Council members of the Ottawa Board of Health
● Diane Holmes (Chair) "Holmes, Diane" <Diane.Holmes@ottawa.ca>;
● David Chernushenko "Chernushenko, David" <David.Chernushenko@ottawa.ca>;
● Mathieu Fleury "Fleury, Mathieu" <Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca>;
● Jan Harder "Harder, Jan" <Jan.Harder@ottawa.ca>;
● Katherine Hobbs "Hobbs, Katherine" <Katherine.Hobbs@ottawa.ca>;
● Maria McRae "McRae, Maria" <Maria.Mcrae@ottawa.ca>;

Public members of the Ottawa Board of Health
● Dr. Atul Kapur <email?>; (Vice-Chair)
● Dr. Merrilee Fullerton <email?>;
● Timothy Hutchinson <email?>;
● Marguarite Keeley <email?>;
● Gisèle Richer <email?>;

Please be civil and convincing in your comunications; personal experiences and testimonials could move some of them to consider the value of removing that poison from the public water supply, but must be credible.

All claims should be backed by citations; i.e. if you say that fluoride adversely affects the pineal gland, Google the words "pineal and fluoride" and get the literature, read it to make sure it's relevant, and then cite it; use the FAN references database here, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/

Pick your favorite health effect from the right sidebar and go for it; want help composing or your style and/or grammar checked, send it to me for review, no problem, more power to you.

Go to the Secondlook web site for more citations here: http://slweb.org/, click on bibliography on the left sidebar for more citations.

Go to the Lillie Foundation, Spots On My Teeth, here: http://spotsonmyteeth.com/ for great information.

Please, write the same letter to each individually, do not CC the group; I recommend no more than 2 email letters per week per writer for the first 3 weeks to prevent being ignored and keep them from being overloaded, then once a week should do until we meet them in Committee.

Please CC your Councillor, thank you, and forward me a copy, not by CC but BCC is ok, a forward is preferred.

I will send my first salvo of email letters to the board members either tomorrow or Monday; please participate enthusiastically.

Thank you very much to each of you who will help with this part of the campaign.

Councillor Diane Holmes, (Chernushenko, Fleury, Harder, Hobbs, McRae)
Chair
Ottawa Board of Health
c/o City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Holmes,

I trust that this email letter finds you and all those you hold dear in good health.

As a member of the Ottawa Board of Health , you have a special duty of care, in addition to that of your role as a Councillor, for residents of Ottawa and those who come to Ottawa on business or to work here but live outside the City.

I am addressing this email letter to you because you are a member of that Board. As one of those members you should be aware of certain facts that are not given to you, maybe not intentionally, but out of lack of knowledge by those who should know about these facts. If they deny the reality of the facts that I am going to present to you over the next little while, then the situation is much more serious than I anticipated.

It has been proven in epidemiological studies and through bone ash examinations that there is a greater prevalence of osteosarcoma (adolescent bone cancer) in fluoridated communities than in non-fluoridated communities.
Definition: Osteosarcoma is a cancerous (malignant) bone tumor that usually develops during the period of rapid growth that occurs in adolescence, as a teenager matures into an adult.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001650.htm.

Numerous studies show that fluoride can cause osteosarcoma.  In 1997, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis testified before Congress that half a million people alive today could expect to die from a fluoride-related cancer unless the fluoridation of water is stopped.
http://www.fluoride-osteosarcoma-law.com/fluoride_osteosarcoma.html

In 2001, the PhD dissertation produced by Elise Bassin of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine shows a strong link between fluoride and osteosarcoma.  Her work indicates a statistically strong link between exposure to fluoride between the ages of six and eight (during which the ‘mid-childhood growth spurt' takes place) and the development of osteosarcoma in young boys.  A commentary about her findings by Dr. Paul Connett is available here:
http://ffo-olf.org/files/osteosarcomaBassinThesisConnett.pdf
and Dr. Barry Groves, PhD also comments here:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/bassin-study.html.

Are you aware that Terry Fox died of osteosarcoma and that he lived in a fluoridated community during his youth? Why was that last mentioned fact never been mentioned anywhere? Is there a connection? We now think that there is one.

