
ARTICLE # 14
Fluoridation is a failed health program.
It is claimed that "fluoride is added to the water in an effort to protect dental health in Canadian citizens." This assertion is untenable and unreasonable when a reasonable individual looks at the available evidence.
It is plain to see that this effort has been a dismal failure everywhere. After over 65 years of fluoridation not a single tooth has ever been saved by fluoridating our water supply, and though the intention sounded good at first, the data used to convince the population of benefits from fluoridation was based on falsified data, manipulated results and a huge marketing scam. Read Christopher Bryson's book, The Fluoride Deception published in 2004.
To add insult to injury, the substance used is a fluorosilicate contaminant banned by the EPA; it is not a naturally occurring fluoride, not a food grade, not a medical grade, not a pharmaceutical grade and not even a laboratory grade of fluoride. It contains other contaminants banned by the EPA such as arsenic, lead, mercury, Uranium 238 and many others. Medical bureaucrats simply ignore these facts and say it's ok because it gets diluted too much to have any impact. Baloney! Do you want to be the one that gets the 1 nanogram of Uranium 238, arsenic, or other contaminant that can give you cancer? I don't. So, on top of paying taxes to have this poison put in my tap water, I have to pay to get water that will not affect my health due to my severe chemical sensitivities, especially to fluoride substances.
Our health bureaucrats are making unfounded claims about its safety and effectiveness; these claims can not be legitimately supported by any valid primary scientific research or actual real life fact finding of any kind. There is no data whatsoever on the safety of the use of any fluorosilicates as a health product and it is therefore illegal to use it as such by Health Canada regulations, who, by the way, promote tits use in spite of their own regulations! Yes, they state reviews of trumped up papers, articles and research, but these are actually unsupportive of their claims. I know, I've read them all. The best that could be determined in an extensive study was that 6/10th of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces was saved by fluoridation, but that study was incomplete because it failed to consider numerous "confounding factors" such as age groups, race, income disparity and other socioeconomic factors, nutrition, intake of fluoride substances from sources other than water, etc.
The current consensus on fluoride substance influence on teeth is that it is only effective when applied directly to the teeth! So why swallow it with our tap water? That's like drinking sun tan lotion in the water to avoid getting sunburn. It just doesn't work and both are poisonous when swallowed. Why do our health officials keep burying their collective head in the sand in the face of all of the evidence that it does not work and may be the cause of numerous real and potential health problems: the list is very long and can be found here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-dangers/health/index.aspx and mirrored here http://ffo-olf.org/HealthEffectsDatabase.html.
One more thing. Do you know of any doctor who will prescribe a drug to a patient he has never met, will never follow up for side effects and recommend that as much of the the drug can be taken for the rest of the patient's life? Think about it, that's exactly what these health bureaucrats are doing. It's forced medication without the patients' consent. A doctor would loose his licence to practice medicine if he or she was to prescribe medication under either of these circumstances. Yet these medical bureaucrats claim the right to do what no individual doctor can do, ignoring all of the literature, all the scientific research and all of the massive anecdotal evidence that fluoridation causes immense suffering to millions of individuals everywhere it is implemented.
Fluoridation has got to be the worst medical and public health disaster of the 20th century and cessation of fluoridation would be the most logical and beneficial event that could ever affect the whole population.
1385 Matheson Rd
K1J 8B5, 613-747-7157
ARTICLE # 15
PRESS RELEASE: When Fluoridation Ends, So Do Cavities
Fluoride May Not Prevent Cavities, and Can Cause Health Problems
By Mary Shomon, About.com Guide - Updated December 15, 2003
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by our Medical Review Board
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.
A recently released government report out of Canada (7) shows similar negative results and offers a reason.
- "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.
- (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
Paul Beeber, President, NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF), 516-433-8882, or email@example.com; or
Paul Connett, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University in Canton, 315-379-9200,
or firstname.lastname@example.org, Fluoride Action Network
PRESS RELEASE SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. / Fluoride Action Network
ARTICLE # 16
Is Our Tap Water Safe?
All across Canada, from Waterloo to Calgary, communities are deciding to end water fluoridation. American cities are also opting out and thousands of scientists and medical professionals worldwide are saying the fluoridation of drinking water must end. Just recently, the Council of Canadians joined the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and Great Lakes United in demanding an end to the practice. For more info visit the website Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation http://cof-cof.ca/
Why are so many people concerned about what’s in Hamilton’s water?
