Friday, September 30, 2011
Dr. Doctor ......,
Dear Dr. (name)
I hope that you and those you hold dear are in good health.
What do you actually know about tap water fluoridation? Are you aware that the type of fluoride used in Ottawa as a fluorinating agent is neither a food grade, nor a medical grade, nor a pharmaceutical grade of fluoride, but one called hydrofluorosilicic acid, whose chemical formula is H2SiF6? That's 2 parts Hydrogen, 1 part Silica and 6 parts Fluorine. Look it up on the City of Ottawa Web Site here, under “How is fluoride added to the drinking water?” Shouldn't that concern you? If you think not, please think again. It's industrial waste from the super-phosphate fertilizer industry mined mostly in Florida. Do a Google search on it. You'll be amazed at what you find
If you wish to understand what's going on here, please try to remember a bit of chemistry. Fluorine is the most chemically reactive element on earth, and can not be found in its natural state for that reason. That is the reason over 40% of children between the ages of 12 and 15 years of age in North America suffer from dental fluorosis (citation).
Did you know that Health Canada and the EPA has banned that acid from being released into the atmosphere, calling it a contaminant (citation)? Yet suppliers can put this acid into a specially designed tanker truck that delivers it to water utilities, and by some kind of magic, it becomes a health product supposedly good for children's teeth. That's amazing!
However, here's where it gets really interesting. As a health product, used to treat tooth decay, it is therefore defined as a drug, right? Well, how can that be? To be used as a drug, any product has to be approved as such by specific criteria. It needs to have had toxicological studies and human trials for proof of safety to health, by Health Canada, the EPA and the CDC regulations. Once this approval is obtained, it is given a DIN the demonstrates its approval and the data accompanying that approval that specifies its used and any contraindications is specified in a data sheet.
Can you believe that there is no such DIN for hydrofluorosilicic acid for use as tooth decay treatment as a fluoridation product or drug? Yet it's true. Make inquiries to Health Canada about it, you'll see. We have and there is nothing available. Now why is that?
Yet, the City of Ottawa is using hydrofluorosilicic acid for artificial water fluoridation in the false and yet to be validly proven belief that it is safe and effective at preventing tooth decay. If fluoridation did prevent tooth decay, you'd be out of business, wouldn't you? So why is this highly hazardous, highly toxic waste product actually being put into our tap water? That's what we would like to know.
We have made numerous enquiries of all medical authorities from the Federal level, through the provincial and municipal levels for proof of safety and effectiveness of the use of this specific acid but none have been able to supply such proof. Why? Is it because such proof does not exist? Is it that the proof is so tenuous that they do not wish it to be made public?
Please join us in obtaining this proof or stopping this drug from being put into our water supply until such proof is made available.
Please email me today to begin a new era in improving the health and well being of your patients and that of all residents of our fair city by the cessation of fluoridation in Ottawa using this acid as an unlicenced, untested, unregulated and unapproved drug.
Richard Hudon, moderator for
Fluoridation-Free Ottawa – Ottawa Libre de Fluoration
1385 Matheson Rd
Ottawa, K1J 8B5
613-747-7157 — text messages: 613-852-8692
Fluoridation cessation is necessary for better health.
http://ffo-olf.org/ — firstname.lastname@example.org — email@example.com
P.S. Your response will be kept in the strictest confidence until we have a critical mass of dentists to make this effort public. I am a man of my word. There are some City Councillors who are now supporting this effort, but here again, their names will remain anonymous until a critical mass of supporters is arrived at.
The following is a letter I have sent off to my dentist who was kind enough to give me his email so that I could inquire of him.
Thanks for taking care of my Dad. Please remember NO amalgam fillings for him.
I have to say that I was a little disappointed that you had not time to look further into the fluoride issue.You are a trusted source so I have to ask because I have been doing a lot of research and seem to always come up with the same answers.
When I looked at the available evidence I saw that according to the Canadian Dental Assoc. in their opinion fluoride toothpaste will “help” prevent carries as long as you use it with a regular oral program that includes good nutrition and staying away from excessive sugar. I understand that it is claimed that the fluoride in toothpaste used topically removes the acids (that erode tooth enamel) and bacteria (that eat the sugars) from your teeth and thus prevent those agents from making cavities. However common sense alone says that you could use something else (less toxic) to do the same job and get the same results. If you took the fluoride out of toothpaste would not the cleansing agents not remove the acid and bacteria from teeth? Now with water fluoridation how can a topical treatment also work systemically? If fluoride acidic salts deplete bones of calcium and minerals then how could “fluoride crystals bond with teeth enamel” to make them stronger? My understanding was that (dental) fluorosis is the damaging and weakening of teeth enamel (similar to what it does to bones).
The idea that statistically dental carries have been significantly reduced since we started using fluoride based products and fluorinating our water is not a scientific method that supports its use because a) cavity rates in non fluorinated communities are virtually identical to fluoridated ones and b) it has been indicated that improved health and nutrition have, since the post war era, reduced carries equally as that attributed to fluoridation. If we cross reference that with the fact that non fluorinated communities have the same carries rates as fluorinated ones it becomes clear that fluoride was not the main catalyst in reduced cavity rates.
OK so where is the science to support fluoridation? It must be somewhere otherwise why would the FDA, Health Canada and scores of dental associations recommend and support it?
Therefore in giving these associations the benefit of the doubt can you please point me to the publications (complete studies) of the various studies that you told me show that systemic use of fluoride actually strengthened teeth? Two or three would suffice but please no studies that did not have any controls on them. All I am asking for is a link to the actual studies as Health Canada and the CDA & ODA only post opinion statements on their websites and no published studies. Since you teach dentistry I assume this would be easy for you.