How many children languishing at CHEO and similar Canadian hospitals are currently victims of osteosarcoma, whether generated or aggravated by the ingested toxic fluoride product used in water fluoridation.

What are you prepared to do to stop the senseless suffering caused by fluoridation?

Are you in favor of the cessation of continued mass drugging of Ottawa residents, and others who work here, by artificial water fluoridation or are you undecided or opposed to such cessation?

On July 26, 2011, you received a copy of an email from me as a Councillor, a critique of the reference documents I received from the office of the MOH assembled from input by a number of fluoridation cessation researchers, scientists, professors and advocates across Canada. Have you read it?

If you would like full documentation on adverse health effects of fluoridation, I will be able to provide it to you as soon as our compilation is completed.

A personal response is respectfully requested; please do not respond with the standard text from the Medical Officer of Health or reference the Ottawa web page on fluoridation. I am well acquainted with them and with all of their well crafted inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; one must take it because it is right.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

Hello Richard,

Thank you for writing to Councillor Chernushenko about this matter. The Councillor is undecided on the issue of fluoridated tap water, and would be interested in seeing a detailed description of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations that apparently exist in the text from the Medical Officer of Health and the Ottawa web page on fluoridation.

Regards,

Our team, along with reliable individuals across Canada and all over the world have searched the Internet and libraries for medical, dental, paediatric and scientific journals and all forms of periodicals, papers, and reports throughout North America and the rest of the world dating back over 80 years about fluoridation. We have examined the data behind the few claims of benefits found in a small number of all these published data. We have found no credible evidence in the literature of any benefit whatsoever in the reduction of dental caries using hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation agent to justify the expense of adding that toxic waste product to fluoridate our City's drinking water supply.

We have incessantly requested that the MOH be kind enough to supply 3 or 4 valid examples in writing of the contents of such publications that fully support the statement that it "is one of the most intensely researched areas of public health" as it applies specifically to hydrofluorosilicic acid and detailed citations to at least 20 more such publications as they apply specifically to hydrofluorosilicic acid as used in water fluoridation to no avail. All we get are carefully crafted subterfuge.

The best that one valid and credible research report that we found was that in one single study of a very large cohort, only six tenths of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces would be saved from decay by the ingestion of fluoride substances injected artificially in drinking water. However, there exists no proof whatsoever that a single tooth has ever been saved from decay by the use of this specific acid. The futility of that study has discouraged and prevented further research of this type.

How is it possible that such a statement could be legitimately made. Rest assured you that no such studies of adverse health effects exist on the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoride substance in water fluoridation. However unworthy of a riposte, it bears being addressed.

We are familiar with the numerous studies related to that phrase. Each is a whitewash of the health concerns that are very disquieting about fluoridation. Unfortunately, everyone of these studies are self-serving studies .

In their recent book Fluoride Wars (John Wiley, 2009), which is otherwise mostly supportive of fluoridation, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr concede this point when they write:
"There is one anti-fluoridationist charge that does have some truth to it. Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the cost and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favour of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together the reports (10 are named) are rife with names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous." How can such studies be accepted as unbiased and not be a whitewash of artificial water fluoridation?

Recent reviews in Ireland (2002), Australia (2007) and Canada (2008) are striking examples of a great waste of time and tax dollars in support of the now discredited and ineffective fluoridation of tap water for the purpose of reducing dental caries.

Ireland: The Fluoridation Forum "review" was published with the participation of only pro-fluoridation experts and government employees.
Australia: The Australian national Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has endorsed fluoridation since 1958 and produced a report used extensively as a reason to implement fluoridation in Australia. It used large portions of the York Review but without its caveats.
Canada: This review was undertaken by Health Canada when growing opposition to fluoridation began to surface. The panelists for this review were by far the most biased that could ever have been selected. More on this later.