1. Research demonstrates that fluoride works primarily as a topical treatment to strengthen teeth against decay. There is no need to ingest it.
2. Fluoridation chemicals are silicofluorides. Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) is used in Hamilton. HFSA is produced through the scrubbing process of chimneys of phosphate fertilizer plants (to reduce localized hazardous air pollutants). It is NOT pharmaceutical grade. Sodium Fluoride used in toothpaste IS pharmaceutical grade. HFSA cannot legally be disposed of into rivers, oceans or landfills. It is considered a hazardous waste and can only be disposed of in toxic waste facilities OR DRINKING WATER.
3. Fluorosis (excessive exposure to fluoride, symptoms of mottling white spots or yellowing of teeth) has been recognized in Hamilton.
4. The Canadian Academy of Paediatric Dentistry recommends that infant formula be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of dental fluorosis. Are Hamilton parents being warned of this?
5. Research demonstrates many other health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water including thyroid, bone, brain and kidney effects.
6. HFSA has been labelled by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as ‘Toxic’, and 99% ends up in our ecosystem – what affect has this on wildlife?
Public Meeting Planned on Water Fluoridation in Hamilton:
Please attend our free, public discussion about water fluoridation in Hamilton
Wednesday March 21st, 2012, 7:30 p.m, Volunteer Hamilton, 267 King St., East, Hamilton.
Please sign our online petition and send a short email to your local councillor about your concerns with the practice of water fluoridation. If providing information for councillors, please use credible resource material. Raising inappropriate issues hurts our cause. We are serious about maintaining a professional scientific discussion surrounding the unsafe aspects of the water fluoridation issue.
o assist our organization please email: email@example.com
ARTICLE # 17
Unsafe at any cost
From Moncton, New Brunswick, to Lake Cowichan, British Columbia, municipalities are choosing to end artificial water fluoridation. 50 have done so since 1990 up to February 6, 2012. American cities are also opting out and thousands of scientists and medical professionals worldwide are saying the fluoridation of drinking water must end. Just recently, the Council of Canadians joined the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and Great Lakes United in demanding an end to the practice. Why?
Very simply, in point form, and contrary to empty assertions and reassurances from “experts” in the medico-dental bureaucracy:
- not safe,
- not effective,
- taxation issues,
- causes harm to health,
- pollutes the environment,
- a highly hazardous, toxic waste product,
- uses municipal water supply as a waste disposal method,
- extreme cost to repair damage to teeth from dental fluorsis,
- legal liability for damage to teeth, health and environment.
For more info visit the website “Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation” http://cof-cof.ca/ or here for their Facebook group page
ARTICLE # 18
Fluoride untested toxic waste
By Christine Moody, The Windsor Star March 23, 2012
I usually respect your opinion. However, that was until I read The Star's editorial endorsement of water fluoridation.
If you'd attended any of the meetings or heard Dr. Allen Heimann's own admission that testing has not been done on the fluoride product to ensure it's safe for ingestion, perhaps you'd have a different opinion.
Growing up in Kingsville where there has never been fluoridated water, I can tell you ingested fluoride does not make a difference in the health of our teeth. Nutrient-rich diets and oral hygiene should be what our health authorities are promoting, not ingestion of untested hazardous waste.
The type of fluoride used in fluoridation is not medical grade and not naturally occurring, but rather industrial waste (as confirmed by Windsor Utilities Commission).
A year ago I didn't really care whether our water was fluoridated or not, but now I've researched on my own and followed the presentations of both Fluoride Free Windsor and health authorities. Dr. Heimann's job is to promote this practice even though he admits the product hasn't been tested for safety.
We can't look to those who are paid to say "safe and effective" as credible; we need scientific proof of safety. You're obviously old school when you promote a 60-year-old practice based on 60-year-old science.
I'm thankful I live in Amherstburg where the councillors made it a point of educating themselves, weighed the information and voted on the side of precaution. I still work in Windsor and have family living here, and so I hope Windsor council will get informed and side with caution, too.
CHRISTINE MOODY, Amherstburg
ARTICLE # 18