I am not trying to be a smart a**. I am only looking for the truth. I would assume that most dentists don't actually look at any studies they just trust the professional associations. Since you do teach I can only assume that you have seen them (the studies).
Finally can you please give me some more info on the Canadian Dental Assoc. (or was it the Ontario Dental assoc.) officially asking the government (Health Canada I assume) to help ensure that water fluoridation does not end?
Dear Doctor ...,
Are you familiar with the type of fluoride chemical that is used for water fluoridation in our City? Do you know that it's not a pharmaceutical grade type of chemical, nor is it a food, medical or lab grade of fluoride, but an industrial grade fluoride chemical called hydrofluorosilicic acid. It is stated right on Ottawa's fluoridation marketing page here. This chemical should not be used for artificial water fluoridation because not only is it a contaminant banned by the EPA, but it also contains other contaminants in the final solution as delivered to our water treatment plant. Some of these contaminants are carcinogenic and/or neurotoxic.
While there is no objection to topical application of pharmaceutical grade fluoride products, I belong to a group of concerned citizens that is hoping to end the practice of artificial water fluoridation - whereby that industrial waste product called hydrofluorosilicic acid is used as a fluoridating agent. Water Utilities initially used the fluoridation product sodium fluoride but switched in the 1960's to hydrofluorosilicic acid which is contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, hydrogen fluoride and radioactive elements like polonium and uranium238. There is no safe limit for ingesting these contaminants.
The CDC conceded in 1999 that the mechanism through which fluoride prevents tooth decay is topical. Given the readily available cheap supply of fluoridated toothpaste and Health Unit programs that provides fluoride treatments against dental caries we can't conceive of any is reason why it is any longer necessary to drink an industrial grade contaminated product that ends up mostly as a pollutant in our environment where it is banned beforehand.
We wonder if you've come across the research and position of Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto - formerly a supporter of artificial water fluoridation until he was part of the U.S. NRC review team that investigated fluoride in drinking water. He is now actively advocating against artificial water fluoridation.
However, we do understand that old endorsements are hard to change despite the recent toxicological science showing harm from artificial water fluoridation chemicals. We have discovered that the current practice of name dropping and endorsements are empty of any valid, objective scientific support.
As a dental professional you must claim that fluoride is safe and effective. Our question to you is this: can you now make the same claim as to the safety and effectiveness of the water fluoridation product, hydrofluorosilicic acid? Again, please note: we are not arguing the benefits of topically applied fluoride but are concerned that at risk populations such as infants (bottle fed infants get more tooth medicine, pound for pound, than the rest of the population), the elderly, diabetes and thyroid condition sufferers... are NOT being protected by the city's decision to mass medicate the water supply without monitoring for dose or other exposures to fluoride.
A number of City Councillors are becoming supportive of cessation of fluoridation, however, are being pressured to maintain the status quo for illogical, irresponsible and reckless reasons. Their names are being kept confidential to avoid them suffering any hardship in this most controversial issue.
The following 13 Canadian places have stopped fluoridating since October 2010:
1. Moncton (NB - includes Riverview and Dieppe), Dec 19, 2011
2. Williams Lake (BC), Nov. 21, 2011
3. Lake Cowichan (BC), Nov. 21, 2011
4. Lakeshore (ON), Oct 29, 2011
5. Churchill (MB), Oct 18 2011
6. Slave Lake (AB), stopped Oct 1, 2011, voted out on Tue. Sep. 6, 2011
7. Taber (AB) Jul, 20, 2011
8. Meadow Lake (SK), voted out Jul 4, 2011, ended Jul 27, 2011
9. Flin Flon (MB), Jun 2011
10. Calgary (AB), Feb 8, 2011
11. Verchères (QC), Feb 7, 2011
12. Waterloo, St. Jacobs and Elmira (ON), voted out Oct 25, 2010, ended November 29, 2010
13 Athabasca (AB), Nov 1, 2010
Over 40 Canadian towns and cities have ceased fluoridating since 1990 for any or all of the following reasons (see the list here: http://ffo-olf.org/ffo-olf.html#end:
I strongly encourage you to please join with others to end this terribly misguided practice. Your personal information will be kept in the strictest confidence should you decide to join in this effort to end fluoridation in Ottawa until the time is right for names to be revealed, at your discretion.
1. having discovered that there are significant concerns about adverse health effects: precaution is in order;
Each of the above may involve legal liabilities that may be brought to a court of law against anyone making claims that can not be proven.
2. ethical considerations: medicating everyone whether they need it or not for the sake of a doubtful outcome;
3. moral issues: some people are actually harmed by the ingestion of fluoride chemicals;
4. legal issues: over 40% of North American children suffer from dental fluorosis: lawsuits are pending everywhere
5. safety issues: it is not safe to swallow an industrial grade contaminant in the hope of possibly saving 6/10th of a cavity per patient;
6. medical malpractice: a city administration, Councillors and the voting public are not doctors and can not follow up on side effects and are force mass medicating everyone, something no doctor can do to a single patient without losing his licence to practice medicine;
7. proof of effectiveness: there is no known valid, objective proof that fluoridation works as claimed: just endorsements and name dropping;
8. phamacological principles: there is no dose control, no patient record, no supervision, no approval of this chemical for use as a drug.
9. drug or food additive approvals: hydrofluorosilicic acid is not approved by either Health Canada or the EPA as a drug or as a food additive, yet continues to be used for fluoridation!?
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response as to the above concerns and suggestions.
Call me, Richard, today, to help: 613-747-7157, text: 613-852-8692, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
1385 Matheson Rd