Each of the above, on close scrutiny, clearly fall into the category of a whitewash of fluoridation.
It is only reasonable that if you do not look for adverse effects, or leave them out of a review, you will not find them. We have reviewed the contents of the Canadian Government's panel of experts and found that the majority of them actually used some reports that were over 50 years old, and that they suffer from very poor quality and design, not accounting for confounding factors, and left out conclusions contrary to the support of fluoridation.
The EPA's own 2008 report concluded that even at low levels, chronic ingestion of fluoride substances can have serious, deleterious effects to a significant number of people when a large enough cohort is examined. Promoters and supporters claimed that is was not relevant because it looked at fluoride levels of 4 ppm or greater. This is a false and misleading misrepresentation of that report.

In light of point number 1.2 above, how is it possible for Ottawa Public Health to have reviewed non existent "major studies" on the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoride substance in water fluoridation. Furthermore, there is no indication that the review done by Ottawa Public Health was thorough, and in depth and resulted in an objective and unbiased apprehension and full comprehension of the contents and the intent of these reviews. The cursory nature of responses to our email letters are surely an indication of lack of thoroughness.

In light of points number 1.2 and 1.3 above, this sentence is a complete fabrication and an impossibility when considering that hydrofluorosilicic acid is used as a fluoride substance in water fluoridation, especially the misrepresentation of "reducing dental decay at all stages of life ."

However, once again the statement as presented bears responding to because of two serious inherent inconsistencies, using the term fluoridation in the same manner presented therein.

Let us first look at the phrase " at all stages of life "
Infants without teeth can not have dental decay because they do not yet have teeth that can be protected by the specious claim of tooth decay prevention.
Then there is a large segment of the population who no longer have any teeth. How can they be protected from tooth decay, having no teeth?
What kind of protection is dental fluorosis? See comments to that effect below.

It is now well known that even after over 60 years of fluoridation, not a single tooth has ever been saved from decay by this practice. The phrase " safe and effective " is bandied about as if promoters of fluoridation were being paid for parroting it at every moment they can throw it in for de-emphasing their ineptness at proving those two claims.

The evidence of safety has now been totally refuted. Many people become ill or have an existing illnesses aggravated by the ingestion of fluoride substances. Many of us have been so affected. Having removed as much of any amount of identifiable traces of fluoride substances from their nutrition and by drinking totally purified water has allowed most fluoride poisoned sufferers to start returning to health. That is a clear indication of adverse health effects from fluoride substance ingestion. Most doctor's can hardly believe the results. The list of affected illnesses is long and tedious, but here is short list:
Cancer (osteosarcoma, breast, colon, lung, oral), Allergies, arthritis, obesity, ADD, ADHD, ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis - Lou Gehrig's Disease), Bone disease (abnormal bone growth, brittle bones, demineralization, decalcification, exostoses, hypocalcemia, hypercalcinuria, hip fractures, skeletal Fluorosis, osteoarthritis, osteodystrophy, osteomalacia, osteopenia, osteoporosis), Brain (Alzeimer's, Dementia, Lowered IQ, Parkinson's, Synaptic damage, Tumors), Diabetes, etc.
These and others can also be found at a web site called SecondLook: http://slweb.org/.

As to effectiveness, the only things that the hydrofluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate our tap water is effective at is:

1. clearly and irrefutably causing dental fluorosis among a significant number of children, 40.6% of children 12 to 15 years of age in the U.S. with comparable values in most of Canada, table 2, NCHS Data Brief, Number 53, November 2010, says it all most eloquently, putting an all too obvious lie to the safety claim. (Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004, Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H., http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm - table reproduced here: http://ffo-olf.org/images/prevalenceOfFluorosisByAgeGroups.gif)
2. returning over 99% of the acid back to the environment where it was banned in the first place. Think about how we use tap water: Most people personally never drink more than 2 liters per day and many drink even less. The rest of the water if literally flushed down toilets and drains: rinsing and washing dishes in the sink, dishwasher, clothes washer, bathtubs, showers, from washing counters, walls, floors and windows, washing one's cars, driveway, watering the lawn and the garden; then there are all the myriad commercial and industrial uses and the putting out of fires. Did we miss any?
3. wasting our precious municipal tax dollars. Since over 99% of the water we use goes down the drain, as explained earlier in this document, that's over 99% of our tax dollars spent on fluoridation wasted for sure, yet, it's worse than that, since fluoridation does not at all do what it is supposed to do, prevent tooth decay, then truly 100% of those precious municipal tax dollars are wasted, and,
4. causing harm to the health of a significant subset of the population: those many of us with chemical and environmental sensitivities; as will be seen in the ADDENDUM, the harm to health does exist, as witnessed also by the suffering of many from past inadvertent fluoride substance ingestion. Can the belief that leads to a claim of relief from tooth decay justify all of the suffering of even one person, not to mention 2-3% of the population - that's roughly 70,000 to 105,000 Canadians with mounting health care bills!

This claimed confirmation of lack of "credible scientific evidence" ignores the mountains of evidence accumulated over the past 30 years or more to the contrary. If you don't look, you don't find. (Please see the ADDENDUM below my signature for a small sample of scientific research that barely begins to cover all the available data and that refutes this statement.)

Another way of looking at the problem: in law, a criminal can very often be convicted of his crime(s) based on sufficient circumstantial evidence. As witnessed by the records of suffering of thousands at the "hands" of fluoridation, and the mountains upon mountains of anecdotal (circumstantial) evidence of suffering from people with chemical sensitivities, caused and aggravated by fluoridation, there is no doubt that fluoridation causes adverse health effects. It is only the obduracy of the promoters, highly paid medical bureaucrats who should know better, by ignoring that evidence presented incessantly to them, that we have allowed to gain the power to enforce their belief upon us all, that causes such a disastrous and shameful program to continue unabated in too many communities in Canada, but especially in Ottawa.

Ah yes, endorsements. Yet not a shred of valid, objective scientific evidence behind any of them. Promoters of fluoridation just keep parroting one another ad infinitum. And they have the gall to say that fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the last century. How do you back out of such a vaunted statement in the face of incontrovertible mounting evidence to its falsehood, nay, the complete contrary. It is rapidly being shown that it is the single worst medical disaster of the last century, a fraud so big that it's beyond belief, a boondoggle so great that one must believe that the claim of the promoters has to be true. Hitler said it well: " The bigger the lie, the easier the sell ."

Endorsements are given by individuals in charge of government or prestigious organizations who astoundingly have no or very little knowledge of the science behind the effects of fluoride substances on the human anatomy, let alone the specific acid in question. What about dental fluorosis? Is it really possible that it is simply a cosmetic effect as so blatantly claimed by promoters and supporters of fluoridation? It can not be as innocuous as it is made out to be. It is illogical that fluoride targets only the teeth once ingested. Think of the trip it has to take to get to the teeth. By the time it is absorbed through the intestinal wall, the fluorine element has fully dissociated from its other elements and  can now float freely with the blood to all parts of the body before it can have access to the teeth. So, if this toxic waste substance does this to children's teeth, what else does it do to the rest of their delicate developing bodies. That the most chemically reactive element on earth that forms part of all fluoride substances has intelligence and will only travel to the teeth to enhance their resistance to decay is as preposterous as the the claim that the earth is flat.

Anyone with any cursory knowledge of chemistry, looking at the chemical formula of this acid, H 2 SiF 6 , can understand that this particular brand of fluoride is one of the most noxious substances on earth. Have you ever seen what happens when there is an accidental spill of this acid during delivery?

It is now well known that many of the talking head authorities will claim said knowledge when they have it not and will accuse their opponents, fluoride cessation advocates, of not having such knowledge or of not possessing the ability to understand it. Both of these claims are false and derogatory, and are used to intimidate them and anyone opposing the so-called authorities. It is time that these travesties be rectified in the case against fluoridation.

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

As to endorsement by the WHO (World Health Organization) there is no statement extant that they have directly endorsed water fluoridation. That is a misleading error of fact that should without fail be removed from the standard statement provided to all who question water fluoridation. In fact the WHO has published a graphical representation of declining tooth decay among industrialized countries. It is available here: http://ffo-olf.org/images/who-dmft.gif, and shows that there is no difference in the decline of tooth decay rates over the years between countries that fluoridate and countries that do not.

Ouf! Another Hitlerian statement! just replace the word " benefits " with the " harms " and you get the true picture of just what  is happening in the not so rosie world of fluoridation. Dr. Cooney should know better, but he must be living in an " Alice in Wonderland " world with his high salary and generous expense account to make such a sweeping statement in the same manner as his peers in the medical bureaucratic world, pardon the dripping sarcasm. The biggest disadvantage of fluoridation is that it poisons everyone unequally, because of differences in the amount of water ingested by all individuals, creating difficulties in tracking just whom is affected and in what manner they are affected.

What's worse is that the very ones truly targeted for the relief from tooth decay, children, are the ones most harmed by this derelict and shameful practice. Just take one look at the official NCHS Data Brief chart for proof, referenced in 1.2.1 above. How equitable is having to spend up to $20,000 to repair the most severe cases of dental fluorosis is reported to us by Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, Biochemistry, Head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto and president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research and confirmed by Dr. Bill Osmundsson, DDS, Master in Public Health in the U.S. In Great Britain, across the pond, they have calculated that it costs about £37,000 to repair these most severe cases.

Everybody who drinks four 250 ml glasses of fluoridated water swallows 0.7 mg of that fluoride substance: hydrofluorosilicic acid . However, that also includes all of the other contaminants in that acid solution injected into our otherwise clean, treated water. Do you know what these other contaminants are?
Fluorine (F), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), mercury (Hg), hydrogen fluoride (HF), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), phosphorus (P), iron (Fe), iodine (I), silver (Ag), plus uranium 238 (U238), barium (Ba), radon (Rn), cobalt (Co), radium (Ra), polonium (Po) and sometimes other contaminants.

Do you know that this acid that Dr. Cooney praises so highly as a beneficial substance is actually an EPA  banned contaminant, the highly hazardous and corrosive, toxic waste product collected from the super phosphate fertilizer industry that is also harming our whole environment? Dr. J William Hirzy, PhD, a U.S.A. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) scientist characterized it as follows while testifying at a United States Senate Committee hearing, June 29, 2000 : "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..."

Dr. Robert J. Carton, PhD, also a U.S. EPA scientist, and Dr. Hirzy, later explained in a video recorded interview that the safety standards for water fluoridation in America are based on fraudulent science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo at 2 minutes 55 seconds to 3 minutes 11 seconds).

Somehow, between the collection of this toxic waste, once it is collected by special tanker trucks, and the time it gets to our water treatment plant it is magically transformed into a health product that is supposed to be good for children's teeth, but without any science available or health approvals whatsoever. That's amazing!

That famous Health Canada review previously noted above has been a total waste of your tax dollars and mine. When one actually reads all of the reports that the reviewers included in their review process, as we have done, one realizes that they are weak and that they suffer from very poor quality and design, not accounting for confounding factors, and they have left out many conclusions contrary to the support of fluoridation as previously noted. In fact, some of their reports actually bolster the position of cessation advocates.

The promoters of fluoridation accuse cessation advocates of weak science and lack of ability to even understand that same science, whereas we on our side wonder if that is a smoke screen used as a subterfuge to hide their inability to produce the science to support their premise that fluoridation is good for teeth. Those advocating fluoridation cessation are not only very knowledgeable but also able to understand and work with the science better than the vast majority of the population as witnessed by this current write-up. Maybe that's why we can convince so many that our cause is right. We have the truth and the science on our side that promoters do not have or even wish to apprehend.

In the wake of Health Canada's issuing this document purported to be a Review on fluoridation called “Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document - Fluoride” preemptively claiming safety and effectiveness of fluoridation, numerous Canadians and interested foreign professionals and scientists are raising a hue and cry of foul play for improper disclosures of facts and science, abuse of taxpayer's dollars and misrepresentation of facts and science.

The very process of setting up this review panel was vitiated from the very outset.
What is wrong with the process?
First, let us look at how and why this whole review was brought about. How the process was flawed from the very start.

1. the bogus nature of the expert panel: The six members of the expert panel were obviously selected for their bias in favour of fluoridation. One key piece of evidence to that assertion is seen in the qualifications of the panel members that Health Canada selected. It is clear from that selection that Health Canada had no intention of modifying their stand in favour of water fluoridation.

To that end they selected panelists that would supply the desired result.

• Steven M. Levy, Iowa College of Dentistry - known to be very pro-fluoridation as an Iowa dentist
• Jayanth Kumar, New York State Department of Health - head of New York State Dept of Health's fluoridation program
• Christopher Clark, University of British Columbia - known to be very pro-fluoridation
• Dr. Robert Tardif, Université de Montreal, Ph.D. and pharmacist (toxicologist), no fluoridation toxicology expertise - known fluoridation promoter
• Michael Levy, Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec and fluoridation promoter with the Québec government
• Albert Nantel, Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, MD, toxicologist, no fluoridation toxicology expertise and fluoridation promoter with the Québec government.

2. the denial of harm of any type,
3. a skirting of their own rules and regulations regarding the use of toxic substances as public medication, and
4. their refusal to include any contrarian submissions from
a) respected members of Canadian academia and science community as well as,
b) similar persons outside Canada who so generously offered their time and energy to help form an objective and balanced report,
c) the bogus public participation process which produced this final report.

Many worthwhile contrarian submissions were rejected outright by the team: Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, Chemistry, Fluoridation Specialist; Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, PhD; IICPH's Anna Tilman, PhD, Council of Canadians; Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD Biochemistry; and others.

A serious committee should have been composed of a more thoroughly impartial group of panelists that should have included a multidisciplinary selection such as dentists, physicians, toxicologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, neuro-toxicologists, embryo-toxicologists, cyto-toxicologists, biochemists, pharmacists, environmentalists, statisticians, risk evaluators, constitutional lawyers, and even neurochemists, neurologists, neo-natologists and hematologists with some knowledge and recognized competency in fluoride substances and their toxicity.

This document is being called into question for it's lack of integrity, lack of objectivity, lack of depth, significant omissions, conflicts of interest, and for being used as a propaganda tool to deceitfully promote an ineffective and obsolete practice that is actually harmful to a very large subset of the population with existing illnesses, diseases and chemical and environmental sensitivities, under false and unsubstantiated claims that it can eliminate tooth decay.

The whole process is a sham, a waste of tax dollars and continues the fraud of fluoridation that has been discredited for decades by valid, serious, unbiased, impartial and objective research. It actually continues the fraud that was began even before the very start of its implementation.

The OMA has been asked numerous times since issuing their policy statement to produce the research documents in support of their policy declaration. Our requests have met with a complete wall of silence. The OMA does not engage in or commission any such research. Were any claimed research advanced in support of their policy declaration, we are confident that none would be of sufficient value to bolster their policy.

Our nation wide group of professional researchers, scientists and professors who have devoted much time to the fluoridation issue have scoured the world in search of valid, independent and objective research in the hope of finding some support for fluoridation with hydrofluorosilicic acid . There is unfortunately nothing in the literature to sustain that hope. To their dismay, all the data are contrary to claims of the fluoridation promoters. Worse yet, research abounds that actually refutes the claims of the promoters of fluoridation. You might think that after over 65 years of use there might be extensive research in support of the use of that acid for fluoridation. However, that is not the case. In the famous phrase of Dr. Hirzy: "That's amazing!" We wonder why?

A more complete critique of this most crucial pillar of misinformation is beyond the scope of this email letter but you can be assured that it is currently being prepared by our team of fluoridation specialists across the country and elsewhere. A copy will be sent to the Ottawa MOH so as to right the wrong that has been wrought by this particularly onerous review.

To state that there is " overwhelming evidence " in favor of fluoridation massively misrepresents reality on such evidence and begs the question: where is that evidence? This has already been explained earlier on but bears repeating. Numerous requests have been lodged with the MOH and other organizations purporting to have some evidence, but none is forthcoming on primary research on the benefits of the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoridation product. The inconclusive and carefully crafted statements to baffle the mind of the less educated and less perceptive is not science, just so much wind and verbiage.

The anecdotal evidence of harm to human and animal health and to vegetation from fluoridation is so overwhelming that promoters and supporters of this assumed beneficial health measure can no longer ignore it. Should it not be so for you?

Were promoters of fluoridation to perform a detailed review of the available information, it would be so onerous due to the mountainous amount of data available they would not have time to even as much as pronounce themselves against cessation, let alone do any useful work at all. We are in wonderment at the gall of this statement.

Despite numerous requests for research on hydrofluorosilicic acid claimed to have been done, answers are still forthcoming. It's availability has been stonewalled to the extent that we are led to believe that it does not exist at all. Furthermore, the claim that opponents of fluoridation only selectively or partially examine the issue is absolutely false and is a major affront to the dedicated researchers and scientists who work diligently to amass the extensive documentation against fluoridation.

That cessation advocates and activists " selectively or partially examine the issue" is a red herring that has no basis in fact as explained earlier. May it not be their own way to accuse cessation advocates and activists of being like them to hide their own inadequacy?

Anyone who drinks the recommended eight 250 ml glasses of water per day (2 liters) at a concentration of 0.7 mg per liter (0.7 ppm) consumes 1.40 mg of this toxic waste substance! What about athletes, labourers, diabetics, persons on dialysis, and others who will easily consume far in excess of 6 liters per day? At only 6 liters per day, one ingest 4.2 mg of that toxic waste substance. They are being seriously poisoned and they don't even know it! It's the amount ingested that determines safety of consumption: it's in the dose, not the concentration. There is no guarantee of proper dose based on the concentration because no one controls the dose that any one person consumes.

Have you ever heard of a doctor that has said to a patient that they could consume as much of a drug as they want. The control of concentration does not guarantee control of the dose. Fluoridation is a pharmacological nightmare.

In fact, it's actually the dosage that really matters, which is the amount of a substance consumed according to ones body weight per day. Thus, if a 10 pound baby consumes 2 liters of water during a whole day, quite conceivable since all of their food intake is basically fluid based, he or she is consuming 15 times more fluoride per pound of body weight than a person weighing 150 pounds consuming the same amount of water. Simply put, no doctor would give 500 mg of a drug to an adult and give the same amount to in infant unless he meant to kill such an infant or harm the infant depending on the drug. Does that make any sense at all? Is that not what amounts to a serious case of poisoning?

By the way, if you doubt that putting a fluoride substance in the water to prevent or alleviate tooth decay is not the use of a drug, all you have to do is consult the Health Canada terminology on the definitions for the word drug (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/databasdon/terminolog-eng.php). Health Canada calls a drug:
"An Active Ingredient"
and defines it as
"any component that has medicinal properties, and supplies pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals."
That is exactly what putting a fluoride substance in the water does as claimed by fluoridation promoters. They claim it prevents or treats tooth decay! Oops! Some may falsely choose to call a fluoride substance a nutrient, but even if that were so, to use a nutrient to cure or treat an illness or adverse health condition puts it in the category of a drug. Oops!

Furthermore, saying that Health Canada recommends a level of 0.7 mg/L as the optimal target concentration for fluoride in drinking water, remains silent on the rest of their terminology that says where water fluoridation is implemented or something to that effect. That recommendation is therefore not a mandate to fluoridate but merely defines what the practice should be where fluoridation is implemented. Oops! Misinformation by omission?

Furthermore, why say to " prevent excessive intake of fluoride through multiple sources of exposure." if there are no adverse health effects from fluoride ingestion? What's the problem with excessive intake if the "weight of evidence" indicates that ingestion of that substance has not adverse health effects? Just what amount of intake is an excessive amount in this case? Can this not be accurately determined in light of the possibility of serious adverse health effects only listed above in 1.4 paragraph 5, beginning with cancer.

That the monitoring protocol is followed and that reports are regularly reviewed does not change the reality that far too many people are ingesting far too much of this noxious hydrofluorosilicic acid fluoride substance. This is information that simply diverts attention away from that fact. It also does not change the reality that this drug is not a pure drug, as supplied by any pharmaceutical company but one laced with impurities and contaminants within the very contaminant that it is itself. Have you ever been prescribed a drug that knowingly contains so many impurities? What do you think would happen if a drug were to be found with all of the impurities found in this acid? Oops!

What bearing does this factoid have on the safety and effectiveness of the use of the toxic hydrofluorosilicic acid used as a fluoridating agent in Ottawa water?

Is this known for certain? And what kind of fluoride is in the examples given? It certainly can not be the most noxious of them all as in the case of the acid that is deliberately injected into our purified drinking water supply. We are familiar with the types of fluoride found in natural water and the one added to bottled water where it is not already present. The first is usually calcium fluoride (CaF) and the second is usually sodium fluoride (NaF). Do you know that it is actually illegal to add hydrofluorosilicic acid as a fluoride substance to bottled water? We wonder why that is? But then why is it not illegal to put it into tap water? Oops! Surprise, it actually is! Why? Because it's an unapproved, uncontrolled and untested product for use as a drug or a food, by Health Canada's very own regulations: it does not have a DIN number or other required certification. Can you guess what that means?

That may very well be. Can you guess why? That subject has been explained at length before, but can be so easily answered here that it should be. Because the contaminant fluoride substance is added to the water with all of it's attendant other contaminants, it also gets into all of the food and beverages prepared for consumption with municipal water that is laced with that acid. You add tap water to reconstitute frozen juices. You cook your vegetables and sometimes even some of your meats with tap water. Then there's the problem that all store bought processed foods and reconstituted juices and fruit drinks, and, you know those juices and drinks "made only from pure natural fruits" sold at the grocery store? Then there's all of those canned goods and pastries and whatever is prepared for us that you buy from your retailer!

So, if we get 1.4 mg per 2 liter of water that we supposedly drink every day and that's only about 50% of our daily intake, that means that we get about 2.8 mg of this wonderful acid every day! It certainly looks like you are going to easily exceed the maximum amount you should consume of this acid on a number of given days. But why is that a concern?

This is at best a spurious and specious statement that avoids a number of questions. What are those unnamed opportunities and at what cost?

a) natural spring water from unnamed sources that may be contaminated, b) bottled water that is often bottled from tap water and sold without any further processing purchased from retailers at great cost,
c) bottled water from unknown sources that is neither untested nor regulated purchased from retailers at great cost,
d) distilled water that may be purchased from retailers at great cost,
e) the City does not defray the cost of purchases for those who must avoid tap water due to chemical sensitivities,
f) the City does not and can not control the quality of bottled or distilled water,
g) stop cooking with fluoridated tap water,
h) stop mixing juices and other beverages using fluoridated tap water,
i) many others could be listed ...
All viable alternatives but not always economical or very practical most of the time. Are we infringing on the work of health professionals here?

If according to the Health Canada review the weight of evidence does not support the belief that there are adverse health effects from fluoride ingestion then why even bother suggesting anyone should limit their exposure to fluoride substances?

This statement
a) recognizes that even " natural fluoride" can be harmful, since it addresses avoidance of such fluoride. Then again, what IS natural fluoride? Calcium fluoride is natural, yet it can be just as harmful to health when taken in large enough doses or in smaller doses but chronically. Yet it is much less toxic than  hydrofluorosilicic acid . We have a limited list of 85 other fluorides, but wonder which ones are natural and which ones are man made? Which ones will cause adverse health effects and which ones will? All of them will.

b) admits that Reverse Osmosis filtration systems may remove minerals and other contaminants from the water, but very few of them will remove enough fluoride contaminant substances like hydrofluorosilicic acid deliberately put into our water supply after it has been treated to remove other contaminants naturally present in it. Who has the knowledge to decide which ones have the ability to remove those deliberately added contaminants previously named in 2.2 above?

c) states the fact that reverse osmosis filtration systems are "readily available in the market place" but that does not mean that they are affordable. The very persons who would usually need to purchase these systems are the very ones most at risk of adverse health effects from ingestion of hydrofluorosilicic acid because they are ill and on a limited income or are too poor and have inadequate nutrition to counter the deleterious effects of that acid.

One last point on that last sentence. Who's going to pay for that Reverse Osmosis system? Don't we already pay to have pure water to drink form our tap water and now we have to turn around and pay for a system to re-purify that water because it has been contaminated by this amazing hydrofluorosilicic acid.